MARVEL'S MESSY, MANUPULATIVE MASQUERADE : a review of "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3"

"GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 3"
Based upon the Marvel Comics series
Written and Directed by James Gunn
* (one star)
RATED PG 13

With full admission, I have seen enough to just announce that whatever aesthetic Writer/Director James Gunn possesses, it does not appeal to me in any way. That being said, I do not believe for a moment that Gunn is remotely as clever as he maybe thinks he is and he is definitely not a cinematic visionary.

I have been notoriously soft upon the first two exceedingly popular to beloved volumes of James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy" series (2014/2017), plus the inconsequential "Holiday Special" (2022), which I felt each had their moments but were overall bland, sluggish and overstuffed with easy, pedestrian sentiments masquerading as anarchistic glee. 

To that end, I was also no fan of his initial move to DC Comics films division with his reboot of "The Suicide Squad" (2021), which to me, played like a "Guardians..." film with more profanity and gore. And so, I gave his HBO television spin off "Peacemaker"(2022) no attention. Oddly enough, and truthfully, with no intended disrespect to what James Gunn originated, I enjoyed the interstellar rat tag team of the Guardians the most in Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) and "Avengers: Endgame" (2019). 

So, certainly as the third volume and intended grand finale of the series as we know it was upon us, and even with my lackluster interest, I would concede that neither past installment existed as a "bad film." This, plus the fact that by now, I am a bit of a Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) completist, again despite my fatigue with the superhero genre overall. 

As I have stated many times upon this blogsite, there has been a certain quality control over much of the MCU's output since its inception with Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" (2008). Yet, recently, with the increase into serialized television programs which tie directly into the feature films and vice versa, the sheer assembly line aspect has so clearly taken its toll upon its feature films as recent installments starring Doctor Strange, Thor and Ant-Man have all stumbled to varying degrees. 

With James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3," I do believe that he made the film that he fully intended to make. But to me, I will raise what is sure to be a very unpopular opinion. For my cinematic sensibilities, James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3" is a disingenuous, mercenary and egregiously manipulative experience to witness as Gunn seemed to be all too willing to allow corporate interests dictate the end result, which often felt like like a ploy constructed to ensure high box office tallies in the overseas market and for God's sakes, there's that soundtrack album this side of K-Tel to sell to the masses. This is the weakest entry in the series by a wide margin, the weakest Marvel film to date and truth be told, it is the kind of film to which Martin Scorsese's criticisms of the superhero movie genre overall are more than proven to be correct. 

Frankly and simply, I hated it.

James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" opens upon the team's new headquarters of Knowhere, with leader Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) lost in a drunken stupor while mourning the loss of Gamora (Zoe Saldana), who was killed during the battle against Thanos. 

The Guardians, who still include Drax The Destroyer (Dave Bautista), the tree/humanoid Groot (voiced by Vin Deisel), empath and Quill's half-sister Mantis (Pom Klementieff), the volatile Nebula (Karen Gillan), space pirate Kraglin (Sean Gunn) and his cosmonaut dog, Cosmo (voiced by Maria Bakalova) are soon surprisingly attacked by Adam Warlock (Will Poulter), decimating Knowhere and fatally wounding the acerbic Rocket Raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper).   

In order to save Rocket's life, the Guardians are plunged into the tragic origin story of Rocket and are forced to face down The High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji), an interstellar eugenicist, vivisectionist and zealot bent upon inventing a superior race of beings to rule the galaxy and who holds the key to Rocket's existence and survival.

First things first, I have no issue whatsoever with the storyline of "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" as I did appreciate how Gunn devised a plot that would take this too jokey series into darker territories and a more operatic sheen, due to what is intended as a closing chapter and the bonds created between the characters over past films. That said and typically, this portion of my posting would inform you of certain admirable qualities about the film from production values and the overall aesthetic presentation. Yet, in the case of James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3," any such statements would be nothing more than faint praise. We know that the Marvel feature films showcase the top of the line regarding its production values but crucially, production values do not make a movie. The basics of strong storytelling, writing, acting and directions are always and forever the key ingredients and without those, all of the production values in the world cannot rescue a film..."Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" being no exception.

For those of you who perhaps do not enjoy the superhero film genre as it currently exists, feeling, just as Martin Scorsese has expressed, that what we are witnessing are more akin to being "theme park rides" than actual movies, what James Gunn has delivered will certainly not deter you from your opinions. In fact, Gunn's film may even enhance your opinions. Overlong, excessively loud and narratively chaotic to the point of incoherence, Gunn's film is sloppily told and whose overall tonality is disastrous. It is simultaneously histrionic and sluggish as its frenetic editing, CGI overload, and nausea inducing camera work (can someone please tell Gunn to cease swirling his camera). I felt more assaulted than enthralled and when all was said ad done, Gunn's morass of throwing just everything at me only felt to slow the film's 2 and a half hour running time to the point where I could feel every minute tick by. 

Characters appear and disappear from the film for no other reason than Gunn's script says so. I was as confused as the characters themselves when wondering who is rescuing whom from whomever and which ship are they on, or have escaped from or need to get to and destroy. The non stop pyrotechnics and bombastic cataclysm ensured that there is not one moment of nuance, shading or subtlety whatsoever, especially as the essentially the entire cast is full throttle SCREAMING every bit of their inanely written dialogue in which everyone speaks in the patois of overly glib, middle school level PG 13 insults and colloquialisms (save for one legitimately funny F bomb). Honestly, we are supposed to be within the far and furthest reaches of outer space and everyone sounds like rejects from the 1930's "Dead End Kids" series?!

And oh boy, there is the often celebrated soundtrack and needle drops, which I have had a problem with since the first film. While you and I can quibble about how creative James Gunn's music choices actually are or aren't, I will express that this third time around, the songs remain being AM radio level uninspired. Dear readers, this is not saying anything about my personal connections to these songs or whether I like them or not. On the contrary, I love so very many of the songs used over the three films. My criticism over James Gunn's choices have always been as follows: For me, I still contend his selections are nowhere near as forward thinking as they could be in a series that continues to promote itself as being the more anarchistic side of the MCU because in a film that will actually name check the likes of the ahead of the curve avant garde music of Adrian Belew and King Crimson, you will absolutely never hear either one in any of these movies for fear of alienating mass audiences and having diminishing soundtrack album sales. In the case of "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3," what was most egregious to me was that the songs stunningly were intrusive, ill placed, distracting, disruptive and felt placed to perform any narrative heavy lifting while also ensuring the jukebox musical aspect remained intact. Remember, there's still a sound track album to sell!

As top of the line as the visual aesthetics, I found myself having the same issues that I had with Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania," which is a Marvel films problem and does not fully rest at the feet of James Gunn. There is a continuing sameness to to the appearances of these otherworldly locations be it within the sub atomic levels of existence or throughout the vastness of the universe and all throughout this whole multiversal experience the characters are floating in and of. Yes, there is a visual base all Marvel films and shows need to adhere to attain consistency. But, even so, why will they not stretch themselves outside of their creative boxes and try to engage and therefore, enthrall audiences anymore? When the titular galaxy doesn't look any different than sights seen in the Quantum Realm, then what's the point of going anywhere else--it is all the same green screen graveyard that we've been subjected to for decades.    

As previously stated, I have no issue with James Gunn's storyline for this third film. Yet, and once more with feeling, as the late, great Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert so eloquently expressed, a film is not about what it is about. It is about HOW it is about what it is about. In that case, that quality is what exactly made "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" a failure. 

By now, any fan or even casual viewer of this series already knows that the Guardians Of The Galaxy    are made up of emotionally and psychologically damaged individuals who all are all struggling with their respective traumas of broken or destroyed families, coming together to formulate their own family. While established in the first film, it is as if James Gunn apparently thinks that audiences have either not understood or have forgotten his primary theme and therefore, sledgehammers the same maudlin, mawkish beats from the first two films over and over and over again. 

To be fair, James Gunn's affection for these characters has not waned. And again, I do appreciate how this film is easily the series' darkest chapter, as the origin story of Rocket is appropriately heartbreaking and earnest in its intentions. That said, I what I hated was how Gunn either had nowhere else to go with his characters as well as not trusting in the inherent drama and pathos of his own material to allow it to exist upon its own terms without feeling the excessive need to accentuate absolutely every moment to beyond its breaking points out of nothing else but sheer manipulation. 

Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana are sadly one note, as Pratt's Peter Quill is dim and sad, while Saldana, who returns as an alternate time line variant of Gamora, and one who has no emotional connection to Pratt's Peter Quill or the Guardians, is just angry. Additionally, Karen Gillan's perpetually irate Nebula is also frustratingly one note and despite both Dave Baustista and Pom Klementieff clearly coming off the very best out of the entire cast, there is nothing that we haven't already seen from them or their characters, no new shades to discover, no greater purpose than what we have already experienced. 

But, even so, I will give credit where credit is due and that is to the actual storyline arc of Rocket. We have seen over these three films and how he is it in fact the central figure of the series, which James Gunn deftly set up in his unquestionably graceful final moments of the second film, which ends upon the surprisingly wistful face of the otherwise embittered raccoon staring pensively into the cosmos. For this third installment, Gunn and Bradley Cooper combined with the CGI wizards allowed this character to live and breathe as if it were actual flesh and blood, again showcasing the artistry that can exist when delivered with purpose, skill and heart. Unfortunately, Rocket deserved better.

I am not questioning the earnestness of James Gunn's clear opposition to animal cruelty and I did appreciate his passion. What I didn't enjoy is that he relinquished any sense of artful storytelling to depict Rocket's origin as the entire proceedings simply shoved our faces in CGI animal torture and vivisection with the tenor of any animal cruelty advertisements one can see nightly upon c able television. Essentially, where mere suggestion or implication could work, we see over and again, The High Evolutionary's grotesque subjugation and mutilation with those CGI watery eyes begging for mercy filling the screen. 

Yes, movies are manipulative for that is what movies are. Filmmakers use the tools of their art and trade to manipulate images to inspire emotional responses from audiences. Even so, and in all of your guts, you just know when you are not being trusted enough to make your own connections and arrive at your emotions on your own. 

With "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 3," James Gunn felt the need to almost physically wrestle the tears from our eyes and that storytelling dishonesty made for a deep turn off. Face it, and in addition to all of the animal torture, we have a film where Gunn subjects us to not one, not two, but three prank deaths of major characters, demonstrating that Gunn did not have the courage of his convictions to really be honest and take his film to the wall if need be for fear, again, of alienating audiences. And in a larger Marvel scale, this is the second MCU film in a year to feature a collective of imprisoned children. It's easy, it's cheap, it's cynical. It's mean spirited.   

Easy, cheap, cynical, and mean spirited sums up James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" overall as pedestrian sentiments as fueled by constantly bombastic sound and fury masquerades as a motion picture experience. In fact, the worst thing that I can say about it is this: once it was all mercifully over, I felt as if I had endured yet another Zack Snyder directed DC film due to its utter and endless joylessness.

Making James Gunn just perfect to lead the new batch of DC movies. 

BODY AND SOUL: a review of "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret"

 

"ARE YOU THERE, GOD? IT'S ME, MARGARET"
Based upon the novel by Judy Blume
Produced by James L. Brooks
Written For The Screen and Directed by Kelly Fremon Craig
RATED PG 13
***1/2 (three and a half stars)

By the time I read Judy Blume's seminal Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, I had already devoured Blume's Tales Of A Fourth Grade Nothing and it's sequel/spin off Otherwise Known As Sheila The Great multiple times. In doing so, I completely embraced Judy Blume as one of my first heroes. While Judy Blume possessed an inexplicable gift of insight and empathy into the inner world of children, she also clearly enhanced my life as her books inspired a love of reading, stories and storytelling and in my future, my love of writing. In short, I would have read anything if she had written it. 

Yet, Margaret was different.

For some context, when I was introduced to the literary world of Judy Blume, I was eight years old. I entered the 3rd grade in an new school and I was then forced to gradually finding my footing in a classroom of highly sophisticated kids who visibly possessed tight bonds with each other due to the longevity of their time together as classmates since nursery school as well as living together within the Hyde Park/University Of Chicago campus community and neighborhoods--an area where I did not live and had previously been foreign to me. 

While George Lucas' "Star Wars" (1977)--then, only in the world for a few life changing months--provided me with a way in, the just as seismic lightning strike of Judy Blume (as delivered by a classroom visit by a school librarian) afforded me somewhat of an anchor in this brand new setting as my love of her books allowed me to slowly begin to establish an identity with my new classmates. I read her books constantly. And each time I was able to obtain a new title, as with Iggie's House and the dark, gut punch of Blubber plus the aforementioned titles, I became more and more devoted to Judy Blume as if she was the kind voice in my ear entertaining me with stories but even greater, assuring me that I was going to be ok and somehow understood my feelings, as confused and conflicted as they were.

But again, Margaret was different. 

While of course, the book was not lacking in Blume's trademark wit, honesty, and empathy, for the first time, there was something that felt to be a little out of reach for me. I was gently chided once by some of the boys in my classroom as I read intensely ("That's a girl's book," they said. "It's not a 'girl's' book," I retorted. "It's a good book!" Nothing else was said to me afterwards about it.) but, my classmates quickly realized that Judy Blume and I were inseparable. And still, with Margaret, I wasn't connecting as I previously had with Blume's stories. Frankly, I just didn't get it. 

As an adult, I look back and realize that, just as simply, I wasn't ready for it. It wasn't time. And quite possibly, perhaps that book was not necessarily written for me.

As Judy Blume's Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret is a story partially about a girl on the edge of reaching puberty, it is ultimately a deeply perceptive and unapologetically female take about finding one's place in the world, and decidedly without the imaginary male audience reading it. This was Blume speaking directly to every girl who chose to read and through that level of deep communication and understanding, the book clearly reached its intended audience with a passion and devotion that has lasted over 50 years, while dumbfoundedly also being the center of book censorship for the same amount of time. 

Clearly, Blume herself knew that there was something different about this book compared to her other works as she resisted selling the rights for any film adaptations for over 40 years since the book's publications before ultimately selling to Producer James L. Brooks and Writer/Director Kelly Fremon Craig, who herself had previously made the outstanding "The Edge Of Seventeen" (2016). Well, Judy Blume and her generations of fans can not only breathe easily, they, and all of us, can rejoice as Craig's film adaptation is a winner, one that fully honors the beloved source material as well as emerging as a sublime and graceful work of cinematic storytelling in its own right. 

As with the novel, Kelly Fremon Craig's "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" is set in 1970 and chronicles a year in the life of 11 year old Margaret Simon (richly played by Abby Ryder Forston), whose life is upended upon her return from summer camp as her parents Barbara and Herb (played by Rachel McAdams and Benny Safdie) have decided to move from their New York City apartment to the suburbs of New Jersey in the face of Herb's recent job promotion. 

In addition to suddenly having to leave behind all she knows and loves, including an especially powerful friendship with her eccentric Grandmother Sylvia (Kathy Bates), Margaret's new life finds her on the cusp of puberty, a profoundly and simultaneously private and universal experience, as shared between herself and a new clique of friends led by know-it-all Nancy Wheeler (a perfectly cast Elle Graham) who hilariously guides the group through her now iconic chest growing chants while competitively taunting about who will receive their period first, thus triggering Margaret's anxiety about the natural progression of her growth and development. 

On top of that, plus a budding crush upon neighbor/classmate Moose Freed (Aidan Wojtak-Hissong), and enduring hormone fueled class parties with her new classmates, Margaret begins to navigate precisely what her place in the world actually is and can be, which incudes the world of religion. While she speaks and prays to God as a means of conveying her worries and fears to someone, anyone who just might understand, Margaret Simon, has been raised without religion due to the familial prejudices faced by her parents' interfaith marriage, as Dad is Jewish and Mom is Christian, and therefore, Margaret feels untethered at her core.

Meanwhile, Barbara, a former Art teacher, is struggling to find her own footing in her new life in New Jersey while Sylvie, struggling with loneliness, also attempts to discover where this next life chapter may take her, thus making the film an intergenerational coming of age story of three women all attempting to define life for themselves, each upon their own terms. 

Dear readers, in a pivotal time of movie going where the franchises have fully taken over, especially in the wake of the rise of streaming platforms and the decimation of movie theaters during the Covid-19 pandemic, it is a miracle that Kelly Fremon Craig's "Are You There God? It's Me Margaret" was even made let alone received a full, theatrical release. Moves like this one not only are deserving of our support just due to the kind of film that it is. It is deserving of our support and embrace because it is an exceedingly strong, warm, genuine, delightful and wisely honest film that is enormously breezy in its entertainment and "slice-of-life" presentation but also possesses a depth of existential pathos that is true to the life experience and our roles within that experience. 

Kelly Fremon Craig has succulently created a film that works as a perfect bookend to "The Edge Of Seventeen" as well as serving as a terrific companion piece to Writer/Director Bo Burnham's masterful "Eighth Grade" (2018) as well as Director Domee Shi's "Turning Red" (2022) for Pixar. While "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" smartly keeps the narrative staged in 1970, Craig deftly weaves the nostalgia of her film with the contemporary eras of the three aforementioned films into a timeless narrative, which then creates a conversation with everyone in the audience. Much like the events and trajectory of the characters within the 12 year odyssey of Writer/ Director Richard Linklater's beautiful "Boyhood" (2012), this specific stage of Margaret's life will undoubtedly reflect the exact same section of the girls in the audience, while adult women will remember. 

Kelly Fremon Craig not only and brilliantly keeps the emotional honesty of Blume's novel wholly intact but also the biological honesty, which itself serves the characters, and only continues to make the controversy surrounding this story inexcusable as this stage of life is being experienced or has been experienced by over half of the world's population for all of human history. This particular element of societal shame remains intact in the narrative as the mystery and primal embarrassment surrounding the human female body and the natural bodily process and metamorphosis is reflected in many sequences between Margaret and her friends, both humorously and painfully, playing out through moments of peer pressure, public humiliation and even Margaret's misguided cruelty towards another classmate who is taller, bustier and more outwardly "womanly" than her peers. 

As Margaret Simon, Abby Ryder Forster is superbly engaging through her matter of fact presence which is as natural as if we were just watching this real actress live her real daily life away from the cameras. She never once strikes a false note, and to that end, neither does Craig who directs the film with a sure, clean creative hand, always knowing the inherent drama within Blume's original story is enough just as it is. Nether she nor Forster needlessly jazz up the proceedings with histrionics and prefabricated emotions and contrivances. They allow Judy Blume's story to exist and breathe on its own terms and they inhabit it wonderfully, with patience and tenderness. 

As much as this story focuses upon Margaret's emerging menstruation, Kelly Fremon Craig's handling of Margaret's relationship with religion is also quietly daring, especially within a genre that often wishes to proselytize and weigh in on the side of simply having a strict belief and adherence to faith. Judy Blume's novel and now Craig's film are thankfully and crucially much wiser than that, knowing all too well that one's relationship with religion and spirituality is not that simple, especially, in this case  for Margret as her relationship is forged through religious bigotry and a parental rejection of all religions until Margaret makes a decision for herself when she becomes as adult. 

Here is where, Craig widens her scope as the film could have easily centered upon Margaret, leaving all of the other characters upon the sidelines. "Are You There God? Its Me, Margaret," is also the story of a marriage and parenthood, with still young parents attempting to make their way in this new era of the 1970s by refusing to make the same closed minded mistakes made upon them by their own parents. Even so, and as well intentioned as they are, both Herb and Barbara are not infallible and their own closed minded decision to raise Margaret without any sense of religious awareness could be viewed as a mistake in and of itself. In doing so, Margaret is indeed left to her own devices, and bravely goes it alone to figure religion out for herself and is ultimately criticized by her parents when she does. 

As for her prayers, well...with no real foundation or context as to what the concept of God could be, it does bring to question just exactly who does Margaret feel that she is speaking to in her private moments? Is it a deity or is it herself? Both? Neither? Regardless, it is through Margaret's sense of aloneness that she turns inward and outward, trying to see if anything fits, trying to determine just what is exactly her place in the world and the universe. 

And Kelly Fremon Craig's scope widens even further...

While Margaret is appropriately center stage throughout, I loved how Kelly Fremon gave equal conceptual weight to both Barbara and Sylvia. Rachael McAdams give a performance of such ease and grace as she is having a stretch of time that is as equally awkward and as painful as her daughter. Yet, instead of Margaret who is facing so much of the unknown, Barbara, is confronting her own sense of self based upon who she was, the events that shaped her and does any of that fit into this new world of suburbia with all manner of parent school committees to join being thrust at her. I enjoyed how Craig showcased Barbara's difficulties with establishing a new life as a homemaker, with the running theme of their home not having furniture long after moving. The unsettled nature of the living space perfectly reflects the unsettled nature within Barbara as who she was is not lining up with who she could be or rather, who she is wondering she should be in this new environment. 

Perhaps, most unsettled of all is Grandmother Sylvie who is not only confronted with life in New York City without family but also without any close friendships with people of her own age group. What does life now represent for her? The gradual realization that her best friend is an 11 year old girl gives the film a deep existential ache, I was thankful Kelly Fremon Craig did not ignore or brush aside and as you would expect, Kathy Bates is equal to every moment given to her, as she elicits the outward humor and the sorrow underneath.

Kelly Fremon Craig's "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" is a rare, understated jewel of a film designed and delivered to a youthful audience yet never for one moment, treats young people as commodities undeserving of an entertaining and artful narrative that treats their lives seriously. To that end, Craig has created an earnest and honest slice of life film that houses no villains and refuses to tie up every narrative thread into a too pristine bow. We are gifted the presence of being with a collective of characters all trying to understand what life on Earth means, and that makes for a another cinematic rarity these days as this is a film of gracious humanity.

Just like the novels of Judy Blume.

BROKEN BROTHERS: a review of "Creed III"

 

"CREED III"
Based upon characters created by Sylvester Stallone
Story by Ryan Coogler and Keenan Coogler & Zach Baylin
Screenplay Written by Keenan Coogler & Zach Baylin
Directed by Michael B. Jordan
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

"It is easier to build strong children than fix broken men."
-Frederick Douglass. 1855

Last night, I watched the latest Chris Rock comedy standup special entitled "Selective Outrage," which aired as a global live streaming event upon Netflix. Rock's skills and artistry as a comic notwithstanding, the obvious draw of this event special was to see if he would, at long last, fully address the attack he withstood upon the global stage of the Academy Awards telecast one year ago, when a quip launched from him towards Jada Pinkett Smith therefore launched the fury of her husband Will Smith who roared expletives from his seat and then, launched himself on stage to physically assault Rock in retribution. 

In short, Rock did as desired. But, it was indeed cloaked within a fully uneven and strangely mercenary special, and one that felt to be more disingenuous than he consistently let on throughout with his prevalent statements of how he would never "play the victim" about the incident. Regardless, what struck me one year ago as well as last night, is how this one moment in time has done to illuminate the inner worlds and traumas of Black men, and globally famous Black men at that, and how those traumas reveal themselves in a world that is unacknowledging to the point of intolerance towards the cultivation of a Black male's emotional world.

Michael B. Jordan's directorial debut "Creed III," the third film in the ongoing saga of Adonis Creed speaks directly to this specific injustice in the world of Black men in America. It is an especially poignant document of the Black experience while also existing as a solid installment in this spin off of the "Rocky" series created by Sylvester Stallone nearly 50 years ago. 

"Creed III": again stars Michael B. Jordan as Adonis "Donnie" Creed, who at the start of this film, has remained victorious as the undisputed heavyweight boxing champion and has reached his period of well earned retirement. His marriage to musician/artist, now successful producer, Bianca Taylor (Tessa Thompson) remains strong as is their devotional bond to their young daughter Amara (Mila Davis-Kent), who is deaf and clearly wishes to follow n her boxing Dad's footsteps. Additionally, Adonis continues to care for and seek counsel from his aging Mother, Mary Anne Creed (Phylicia Rashad), who is now in ailing health due to a stroke.  

While Adonis, alongside his coach Tony "Little Duke" Evers Jr. (Wood Harris), operates the Delphi Boxing Academy, and promotes his protégé, world champion Felix Chavez (Jose Benavidez Jr.), his life hits a new obstacle with the unexpected return of childhood group home best friend/Golden Gloves champion/world champion hopeful Damien "Dame" Anderson (Jonathan Majors), new released from 18 years in prison. 

Dame craves a return to the ring, another chance to grab the title he was denied in the past, despite his current age and Adonis' retirement. The tension upon this reunion sparks conflict both internal and outwardly towards the friends as well as within Adonis' family and the comfort of his life which he has worked so diligently to cultivate.

Michael B. Jordan as leading man and director makes for a formidable presence in "Creed III," as he deftly continues to build the life story of this character. There is a certain poetry to the Creed series as it mirrors the thematic aesthetics Rocky series as well as the visual. Yes, we will receive the training montages and climactic boxing matches but it is more than interesting to witness how the character of Rocky was utilized during his life steps in comparison and contrast to Adonis Creed.

If the initial films in both cinematic arcs focused upon Rocky and Adonis as underdogs, and the second films found new strides within their love relationships and growing into their respective manhoods as domestic partners and parents as well as athletes and gradually aging warriors, "Creed III," very much like Sylvester Stallone's "Rocky III" (1982), finds Adonis Creed older, wiser and armed with an immense wealth, the culm nation of his efforts, hard work and dreams.

The differences between the two series is also just as startling as Stallone took hsi signature character from a human being into a pure box office cartoon and back to a  human being over the course of the series, while the story of Adonis Creed, initially brought to life in Writer/Director Ryan Coogler's "Creed" (2015), has paid strict attention to the overall humanity of the character, his environment, his struggles with his past, present and future and always without ever making him a caricature of himself. 

While a very strong film, a more than worthy addition to its two predecessors, "Creed III" is not a perfect film by any means. I do wish that more was given to Tessa Thompson to actually do as I wanted to see more of her story as a hearing impaired musician alongside Adonis' story. 

Additionally, I loved seeing the Creed family as a loving, supportive Black family dedicated towards and for each other, especially when raising their daughter. The scenes between Adonis and Amara are lovely, speaking to the truth and credibility of present and nurturing Black Fathers, a visual sorely lacking within pop culture, while also serving as a counterpoint to the character of Adonis as he never knew his Father, Rocky's one time nemesis turned closest friend Apollo Creed. I just wanted more of this relationship and to see how Adonis would navigate Amara's journey as a deaf child in a hearing world combined with her own growing anger issues. 

I understand that my point are essentially creating two more movies inside this one movie but that being said, it is a testament to how invested I have become in this world and these figures, that I wished more of their story was  being told in order to make the proceedings feel to be more complete.  

All of that being said, just imagine how easy it would have been for Michael B. Jordan to have sacrificed any nuance and deeper themed material, and just made a crowd pleaser, much like the fun yet nearly cartoonish "Rocky III." By contrast, Jordan's "Creed III" is a story of two Black men, Adonis and Dame, once as close as brothers, then separated by circumstance and now struggling with their own respective traumas that have followed each of them from childhood to the present, and have no outlet for outside of the boxing ring. 

It is telling that in one sequence durian an argument, Bianca suggests strongly that Adonis find someone to talk to. Another sequence showcases  Bianca's concern about Adonis' anger and how it affects their daughter. Even the film's climactic fight sequence is visually in a striking degree placing the emphasis not upon winning and losing but on the shared psychological trauma both Adonis and Dame are shouldering but each have no social/emotional skills to navigate and entrust within themselves outside of violence...in their cases, played out upon a world's stage and for profit. 

Michael B. Jordan's "Creed III" is an exploration of Black masculinity both in its positivity and its toxicity. It explores Black male excellence, physicality and psychology while exploring Black male pain and how as Black men, we are not given the tools by society to nurture ourselves. Both Adonis and Dame are bearing the weight of shared grief, shame, and loss while Dame also carries the jealous anger towards Adonis of the life he felt was due to him but taken away and Adonis bears the survivor's guilt. While the fight sequence is extremely well staged and propulsive, the finest sequence occurs after the fight...a scene of astounding quiet and sheer possibility of what us as Black men can achieve if given the opportunity to get in touch with our emotions, to nurture ourselves and heal ourselves. Both Michael B. Jordan and Jonathan Majors impress powerfully, as their imposing physiques completely belie their character's respective life long wounds. Watch Majors' eyes in particular, and I guarantee that you will see the childlike sadness at the core.

Where does Creed go from here? While I would love to see what happens next in the lives of Adonis Creed and his family, I am un sure what could necessitate a "Creed IV," as it does need to adhere to the certain tropes of the series as created originally by Sylvester Stallone. I don't know if Creed necessarily needs to go into the ring one more time but I am wondering if Michael B. Jordan could devise an ingenious way to still utilize this character and family to speak to the Black experience and allow the series to grow in surprising ways. I doubt it as the movie business is what it is, and certainly doesn't see box office value in Black healing and uplift at the expense of not showing Black pain and violence against each other. That is the way of the world in which we live, and one that did indeed have two Black men in Chris Rock and Will Smith, play out their respective traumas on open stages for all to view and judge.    

Just imagine if this was not the way, how much healthier we all would be.

TOO MUCH AND TOO LITTLE: a review of "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania"

 

"ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA"
Based upon Marvel Comics
Screenplay Written by Jeff Loveness
Directed by Peyton Reed
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

Well...there's good news and bad news regarding the third entry in the "Ant-Man" series and 31st Marvel Cinematic Universe feature overall. 

The good news is that this episode is a step above the recent, and very significant, Marvel misfires in Sam Raimi's "Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness" (2022) and Taika Waititi's " Thor: Love And Thunder" (2022). And in Jonathan Majors, who portrays Kang The Conqueror (and his myriad of variants), Marvel has struck solid gold and I am extremely excited to see him play out over the course of the next few years in the self described "Multiverse Saga." 

The bad news should not really be of any surprise, if we are going to be honest about the current trajectory of the MCU. Marvel is clearly spreading itself too thin. While the assembly line nature of the MCU has been a factor that I have been critical of during this entire series, even in its earliest years, the overall consistency of quality has generally remained steadfast. Now, as the MCU has branched out to television as well as feature films, with all manner of hitting those release dates ruling the day, quality has begun to suffer.  For me, the television series have proven to being exceptional overall while the films has stumbled more often than not with the likes of Destin Daniel Cretton's Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings" (2021), Jon Watts' "Spider-Man: No Way Home" (2021) and Ryan Coogler's mountainous "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" (2022) emerging unscathed.  

With Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania," this third installment is a mixed bag. A film where I do appreciate the effort at stretching the canvas in a series that has essentially served as a Marvel palate cleanser in between the more cataclysmic episodes into something grander and darker, especially as it is teeing up a more than sizeable villain in Kang. And yet, for all that is included, it feels overstuffed in some ways and too miniscule in others, therefore making  this film another Marvel experience that just falls short of its goals. 

Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" opens with our hero Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) in an unusually more than stable stage in his life. After helping to save the universe from Thanos, he has become celebrated within his community, a successful memoirist, and ensconced in the warmth and security of his family, which includes girlfriend and crime fighting partner Hope van Dyne a.k.a. The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly), her parents a.k.a. the original Ant-Man and Wasp, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and Janet van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer), and most importantly, Scott's beloved (and now adult daughter) Cassie Lang (Kathryn Newton).

Quantum Realm remans the elephant in the room for this collective as Janet still refuses to speak of her 30 years lost and trapped inside of this universe set underneath our own. Her darkest fears are re-ignited as Cassie has constructed a device that would allow exploration of the Quantum Realm via signals, and without ever having to physically transport oneself. Yet, when one sent signal is answered back, or heroes are all whisked away into the depths of the Quantum Realm and thrust into all of the characters and dangers of Janet's past life...

...including the full introduction of Kang The Conqueror (Jonathan Majors), a once exiled traveler and now ruler of the entire Quantum Realm who is plotting his escape...if only Ant-Man can stop him. 

Unlike the small scaled but hugely entertaining and superbly inventive "Ant-Man" (2015) and the undercooked p lace holder "Ant-Man and the Wasp" (2018), Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" boasts a bolder, broader and as previously stated, considerably darker tone than its predecessors. This quality does indeed serve the series and the character of Scott Lang well as it allows a greater pathos to enter the proceedings considering the nature of what is already appearing to being a magnetic villain in Kang and his threat to the variety of multiverses already in collective danger as witnessed "Spider-Man: No Way Home," "Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness" and both Creator Jac Schaeffer and Director Matt Shakman's "WandaVision" (2021) and Creator Michael Waldron and Director Kate Herron's "Loki" (2021), where we were first introduced to the character of He Who Remains (also played by Jonathan Majors), an alternate version of Kang who resided in the Citadel At The End of Time. 

In Kang the Conqueror, Marvel has struck solid gold with Jonathan Majors, clearly the very best element in this film. To that end, Peyton Reed introduces him in a slow and sinister fashion, allowing us to hear about him before he is really seen. Even after his full introduction, Kang is viewed sporadically, also allowing the shadowy nature of him to permeate strongly, making us anxious to view him again. Once he arrives in full, Majors surprises over and again with his portrayal, which is often quieter than expected, or better yet, than what we are used to with domineering villains. Majors' Kang is reticent, thoughtful, somewhat bemused and lonely, a man lost in time while having seen every angle of it.  

And therefore, he always ahead of the curve but clever enough to not show his cards immediately. He is a man of intense patience...until he is not. 

Physically imposing, psychologically complex and coiled like a python waiting for the precise moment to strike, Jonathan Majors makes for an exceedingly impressive foe tp go against a hero as unlikely as Ant-Man, and their dichotomy is one that I wished the film had invested more energy. To that end, I had wished that Peyton Reed and his screenwriter Jeff Loveness had not allowed the release date to dictate the contents of their film and rather pushed that release date completely aside and given the film another pass, in order to really determine what needed to stay and go in order to make the best film possible.

In my mind, and in order to continue the more grounded aesthetic of the Ant-Man series, "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" needed to pay stricter attention to the film's core relationships in order to attain a greater emotional outcome, in essence, to remain intimate within the epic grandeur. Keep our focus upon the imbalance of Scott and Kang. Keep us focused upon the past history of Janet and Kang during their conjoined Quantum Realm exiles. Keep us focused the most upon Scott and his daughter Cassie, as the pathos of their missing five years deserves more than a few jokes and wistful looks between them. If Reed clearly wanted to take Ant-Man to a greater canvas, these are ways I feel could ensure that growth rather than what was delivered, a sub "Star Wars" feature length cantina character filled adventure that results in yet another CGI drenched war sequence between the oppressed against the oppressor, in this case, Kang. 

Paul Rudd remains as charming as ever and I enjoyed his chemistry with Kathryn Newton. I was thrilled to see Michelle Pfeiffer  in more of the forefront of the action, and I wished the film explored that aspect even more. To that end, Michael Douglass was completely wasted and as for Evangeline Lilly...I was absolutely confounded as to her essentially complete sidelining, especially as she is one half of the heroes in the film's title! 

To me, what has made the MCU endure as much as it has, and in true spirit to what the late, great Stan Lee created, was how the humanity always arrived first with the pyrotechnics placed second. If we don't care about these characters as human being, then what is the purpose? Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" is drowning in superfluous characters, sidelines and locations and it is all a morass for so many of the film's characters and the audience to find themselves lost within. And frankly, not much of it is very interesting, thrilling, or awe inspiring. 

I have written many times upon this site about how we are living in a period where special effects are simply not special anymore due to their ubiquity in film, television, and commercials. Because of this reality, I feel it creates a greater hurdle for special effects houses and teams to invent new ways to fully surprise and dazzle audiences again. With regards to this film, I remember feeling that sense of razzle dazzle when we saw the Quantum Realm for the first time. Rescuing Janet from that realm also gave our imaginations a spark for what could this world actually be like? And now, once we have the chance to essentially spend two hours in the Quantum Realm, it is a big bore and one where the characters themselves are unfazed by the experience--just as we witnessed in the recent adventures with Doctor  Strange in the multiverse and to a different degree, the overall glibness of the previous Thor adventure.

Visually speaking, the sub atomic Quantum Realm doesn't look terribly different than anything we've seen in the intergalactic landscapes of James Gunn's "Guardians Of The Galaxy" series and it is that Marvel sameness plus the lack of awe, excitement, terror, or any reactions to the variety of unreal locations from the characters that threatens to upend everything the MCU has spent years building upwards. I understand that for the ultimate world building of the MCU, there needs to be some visual consistency. But, I also feel there is a problem because every landscape runs the risk of becoming indistinguishable from each other, thus seriously diminishing that sense of wonder. Look, when the ending credit sequence of the film, one that featured a gorgeous array of psychedelic geometric patterns, made me think to myself, "Now, that's what the Quantum Realm could have looked like!," then you do detect a problem that occurred in the conception.       

If an advice form me were to be heard and taken into consideration, I would offer this to Marvel: SLOW DOWN! I feel that MCU overlord Kevin Feige, his writing team and directors need to stop the release dates, sit in a room and truly hammer down what the multiverse is, all of its rules and the overall trajectory of this saga through the already announced two Avengers films arriving two years from now.  Just lock the films in place conceptually and thematically so that everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing when conceiving the screenplays and setting the building blocks in place to this still interlocking narrative, to ensure rigid consistency and emotional triumph. 

Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" is by no means a failure. But it is a deeply flawed experience that is threatening to undo a journey that has some excellent potential...as well as a serous skilled and magnetic presence in the formidable Jonathan Majors, who is more than ready to deliver the goods. 

Marvel...don't let him...or us down.

DISRUPT THE DISRUPTORS: a review of "Glass Onion"

 

'"GLASS ONION"
Written and Directed by Rian Johnson
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

Why does Rian Johnson make this so difficult when it always appears to be so easy?

How often do we have the opportunity to see a movie and not wish to ruin the surprise(s) for any potential viewers? How many times recently have you seen a movie before a friend and you struggle to not reveal too much so as not to spoil and yet, you are just anxious for that friend to see it for themselves...and then, you can speak freely about it? 

In our age of sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes and re-imaginings, plus the threat of spoiler alerts mere hours after the first screenings nationwide, those times truly are fewer based upon which movies are now even being released to theaters in addition to our streaming services. But there are still they occasional anomalies...

With Rian Johnson's "Glass Onion," I do have the sequel to his terrific "Knives Out" (2019) at my hands to share my reaction with you. Yet, unlike the nature of our serialized storytelling these days, there is no connective tissue between the two films other than Johnson himself as Writer and Director, the sly, loquaciously witty presence of Daniel Craig as Johnson's "World's Greatest Detective" Benoit Blanc and of course, the central twisty, turny mystery for Blanc to solve. 

At this time, I am more than delighted to announce that I found Rian Johnson's latest entry in his young series has delivered the goods as it is a most delicious cinematic meal and one that feels so effortlessly prepared and enthusiastically executed yet not remotely frivolous or forgettable. Johnson clearly has something to say within his latest mystery but he is unquestionably determined for us to have a great time!

Rian Johnson's "Glass Onion" finds our great detective Benoit Blanc (again richly played by Daniel Craig) fretting in his abode, struggling with lockdown during May 2020, a few months into our global isolation due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Suddenly, a mysterious box arrives at his door, containing a series of puzzles leading to an invitation to the vast Glass Onion mansion, located upon a private Greece island owned by Miles Bron (the perfectly unctuous Edward Norton), New York billionaire and co-founder of the technological company Alpha.

Blanc is soon joined in invitation by five of Miles Bron's friends to partake in a weekend murder mystery party at the mansion. The collective includes the following participants:

Lionel Toussaint (Leslie Odom Jr.), the head scientist at Alpha
Claire Debella (Kathryn Hahn), the Governor of Connecticut, now running for the United States Senate
Birdie Jay (Kate Hudson), a vapid and aging supermodel turned fashion designer plus her assistant Peg (Jessica Henwick)
Duke Cody (Dave Bautista), misogynistic video game and men's rights streamer plus his assistant/girlfriend Whiskey (Madelyn Cline)  

and finally, surprisingly...Alpha co-founder Cassandra "Andi" Brand (a terrific Janelle Monae), forced out of the company by Miles. 

When a member of the group ended up dead for real, it is up to Benoit Blanc to solve the real life murder mystery!

While I have to admit to enjoying the first installment a hair more than this new chapter, Rian Johnson's "Glass Onion" is a first rate comic thriller, that is again sharply written, briskly directed, and acted wonderfully by the entire cast, who are all clearly having a whale of a time while ensuring the story is served to its absolute best. The film is proudly frisky without becoming remotely frivolous or forgettable and definitely rewards subsequent viewings due t the excellent cinematic sleight of hand at work, both in front of and behind the camera. 

As a murder mystery, Rian Johnson has already established himself as a clever storyteller as evidenced by not only the original film but in his previous works such as the science fiction time travel thriller "Looper" (2012) and his high school set film noir ode in his debut feature "Brick" (2005). While he certainly displayed skill, energy and unquestionable talent with both of those films, they did leave me wanting and each felt to be ore of exercises in style rather than complete experiences. With "Glass Onion,": just as he displayed with "Knives Out" and spectacularly with "Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi" (2017), his stylistic tendencies remained powerfully with is storytelling growing in leaps, making the narrative both visually and motivationally worked in lockstep.

Truthfully, it would be very easy to overlook just how meticulous Rian Johnson's writing and directing actually is within "Glass Onion" because he makes it all look so easy! So breezy is his material and its execution that before you know it, you have completely missed details he has so clearly laid out directly in front of you--just as Benoit  Blanc announces to the party guests over and again. I repeat, it is all right in front of our eyes the entire time and still, ian Johnson trans us upon where to look and when in order to keep his mystery going..

And frankly, with streaming at our fingertips, we now have the opportunity to immediately review scenes and sequences to see if all of the pieces line up just as they are eventually revealed. I will admit to you to doing just that and just laughing to myself that Johnson was indeed this slick and had so perfectly distracted me from the action by keeping me riveted to watching the principals interact and luxuriating in the peppery dialogue that provides one zinger after another throughout. In accomplishing this feat, Rian Johnson's "Glass Onion" deftly set up residence in the cinematic vicinity of Steven Soderberg's outstanding "Ocean's Eleven" (2001).

As fun as "Glass Onion" is, it was also great to see that Rian Johnson has more on his mind than a murder mystery party, as he injected some food for though into the proceedings, which I am gathering is perhaps why he decided to place his narrative just after the start of the pandemic. 

Similarly, with Writer/Director Mike White's sensational HBO series "The White Lotus" (2021/2022), and Director Mark Mylod's stylish yet flawed "The Menu" (2022), Johnson has served up an "eat the rich" satire merged with opulent travel. But, looking a tad deeper, I am wondering if the tone is closer towards Writers/Directors Joel and Ethan Coen's "Burn After Reading" (2008), their absurdist comedy of fatal errors in which their collective of characters are all victims of their own narcissistic delusions at best and utter stupidity at worst.

"It's a dangerous thing to mistake speaking without thought for speaking the truth," sermons Benoit Blanc to one of the film's characters and in essence, it feels that is the core pf the film as well as some sincere cultural commentary from the film's central character plus its creator. We are now existing within a "post-truth" society where basic facts are debated if not outright denied, and pre fabricated realities are valued over (again) what is directly in front of our eyes, taking the tenor of "history is written by the winners" to a new extreme. 

Much has already been made of Edward Norton's character supposedly being a stand in for Elon Musk, to which Rian Johnson denies. But, stay on that conceptual track, if you will. "Glass Onion" is populated with characters, who due to their immense wealth, privilege, and celebrity are in positions where they feel entitled and justified to invent their own realities regardless of what actually occurred. With that, and of course due to it's own title, we are meant to peel back the layers of the mysteries as well as the characters themselves to reveal all of the hidden truths, and within one, a more than righteous and rightful sense of palpable rage in need of justice.  

And really, should I say more? I really shouldn't as I won't assume that anyone who chooses to read this has already seen the film. But, that is where the absolute fun is! The not knowing ahead of time. Rian Johnson's "Glass Onion" is a delight from start to finish. Just go in as cold as possible, before movie advertisers gave us two minute versions of the entire film before we could see the entire vision, and allow yourself to be deeply entertained and rewarded.

THE LORD HIGH EMPEROR OF SUSTENANCE: a review of "The Menu"

 

"THE MENU"
Screenplay Written by Seth Reiss & Will Tracy
Directed by Mark Mylod
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED R

Some meals just end up not coming into their full fruition, regardless of the ingredients involved and the depth of care to the preparation. 

With the nature of food, fine dining and culinary artistry, I would imagine that it is not terribly far fetched to find comparisons with the nature of literature, music, and any other art form, which includes the movies. The potential for greatness or failure always exists and even within the finest of artistic hands and hearts, sometimes the stars are aligned and sometimes they are not. 

With the movies, I have often expressed that the act of getting a movie completed and released at all must be akin to a minor miracle let alone the movie in question ending up as the full representation of the artist's vision...or even just being watchable. With food, I can gather that there are similarities in this particular vein, especially in the world of fine dining and elevated courses, in which recipes are and techniques are studied meticulously only to be re-invented over and again in the pursuit of creating that very meal that is completely unique, inventive, showcases the individualistic style of the chef as well as being delicious. It feels like an impossible feat and yet, when it happens, culinary art exists. But, one false move, no matter how miniscule, the art pursued is eluded.

I had this feeling as I viewed Director Mark Mylod's satirical, psychological thriller "The Menu." It is a mostly well constructed piece, a clever idea that is filled with the ingredients, so to speak, and is well executed but one that did leave me wanting. It is not a bad film by any means. It was one that lacked in satisfaction as it did not stick to the cinematic ribs (ahem). 

So as not to produce spoilers, I will try to keep the plot description brief. "The Menu" stars Ralph Finnes as celebrity chef Julian Slowik, operator of the exclusive restaurant Hawthorne, which is located upon a private island. 

This evening's guests include falling movie star (John Leguizamo) and his personal assistant (Aimee Carrero), a trio of young business partners (played by Rob Yang, Arturo Castro and Mark St. Cyr), a food critic (Janet McTeer) and her editor (Paul Adelstein), a wealthy elderly couple (played by Judith Light and Reed Birney) and finally, young Tyler Ledford (Nicholas Hoult) and his date Margot Mills (Anya Taylor-Joy).

Over the course of the night, the dinner guests will be served an elaborate and increasingly sinister menu leading to a final course that could prove deadly. 

Mark Mylod's "The Menu" is elegantly staged, akin to a malevolent play. With its concept of the uber wealthy in a state of glorious travel threatened with a dark underbelly of sociopathic dysfunctions, it feels perfectly timed with the likes of Writer/Director Mike White's "The White Lotus" (2021/2022) series for HBO plus Writer/Director Rian Johnson's "Glass Onion" (2022), yet the end result feels considerably lacking when compared to the aforementioned works.

Where it succeeds best for me, it as a social commentary over our collective cultural identification as "foodies" combined with or due to our exposure to food via a host of television cooking competition reality programming. At its best, and much like how the late, great Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert's long standing presence in movie criticism for television educated and engaged the general public in how to watch, engage with and therefore discuss the movies, our current television food programming has given us similar gifts. We are now armed with a greater knowledge of food, where it comes from, how it is prepared and therefore, we have been given the language of how to discuss food. 

It has been quite the populist transition in demystifying the art of cooking while simultaneously upholding it, keeping the exclusivity of fine dining while bringing it it to the masses via our television screens. By learning more about food, we are given the opportunity to understanding how food works with our bodies and how to possibly eat better because of our new found knowledge of how the Science and art of food congeals. All of that being said, and as the old adage expresses, everybody's a critic, and regardless of how much new knowledge we may have when talking about food, everyone is not an expert. For if anyone could prepare food to such an elevated level, then anyone would...and we don't because we can't.

Mark Mylod's "The Menu" plays with that very unctuous, pretentious, pseudo intellectual fashion of preparing and experiencing food within the motivations of Chef Julian Slowick and his doomed patrons, where one false move could present dire consequences regardless of status and cache. Mylod creates a tale of class warfare and and upending societal and economic privileges, something that is actually very reminiscent of Director David Fincher's "The Game" (1993).

Yet, where that film's surrealist aesthetics truly weaved a deeply unsettling spell as a psychological thriller, it is also an exceedingly sharper and ore pointed satire, where "The Menu" overall succeeds in fits and starts. It is indeed fueled by an "eat the rich" narrative while also functioning just this side of horror but it never feels to go as far as it absolutely could.  

I did appreciate a certain multi-layered level to the existential horror of the film, especially as it is a parable about a collective of individuals who have amassed everything in their power but have sacrificed all manner of joy from their existence. A joy of inspiration and creation, a snuffing out of the spark that may have first inspired them, yet their main pursuits have become not of any sense of inner ascension but of socio-economic domination which leaves them all as gradually hollow shells rather than full human beings now all facing a certain judgement on this fateful night. 

As a thriller, all of the pieces are in place, the performances are strong, the visual sheen and design is effective and truthfully, the first half of the film builds strongly into two or even three shocking crescendos. But, the film overall in terms of its sense of character, as well as an exercise in terror, never really finds its footing in its second half as characters remain underwritten, character motivations are unclear and even questioned within the film by other characters and the participants feel shuffled from one sequence to another without any real consequences other than a plot driven inevitability which ends up undercutting any sense of that under the skin intensity this film needs. 

Mark Mylod's "The Menu" is well plated but feels decidedly undercooked and truthfully, in need of a re-fire. For it is one that is indeed lacking in heat! 

HAPPY 13TH BIRTHDAY TO SAVAGE CINEMA!!!

This time, the day snuck up on me.

Dear readers, this evening, I had logged into this blogsite to try and write a brand new review for myself and for you when my Facebook memories greeted me with a revelation. It was a memory of two years ago and featured an image starring the number 11 front and center. Having no idea whatsoever of what this particular memory pertained to, I clicked and was then struck with full remembrance tinged with some melancholy.

The number 11 referred to the 11th anniversary of Savage Cinema, and since that was two years ago, this means that today is the 13th anniversary of the very day when I sat within my parents' basement in South suburban Illinois and very trepidaciously hatched this blogsite on which I would merge my love of writing and the movies into a deeply personalized space and a place for me to share those specific loves with anyone who chose to enter.  

As previously stated, I said this realization came tinged with melancholy. Well...frankly, how could I forget this very day, especially as there was a time, for much of this site's existence, when I would never have forgotten and would therefore have commemorated this experience and thanked all of you for supporting me throughout the years?  

Yet, somehow, I did. And truthfully, that omission makes me feel very sad indeed. 

All of this time, I have often expressed that I am Savage Cinema and Savage Cinema is me and in the forgetting, have I forgotten myself? Over these past three years definitely, and exacerbated by the pandemic, Savage Cinema has taken a drastic back seat within my life as the shut down of movie theaters combined with all of the real world anxieties and stresses when then folded into my mental health issues made the process of watching movies, let alone writing about them feel like a mountain too difficult to climb. 

In these past few years, I have to express to you hat there have been several film reviews that I began  and yet, never finished, due to a profound lack of mental energy due to work and internal stressors. How I would have loved to have written about Wes Anderson's "The French Dispatch" (2021),  Edgar Wright's "Last Night In Soho" (2021) or Peter Jackson's "The Beatles: Get Back" (2021), all of which I began (and for those keep score, I LOVED them all), yet sadly never finished due to lack of time, and lack of energy...

...but believe me, NEVER for a lack of caring.    

Admittedly, there have been times over these 13 years when I would take up a new review posting as a challenge, a means of honoring the promises I made to myself when I began this site. Yet, I always told myself that if at any point if writing a review began to feel like a job, then I should hit pause and re-think my purpose. That being said, I pressed onwards and write, wrote and wrote, and I look back and I feel such pride at this body of work I have amassed over these years. Even now, with Savage Cinema showing dramatically less output, that sense of accomplishment should not be undersold to myself by myself. 

Especially as I remember that very first post, the very one where tapping the "PUBLISH" button felt to be so terrifying. And after I hit "PUBLISH" upon this post, I will have reached a whopping 854 postings!!!! It happened. You helped me reach this milestone. That cannot be taken from me and perhaps, on this day where I have forgotten myself, this memory is helping me to remember myself. To remember that what was so frightening that very first time, did produce what exists today...and truthfully, what still can exist in the future.

I am Savage Cinema and Savage Cinema is me and I am still here...so...

There is yet another enormous aspect to this lack of activity on my part and that is due to the movies themselves.

For as much as I have changed over these years, so has the movie industry. I am not proclaiming the death of cinema or anything like that for I do believe that we are in a wave that has yet to completely turn and become something anew. But, these times do feel quite dire for the movies.

For years upon this site, I have expressed my long seated fatigue with superhero movies, as well as with all manner of sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, and re-imaginings...even as I, just like all of you, continue to see such movies. In many ways, I do side with the likes of Martin Scorsese as he has decried the sheer abundance of say Marvel movies as being "theme park rides" and not "cinema." Now before we get ourselves lost in that particular debate, which in and of itself is yet another thread of the "high art" vs. "low art" battle (and one in which I will never engage as it is one I have never subscribed to), I will say that...to a degree...Scorsese is not wrong in his assessment.

Basically, it is a variation of what I have been feeling for at least 10 years: I have no problem whatsoever with the Marvel movies being made. I just don't need to see them every single week and definitely not at the expense of every other movie that could be made. 

The motion picture industry has been inching towards this moment for several years now and the pandemic exacerbated the inevitability. With the rise of the franchises in prevalence, creation and status as being EVENT MOVIES, films that are seen as "smaller" would find themselves pushed away--which in and of itself, creates the fallacy that EVENT movies are the only things that audiences wish to see (because, it could easily be argued, just look at the box office receipts and records constantly being made by the likes of Marvel and now, the latest "Avatar"--but of course, it could be argued as rebuttal, those movies would be setting box office records when nearly every screen in your local multiplex is showing that one particular movie thus severely limiting actual choices for audiences to make).

Besides, why can't great acting, great storytelling, great dialogue and great directing BE THE EVENT regardless of the film style or genre?!

Where are the adult drams? Where are the teen comedies? The romantic comedies, indie dramas, psychological thrillers, and any and all other cinematic offerings that do not fit into the sequel, prequel, remake, reboot, reimagined boxes? All to streaming services--and that includes new movies from filmmaking giants like The Coen Brothers, Spike Lee and the aforementioned Martin Scorsese! There are few  directors remaining that could potentially open a film just due to their  name--Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan and Jordan Peele to name three. To that end, perhaps aside from Tom Cruise, do we have any movie stars anymore--that is if they appear in something where they are not required to adorn a cape and possess super powers? 

Yes, we have streaming, but I do not think that it would be unfair to suggest that many viewers are like myself who do feel overwhelmed by the sheer amount of streaming content and services that it is difficult to know where to begin...and so, little to nothing is watched at all. 

Even worse, there is  the decrease in actual movie theaters. I do not know about where you happen to live but in my home base of Madison, WI, where I have called home since 1987, we are now in a movie theater desert. As a college student at UW-Madison, right in the heart of the city and downtown area, during the 1980's and 1990's, 

There once existed University Square 4, a small 4 screen multiplex--where I saw nothing less then Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" (1991), Ridley Scott's "Thelma and Louise" (1991), crossed a picket line to see Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation Of Christ" (1988), witnessed my one and only NC 17 film in Philip Kaufman's "Henry & June" (1990), copious midnight screenings of Alan Parker's "Pink Floyd: The Wall" (1982) and an ocean of great times at terrible flicks like Rod Daniel's "K-9" (1989). 

Down State Street and around the state Capitol building, there sat the Orpheum, the Majestic, the Strand and the Esquire. All of these were within walking distance and combined with all of the student film societies, the sheer presence of so many locations to engage within my passion for the movies, and on a student budget no less, made it a gift for people like me who were looking for alternatives to the Madison party scene or the sports fan community. In addition to all of those screens, there did exist the multiplexes by shopping malls, the Hilldale theater, the Westgate Art Cinema--where I saw Rob Reiner's "The Princess Bride" (1987) on opening weekend--and in 1989, the second run Market Square Theater multiplexes, specializing in second run features, was born. 

By now in 2022, our movie theater landscape has changed entirely and irrevocably. The Orpheum and Majestic are now concert venues. The Strand, Esquire, Westgate Art Cinema and that 4 screen campus multiplex are all lost to time itself. Hilldale was demolished to make way for the very first Sundance theater in the nation...a theater that Robert Redford himself arrived in Madison to announce its creation only to sell it years later. This November, that theater shut its doors...one full month earlier than expected and in the very same year that the Market Square Theaters shut its doors forever...even after apparently surviving the pandemic. 

Madison, WI now has essentially no movie theaters in the city as 2022 draws to a close, forcing theater goers like myself to venture to impersonal, corporate multiplexes in outlying communities in nearby Sun Prairie and Fitchburg (if that one can get past its own health code violations). Less choices, less theaters...certainly that does indeed make things difficult for a film enthusiast like myself. But a gain, movies are not dead and neither am I. There is a way and I do have these 854 posts and 13 years reconfirming that fact. 

I just need to make my way...just as I did 13 years ago.

Moving forward...what does it mean for  Savage Cinema? I am not prepared to roll those ending credits at all. In fact, I have a couple of ideas in my brain just waiting to be written. I just need to remind myself to be gentle with myself and take ANYTHING written and posted as a victory, for every new feature extends the life of this blogsite and my creative life. 

I wish to thank you for your patience, your understanding, your continued encouragement and support. Again, without you as my fuel, I never would have reached 13 years of Savage Cinema at all. 

And yes, I did reach 13 years of this experience.    

Thanks for the reminder.