Avatar: The Way of Water

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: Because when the first one makes 2b, you don’t not make a sequel

Score: 6/10

          If you’ve heard middling to great reviews for the Avatar sequel, that’s exactly what you’ll see here too. I saw this movie in 3D in a packed theater, and everyone’s opinion ranged from it was okay to it was great. I am seriously shocked that this film is nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Picture – Drama because I fall into the crowd that it was fine. Let me explain.

          We can talk about the long gap between movies, how scenes were shot 4 years ago, how utterly expensive this film was to make, etc., but let’s focus on the product at hand. Despite my score and initial reaction from above, I want to first say that this film is beautiful. If you plan to see it in theaters, 3D is honestly the way to go—and this is coming from a guy who doesn’t even know what the last 3D film I saw was because I don’t like chalking up the extra bucks (I think it was like an adorable panda movie at a museum). Where the first film was ground-breaking in its innovative motion-capture, this film truly takes things to the next level. My understanding is they even filmed some motion-capture underwater for some scenes, and even with that knowledge, I still have no idea how they pulled off what they did.

          From the very start of the film, when you’re looking at the Na’vi and Avatars, even the texture on their blue skin is the most realistic visual effects I’ve ever seen. And it doesn’t stop there. Even the motion capture they’re using is crisp and the movements look and feel natural. One big complaint I’ve had with Marvel visual effects is characters occasionally looking rubbery in their movements. And there’s a section in the film about 45 minutes long where the whole The Way of Water subtitle comes into play with a new setting in their world of Pandora, and the audience is treated to tons of water sequences, new Avatars, and many new creatures. And it’s gorgeous. It truly reminded me of the ride at Disney World, and in this movie you really get to sit back in 3D and marvel at this incredible world around you. You'll see sunsets with this fake but so realistic water glistening, and you will wish you were on Pandora at that point.

          And the above paragraph is the high marks I can’t ignore about this film. I feel bad about any other film that gets nominated for Best Visual Effects because it truly isn’t a competition. Surrounding that roughly 45 minutes of pure wonder, however, is a subpar plot with uncompelling characters.

          It takes about an hour of the film to quickly remind us that Jake, Sam Worthington’s character, married Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and they now have some children of their own. The bad guys of the film, humans, retreat after their unsuccessful attempt at that unobtainium and return to Earth. We go through a few years as the kids get a little older, but there’s also one character with a baffling background…

          I remember Sigourney Weaver playing a good doctor in the first film. She got injured or something, tried to fully connect with her Avatar, it didn’t work, and she died. But through some weird cloning/pregnancy/I don’t remember because it was like two lines of dialogue, we have another kid Avatar that is basically raised by the Jake household. Her name is Kiri, and I hope you’re ready for a big subplot involving her connection to Pandora and not knowing who her dad is, and I hope you’re also prepared for it to be setting up more plot points in the sequels because it doesn’t get resolved here.

          Along with the strange Kiri, the kids hit very familiar marks. The eldest son obeys Jake’s orders willingly and wants to prove he can grow up to be a strong leader while the younger son is more rebellious but has a good heart that Jake fails to recognize at time. There’s also a human boy that sticks with the Avatars, and while I wished his character was given less screen time just because he wasn’t interesting, it becomes apparent later on that he’s one of the bigger characters in the story due to his background. And boy is that background a doozy.

          You remember Stephen Lang’s one-faced villainous marine from the first movie? First, the human boy in this film is his son. Second, are you wondering who the villain is in this film? Well, the humans took DNA from some main players and technology has reached far enough to successfully implant a person’s DNA into a new Avatar. So Lang’s memory’s are put into a new Avatar that is both that boy’s father but also technically not since he himself is a clone. And it’s easily the thing I hate the most about this movie. Oh yeah, you remember the one-dimensional villain we had the first time? Let’s literally clone him. So once again, this clone named Quaritch played by Stephen Lang is the villain, and humans are the overarching villains having returned to Pandora about 15 years later because Earth is dying and they now need to colonize Pandora to start anew.

          One more thing really quickly. Sigourney Weaver’s cloned daughter Avatar thing is like a 14-year-old girl—still played by Weaver. It’s kinda stupid, but Weaver actually kills it in her mannerisms, and I didn’t even know it wasn’t a child actor until I learned it after the movie was over.

          To avoid spoiling the plot, basically what you might care about is the humans are specifically hunting Jake and his family, and this forces a tough decision on their part to leave their home. They come across aquatically adapted Na’vi with more webbed limbs and greenish tint to the standard blue creatures. Again, the world building is incredible, the water effects and creatures are breath-taking, and I fully embraced the new setting.

          But it doesn’t last as the Jake clan attempt to fit in while the humans continue their search. Throughout the film are multiple action scenes, and by and large, all of them are too long. There was one single moment of action that truly stood out—a guy’s arm gets ripped off—and that’s it. Everything in the motion-capture looks fluid and great, but there’s just so much excess. And this is highlighted by the climax of the film. The last hour of the film is a huge sequence with multiple characters fighting their own battles. I didn’t emotionally connect much with the characters, so I didn’t care much about the tension, and by the end, I really just wanted it to be over. Because to make that sequence (and the other action scenes) as long as it was, you have to manufacture tension and force characters into tight situations that they have to think on their feet to come out of. And every big character has their own situation going on. Which is really where the deviation in how people feel about this film come into play. If you really connected with the film throughout, you’ll feel very invested in the outcome of the final battle; but if you’re like me, then you’ll start getting agitated that this already long movie keeps going on pointlessly. This is not The Godfather where more scenes about the family makes me care more about what goes on around because the actual character drama doesn’t feel novel.

          I don’t remember the last time I saw the original Avatar, and I do want to factor in how ground-breaking the technology for that film was for the industry in the decade following; however, I actually still think this film expands on the world of Pandora in a way that is better than the first film. James Cameron also honestly deserves a Best Director nomination. Forget about the plot; how he's able to pull performances from his cast and imagine the world around is truly remarkable, and I still honestly have no idea how he even was able to make this film. And when I have no idea how you do what you do, that will always earn high marks from me. And for the animation, I have regarded Blade Runner 2049 as my favorite visual effects of all-time, but from a pure technical perspective, The Way of Water has no rival and it’s not even close. This film is beautiful beyond measure, and the few extra bucks for 3D is worth it. I’m beyond frustrated by the stupid villain, some of the subplots are completely unnecessary and more than content with being resolved in the sequels, and the plot is disappointingly underwhelming. Which is why this movie is just fine. You don’t have to watch it, but if you do, seeing it in theaters in 3D is easily the route to go for that experience. Also, I can’t tell you how often I mistakenly called this movie The Shape of Water. It was in development so long that was actually probably its original title before Guillermo del Toro won Best Picture.

Amsterdam is really bad + a bonus review

Gillipedia Official Rating: It’s rumored Christian Bale simultaneously gained and lost 300 pounds for this role

Score: 4/10

          Amsterdam is packed tight with big names. Christian Bale, Margot Robbie, and John David Washington are the stars, but there’s also Michael Shannon, Robert de Niro, Taylor Swift, Anya Taylor Joy, Zoe Saldana, Chris Rock, Rami Malek, Timothy Olyphant, and Mike Myers. Throw in writer/director David O. Russell, and this movie has to be good, right? Well, I’m not sure if you read the full title, but the sting of all the names attached to this project still hasn’t worn off.

          Living in a post-WW1 world, Bale is an eccentric veteran doctor taking more morphine than he should, and Washington is a stoic lawyer that served with Bale and continues to work with him. A frantic Taylor Swift asks them to look into the death of her father—their old commander. They suspect foul play, then get framed for a murder, and now they’re on the run trying to figure out what in the world is happening. And to understand what is happening, we also watch what happened to our leads while they served and the nurse (Robbie) that takes care of their injuries, and how the inseparable pair becomes the musketeers instead.

          At over 2 hours long, it takes too long for the movie to find its groove. There’s also a pretty rapid switch about halfway through from trying to be a charming murder mystery to unfolding to a much larger plot involving the war as a whole. Yes, it does tie into some real events, but it is still jarring. The style of this film and Russell films in general is yes, the paragraph above is the main plot. But while characters walk between settings, they talk about what else is going on and the side plots reveal themselves—like Bale’s hapless marriage into an elitist family. We do end up wanting things to work out for the characters, but when the climax fizzles instead of bangs, trying to have the story culminate into one scene with all the characters coherently just doesn’t land.

          The biggest shortcoming for this film, however, is its tone. The genre listed first for this film is comedy. And let me tell you that the way this film is shot is some of the worst directing I’ve seen in a long time because there’s absolutely no comedic timing. There’s never enough setup, and the delivery is far too stiff for any joke to ever land. If I had to listen to Bale tell one more character that he is a veteran, I’d probably shoot myself. I think it’s a running gag, and it’s extremely annoying. And to be very clear, it does feel like this movie is trying to honor veterans which I really do appreciate, but Bale has to tell everyone he’s a veteran no less than 15 times during this movie. But I digress. Let me try to explain this comedy as simplistically as possible.  The most basic setup for a scene would be two characters talking to each other. Any film that gets widely distributed will have a setup something like a camera behind each character’s shoulder (over the shoulder) and a third wide shot showing both actors. To keep the flow of dialogue, sometimes the character speaking isn’t the face we see on screen because maybe the reaction to the dialogue elicits the emotional response we’re looking for. What happens with this film is a character says their line. Pause. Switch to other character. Character two now speaks and says their line. Nobody in the world has ever spoken in a conversation like this, it looks fake, it feels awkward, and no, it isn’t funny to watch. It blows my mind how this happened, but this is the stiffest dialogue I’ve seen since possibly the atrocious Mortdecai.

          If you have an underwhelming story and a comedy without much humor, maybe it can be saved by the acting? Bale is a frequent collaborator with the director (as is de Niro), and he is fully committed to his role; because of the film surrounding him, it doesn’t stand out, but he is dedicated. I’m most disappointed by Washington whom I loved in Tenet and BlackKklansman where I think he’s supposed to be the grounded character, but there’s just hardly any emotion in any of his lines. Robbie does the best of the three in my opinion, and Chris Rock delivers what humor there is. Shannon and Myers try to keep a running gag about bird watching, but it’s not funny from jokes one through five. Malek is pretty good, and Taylor-Joy leans in hard to her pompous character, but it feels like too much even though the exaggeration is added for “comedic” effect. And don’t come at me Swifties, but Taylor tries too hard, it feels like she’s in a play and not a movie. For what it’s worth, I squarely put the blame of my acting criticisms squarely on director Russell’s shoulders. I truly felt like I was watching the rehearsals for this film because it felt like they were still figuring everything out. I seriously can’t tell if some of the dialogue was just that bad, or was it an actor’s first efforts at improvising? These actors were not set up for success, and the final product suffers for it.

          I actually give high marks to the music. It has a very ethereal, dreamlike quality to it, and could’ve added depth to a better film. I would honestly nominate and very possibly win the score for an Oscar I think it’s that good, but this movie does not deserve to be called Oscar winner or nominated. It also breaks my heart to see that the director of photography is the goat Emmanuel Lubezki. Everything is shot with a very soft white backlight—also adding to that ethereal quality. Which is not inherently a bad thing, it just doesn’t really fit with this film. Or why we kept following characters from behind as they walked around. It was also slightly uncomfortable how much the film is shot from like waist height looking up at our characters.

          Amsterdam is really bad. I was enticed by all of the actors and actresses that I recognized and have adored in previous films. David O. Russell has also directed some great movies, including one of the best romantic movies of all time in Silver Linings Playbook. Apparently, this was enough confidence for the producers because this wasn’t a cheap film and appears to have bombed hard. As it truly should have too. You won’t feel bad or anything for watching this, but there’s just way better ways to spend two hours of your time. I do feel less bad about this movie flopping though because I guess Drake was an executive producer. Probably also why this movie sucks.

 

Spencer

Gillipedia Official Rating: Twilight star gets British. No, not actual British actor Robert Pattinson

Score: 4/10

          The only thing I knew going in was the film was supposed to be okay and elevated by star Kristen Stewart’s Oscar-nominated performance as Princess Diana. Knowing the slightly anxious quality of Stewart and the fact that this film’s entire aim is to focus on the mental strain Diana was going through at the time, this could be an interesting movie. It’s not.

          There’s not much that happens. The film does center around Diana and how there’s this mix of outside forces trying to control her life and herself trying to desperately control her own life despite what the royal family’s plans for her may be. And this concept isn’t a bad one. I think the execution is simply rudimentary. The issue is how flat the film is. It doesn’t feel like the anxiety, stress, and other mental illnesses ramp up enough, so we move from scene to scene without riding much of an emotional wave. Yes, later on we get some slight hallucinations, but we’re never punched in the face with stress, and this movie desperately needed some sort of jolt of emotions.

          Stewart isn’t the only other big name. He’s most recognizable to me from his days as Wormtail in Harry Potter, but famed British actor Timothy Spall is here, as is Sally Hawkins and her effortless smile and exuberant joy. The biggest side character, however, is the head chef played by Sean Harris. The film takes place over roughly a week, and during that time we hear Harris yell out the menu for the day every day. Sure, the food looks and sounds pretty good. And there’s a couple lines of dialogue during the film about the efforts of everyone involved with the making of the food, but beyond that, I didn’t get the point. Yes, I also get that the real life chef got to know Diana… but in a film already struggling to find that “it” factor, we’re slowed down even further by watching the kitchen. I don’t see a bigger meaning behind it except to make this feel more like a “legitimate” film by bringing it just under the two-hour mark.

          Despite Stewart’s efforts, I’ll be honest—I did feel like the whole time I was watching her try to do a British accent and never felt like I saw her get lost and absorbed into the character of Princess Diana. I also like the intentions of this film and its stress on mental health, especially on such a public figure. But from an actual storytelling perspective, the themes are far too light, and the scenes don’t have enough flavor. Whereas at least with Amsterdam you could see where the story was building up towards, there is never a far-reaching goal for our protagonist to aim for. Nothing to look forward to, no callbacks or foreshadowing with payoffs at the end. Spencer simply moves from scene to scene, relying on the laurels of Stewart, and it’s not nearly enough to carry this film.

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: Nothing but love to the Boseman family

Score: 8/10

          With the tragic passing of Chadwick Boseman, one of the most successful Marvel franchises had to pivot with its superhero Black Panther. From what I understand, Namor was always set to be the villain, and writer/director Ryan Coogler switched thematic elements and story points from there. The film does a solid job of paying tribute to Boseman, but it also wants to be a Black Panther movie, tie in elements of the TV shows, and set up future films as well. Everything is handled well, and this is ultimately a great movie that is the best Marvel movie of 2022—but that’s not the largest statement to make with Doctor Strange 2 and Thor 4 being the others.

          The best way to describe the mood of the film most of the way through is somber. And appropriately so. We start off with standout Letitia Wright’s Shuri unsuccessfully able to heal her brother from his sickness, so the film immediately addresses his death. Shuri acts as our new lead for the film, and she is a great actress, but this is really more of an ensemble film. Again, you have the other returning Black Panther characters like Winston Duke’s M’Baku, Angela Bassett as the queen, and Martin Freeman still playing an American. All of them get their time, then we get Namor’s backstory too, oh, and Shuri as the protagonist needs to have some form of an arc as well. And in terms of hero arcs, this is one of the weakest; the payoff at the end doesn’t feel naturally resolved or as thought-provoking or emotionally charged as it tries to be. As a common theme of this review, all scenes are well-made, but with how much needs to happen in the 2 hr 40 min runtime, there’s never enough time to let the emotions soak in. I think one of the biggest symptoms is I came in fully prepared to cry over Boseman and get goosebumps, and instead, everything was more muted.

          Where Multiverse of Madness only had moments of cool action but relied too heavily on CGI and Love and Thunder leaned in too far to the goofiness and only had the standout scene in that shadow realm, Wakanda Forever does still rise above these films thanks to the actors and director Coogler. This is some of the strongest acting I’ve seen in a Marvel film as you can tell everyone is giving it their all as their own personal farewell to Boseman, and Coogler is simply one of the more talented directors working today. The way scenes are shot doesn’t make you feel like you’re looking at visual effects, and the focus stays with the powerful faces of the actors. Also, the editing in the fight scenes are quick; however—and this is huge—you’re still able to see everything that happens and can tell thought went into the choreography.

          While Wakanda mourns its king, a new threat arises in the underwater nation of Talokan. Led by mutant Namor, they shock Wakandans by also having vibranium. Having suffered at the hands of slavers centuries ago, Talokans are willing to kill those from the outside world to keep themselves and their vibranium hidden. One early action scene blends horror elements where a nation uses a ship and some rigging to try drilling for vibranium out in the ocean, and some female Talokans mimic being sirens by singing and luring the workers out to the sea and to their death.

          While I am critical of the Marvel movies this year, one thing all of them, including this film, excel at is the villains. DC has always had the better villains, but Namor is another strong entry for Marvel. Since he is a mutant, he has the ability to swim underwater and breathe on land, and he even has wings on his feet. So this makes Black Panther 2 for 2 on awesome villains. The Wakandas can relate to the isolationist mentality of Talokans, but the heroes have more morality in not wanting to create an all-out war with the world. This creates a lot of the thematic elements, particularly with Shuri, on how far you will go for vengeance and if it’s even worth it in the end. And perhaps under normal circumstances, cutting away centuries ago to spend 10 minutes on Namor’s background would’ve been fine, but I think for this film it just dragged the film a bit too much. The middle of this film goes through all its story beats without pausing long enough for the audience to feel the weight of its implications. This is probably most evident when one of our characters dies over halfway through, and while shocking and sad, again, the tone felt more muted.

          With mostly solid visuals, strong music, obviously great costumes, and the focused efforts of the entire cast and director Coogler, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever is the best Marvel movie of the year. But with so much to accomplish with its own story as well as the MCU as a whole, the emotional impact is lost ever so slightly. This is a solid Marvel movie and is well made overall, but it doesn’t hit quite hard enough to be one of the elites.

Marcel the Shell with Shoes On

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: So wholesome I can’t even make a joke in this tagline

Score: 10/10

          I recently had the opportunity to do a bit of traveling for work, and part of that ritual is watching movies on flights. While I’m debating reviewing some of the others I watched, there was one clear standout, Marcel the Shell with Shoes On. This movie oozes wholesome content through a brisk runtime. For 90 minutes straight, I was grinning from ear to ear, even possibly with a tear in my eye from time to time.

          The best way to describe the first dozen minutes or so in terms of tone is honestly a bit like the opening of Up. There’s this montage-like quality as we’re introduced to our here, Marcel, who is… a shell… with shoes on. He’s only one-inch tall and lives in a suburban two-story house. His dialogue feels very stream of conscious as we’re guided through the house and watch how Marcel gets by on a daily basis— traveling inside a tennis ball or using a stand mixer attached to string to shake a tree to get fruit to drop. And where does this supply of string come from? Marcel’s answers and solutions to everything is always innocent, creative, and even a bit clever.

          There’s a couple other players to know. Marcel isn’t the only living inanimate object. There’s an older shell that Marcel calls Nana Connie, and a young man named Dean. It’s also worth mentioning at this point how the film actually looks. The house is live-action as is our human Dean, but Marcel and Nana are a mix of stop-motion and animation. Dean rents out the house as an AirBnB until he finds a new apartment, and upon discovery of Marcel, decides that he would make the great subject of a documentary. And that’s the style of how the film is shot. And it’s gorgeous. Playing with depth perception and those sun rays gleaming off a slightly dusty service, and then incorporating our adorable stop-motion protagonist is so thoughtfully crafted. This is an A24 film and comes fully with the expectations of how that studio’s films should look.

          Not only is the film endlessly wholesome, it’s surprisingly funny. Marcel has some great lines, but there’s many small moments too. My favorite example is Dean helping Marcel make a phone call. Marcel leaps from number to number on Dean’s smart phone until it starts ringing. We listen to the call while just to the side Nana is watching the scene unfold. And she’s casually standing on a laptop that’s open to a word doc, and since she’s on the “z” key, the doc slowly fills with “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”. It’s not the focus of the shot, they never call it out or bring attention to it, but it’s a fun, clever idea executed and timed so well.

          If I had to stoop low enough to find any critiques, it’s that the way the small conflict in the middle of the film plays out is a bit pedestrian and easy to predict where the movie is headed. Part of this involves Dean uploading a segment to YouTube and Marcel gaining popularity. Stupidly, Dean includes the outside of the house and this brings unwanted attention once the public figures out where the house is. Marcel feels responsible for something that happens a bit later, but Dean never remarks about this.

          But that’s not nearly enough for me to not recommend this film. The ending made me so happy that I genuinely was starting to tear up. I honestly haven’t kept up too much with animated films recently, but this is easily the best animated film of the year, and I’d also say it’s the most wholesome film I’ve seen in the last decade. It’s an incredible feat of filmmaking that the entire family will enjoy. I am a huge fan of many genres including films like Hereditary that fill you with dread, but you have to balance that out with good-feeling movies, and there’s no better choice than this film. Tis the season to put a smile on your face, and you’ll do just that by watching this movie. Cheers, everyone.

Smile :)

Gillipedia Official Rating: Missed opportunity to use McDonald’s old motto, “We love to see you smile.”

Score: 6/10

          Smile has all the highs and lows of horror films. It has some solid scares, an abundance of jump scares, and characters making frustrating decisions. It’s one of the most entertaining movies I’ve watched all year, but I can’t overlook its shortcomings from a storytelling perspective—hence, the mixed score.

          This film is basically a combination of the incredible It Follows and the classic but honestly overrated The Ring. Of the former film, there's a shot of our smiling creature taking the form of a giant person in a dark hallway-- almost the exact same shot from when It Follows hired the tallest man in the world for one of its scares. Our main character Rose is a therapist clearly still suffering from some childhood trauma. Things kick into gear when she’s called in to talk to a college student who witnessed her professor kill himself earlier in the week. The girl is frantic and paranoid, but we the audience know that this “thing” she vaguely describes is the menace of the film. She describes something that only she can see that told her she’s going to die today. Suddenly, she starts freaking out and exclaiming something is there. Then, calm. The girl looks straight at Rose, wearing a large, creepy grin, and slowly slices her throat open.

          What is revealed through the film is this evil spirit has now latched itself to Rose. It can take the form of any person with the common trait being an ear-to-ear grin and a slightly downward stare for maximum creepiness levels. The spirits like to first torment its prey, so Rose has roughly a week before the spirit will attempt to take over her body and force her to kill herself. So that’s the basic setup. What does the film do well, and where could it improve?

          First, they hired great people to be the evil spirit. The girl from the beginning who is frantic and passes the spirit to Rose is fantastic in all the different emotions she had to portray over the film. Outside of the film, they also had the best marketing campaign of recent memory having their actors attend stuff like baseball games and simply smile at the cameras for the entirety of the event. The way the spirit messes with Rose is fun in many parts, and one jump scare during the climax in particular stood out in getting me to actually flinch. The film also does its best to combine themes of past trauma to how the spirit continues to live and move from host to host and connects that with Rose. There’s creative uses of the spirit, and the sound design is far above typical horror films which made seeing this in theaters a big plus. Even the transition shots do their best to keep you feeling uncomfortable by showing you upside down shots—we as humans don’t react well to what we’re not used to.

          Lots of good stuff, right? Well, some of this bleeds into my critiques as well. There’s an overreliance on jump scares—one for opening cat food? C’mon. Since we all know this is building up to one night that actually matters, the scares along the way can feel like slight filler since even though they can be disturbing, we’re not too concerned about the consequences if Rose isn’t meant to die yet. There's also a lack of smiling imagery throughout. She sips from a smiley face mug in one scene, and stares at a doctor's chart with different levels of smiling with how you're feeling, but outside of those and the initial client's blood splatters forming a smile, I wanted to see more smiles out in the wild!

          But my biggest frustration is how much this movie relies on its characters being horror movie characters. Where the cast of It Follows logically comes up with a plan to deal with the creature from that film, Rose doesn’t think of the obvious solution to deal with the spirit until right before the ending—a conclusion I thought of at least 30 minutes earlier. Also, Rose is a therapist. You would think she could piece together how crazy her initial client looked and would more logically try to explain what’s happening to her; she even legitimately gets police reports of evidence—THIS CHICK GOT THE RECEIPTS—and instead frantically and crazily only yells stuff like, “I know I sound crazy, but you have to believe me! There’s something haunting me that only I can see!” And it’s not just Rose. We have the guy who plays A-Train in The Boys playing Rose’s fiancé, and despite him being a frustrating character, it’s actually for different reasons and is more unique from typical horror characters so I don’t mind that. But you also have Joel, a cop who took Rose’s statement after her client’s suicide and also some history with Rose that isn’t discussed in detail. He’s the one that helps Rose find out the information throughout the film, yet he acts even more clueless than her in what to do.

          The last frustration is with an ending that I have to imagine is meant to keep possibilities of sequels alive. If you’ve seen any generic horror or slasher film before, you’ll know what to expect. Which is a big reason why Barbarian from earlier this year to me is clearly the best horror film of this year over Smile. For those that have already watched this movie, I’ll go into spoilers after the end of this review on the easy fix to improve this movie.

          But if you haven’t seen Smile or don’t care either way, I’ll finish the review spoiler-free. From the way Rose acts around literally everyone, too much dependence on jump scares, and frustrating character decisions and the ending, this films refuses to rise above what has plagued horror films for years. But it’s also an easy to recommend movie because it is undeniably fun and scary nevertheless with some thrills that hint at good filmmaking. It’s some of the most fun I’ve had at the theaters this year, but the movie-lover deep down is disappointed in the missed opportunities. Keep reading if you’d like to hear me quickly fix this film while spoiling the end.

 

Spoilers ahead!! You’ve been warned. Multiple times. I can prove it. I too have the receipts and am not afraid to show them.

 

So, first things first. If the film wanted to be thematic by showing that Rose had finally overcome her grief of not helping her mom when she was 10-years old, then the film could’ve taken an It: Chapter Two approach and have her stand up to the monster and confidently boast how what happened wasn’t her fault. To be fair, this would also deprive us of the gnarly visual of the creature cracking her jaw open and literally climbing inside her body.

That’s solution 1. I prefer solution 2 that lets you keep the aforementioned visual. You can either let Rose keep this trauma or give her something else traumatic, but then you should’ve had Joel literally have that same situation where he stood by when someone committed suicide and he blames himself for it. Having that backstory sets up the spirit then transferring to him since he’s there to witness her suicide. That sets up the genuine stakes. Then, before Rose is able to light the match and douse herself in fire, you have Joel sprint to her and save her from the forced suicide. It thematically is consistent, provides a satisfying ending, and curbs the norms of a horror film. And if you’re worried about pacing by adding this extra backstory for Joel, there’s easily scenes you could either remove or cut back on to keep this film around that 2-hour range.

I feel like that’s a pretty quick and simple fix to really enhance this movie. But that’s also just one of my many opinions outlined here. Maybe you preferred this movie over Barbarian, think my rating is too harsh, or actually agree with a lot of what I said. Always happy to have discussions and hear others’ opinions, so don’t be afraid to reach out and let me know!

M. Night Shyamalan's Old

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: With this movie’s logic, you’ll age 6 months reading this review. Hope it’s worth it.

Score: 7/10

          Old is fun. I do have some gripes that I’ll get into, but this is a bit of a return to form for M. Night Shyamalan with one of the most unique premises in recent memory. 2 sets of families take a vacation at a resort. When they wind up on a beach off the beaten path, it doesn’t take long before our characters start acting strange and they realize that this beach is rapidly aging them. They will desperately try different methods unsuccessfully to escape as they race against the clock to get off the beach and figure out why this is happening.

          There’s a couple of recognizable actors and actresses without any standout performances, and that works well enough as the focus is on the character backgrounds and how that plays into the overarching narrative. Shyamalan famously inserts himself into his movies, and he gives himself one of the more important roles of the movie—which I think was a bit too distracting. To give you a sense of how quickly the characters are aging, each family has young children, and you can expect to see different actors and actresses come in to represent the aging children.

          One of the biggest focuses of the story is trying to predict how the audience will discredit the film. What I mean by this are the different thoughts we’ll all have. “Can they walk back through the cliffside valley they came in from? How far out from civilization are they if they swim?” These are the earliest questions you’ll think of and unsurprisingly are the first aspects to be addressed by the film. As the characters start showing the affects of aging, the questions become more in-depth. “Well, wouldn’t they need lots of sustenance if their bodies are aging? Are their minds aging, or is it just their bodies?” As you think more philosophically, the film begins to show a couple of cracks or provide 1-2 sentences of dialogue to quickly explain something away. Probably the biggest thing I’ll mention is that later on they do attempt to talk about what exactly is happening on the beach. And it’s one of the stupidest jarbled nonsense of science to make this film stay within the realm of realism.

          The actual mystery behind the beach is kind of dumb, but it’s not really a drag because the film keeps up a quick pace as the situation grows more dire. But what is easily the worst aspect of the film is how, including the mystery of the beach, the filmmakers felt like everything had to have a tidy bow and try to be as crisp as possible with its script and not trust the audience. Here’s probably the best example. A character shown skinny dipping early in the morning on the beach washes up while the 2 families are enjoying the beach, and that’s what kickstarts their realization of something off. They find the dead body, and then a few hours later, the body has reduced to bones already. The mom of the main family then provides the audience a rough timeline of how an hour on the beach must represent a few years on the beach; she explains how she comes to this conclusion because she works in a museum. And then everyone else's occupations explain how they know a specific detail of something too. Because people obviously aren’t allowed to have any basis of knowledge of the world if it isn’t directly tied who they are or what they do. The worst of this is from a character named Jarin. He’s exposition central and constantly provides one-sentence answers of what’s possible, what’s happening, or what they should do. There’s a cool visual late in the movie that was foreshadowed from the beginning of the beach, but in the middle of the visual, the character has to explain what is happening in the moment instead of allowing the audience come to that conclusion themselves. This is a relatively smart film that thinks the audience is pretty stupid.

          One thing that I briefly mentioned earlier is the mental effects. And the film felt inconsistent to me on the kids aging physically but staying the same mental age, but when the movie tries to slow down for a second for us to catch our breaths, it’s like our adult characters mature more with their age and settle the personal problems that initially plagued them. The main draw of this film is the thriller nature of rapid aging, but I feel like what could’ve pushed this film from fun thriller to genuinely great film would be to explore the psyche of the characters further. We see touches of this later in the film, but how the character backstories tie in to the story could’ve provided some poignant moments where the characters overcome the flaws that provided their motivation to come for a relaxing vacation in the first place.

          The film keeps at a great pace overall, but it also could’ve ended 5 minutes sooner as the film gloats too long about its ending and ties up all loose ends in predictable manners. How everything actually does come together is pretty smart and some of the effects on the characters are fun to see—like our adult characters starting to lose hearing or vision and how that’s portrayed on the screen. This movie is a mix of smart touches and over-explained plot points. It certainly has its flaws, but it is undeniably entertaining and one of the more unique films you’ll be able to find.

Shoo wee, we talkin bout Where the Crawdads Sing

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: Well ain’t this just the sweetest lil thang, only ain’t isn’t a word

Score: 7/10

          I think the best way to describe Where the Crawdads Sing is refreshing. You have the backdrop of North Carolina marshes filmed in Louisiana as the setting, the romantic love triangle plot elevated by the supposed murder involving the characters, and the very impressive Daisy Edgar-Jones playing a reserved, resourceful young woman. With themes of abuse and bullying, there’s added dramatic heft. Not quite everything lands with a punch, but with what has felt like oversaturation of mediocrity from 2022 films unwilling to take chances, this movie does a good job standing on its own two feet.

          We start the film with the discovery of Chase Andrews’ body. Taking place in the 50s, the police use small motorized boats on the hunt for suspects. They come across Daisy’s character Kya who attempts to flee in a panic. She’s caught, and as she’s thrown in jail, it’s obvious already that the townsfolk want her head as chants of “Marsh Girl” swirl around. David Straithairn approaches Kya’s cell and offers to represent her. She remains quiet, shying away from the world around; Straithairn takes a sympathetic cautious approach and says to think about his offer and he’ll return later.

          The next 25 minutes or so flashback over a decade to Kya as a kid. In what feels overhanded at first, her father is abusive and dominating. Her siblings and mother run away, and despite a terrible situation, Kya sticks it out. The marsh is her home, and she learns the key to surviving with her father is to stay out of the way. She befriends the black local convenient store owners, but her father ensures her contact with the outside world—including attending school—is limited to none. This includes a nice kid named Tate who goes fishing by himself in the marshes.

          Kya’s father soon disappears as well, and she’s then truly on her own. We primarily return back to adult Kya as she scrapes by a living. This is where Tate comes back into play. Having a history of people leaving her behind, Kya is understandably hesitant to grow attached to Tate. Continuing with this history and the themes of abuse, I’ll stop talking about the plot except to say that Chase Andrews comes into the fold as well; despite his jock-like charms that seems worlds apart from Kya, he is intrigued by her and she is able to find some solace in him as well.

          How the love triangle unfolds is the most by-the-books aspect of the film, but even this is redeemed with that lingering thought of what must have led up to the demise of Chase Andrews and how Kya is involved. And in that regard, we’re really only given a couple of options of what could’ve happened. There’s a lot of moving pieces to this film, but I still think there could’ve been more red herrings. But I will say I am really satisfied with how the case is resolved and the truth of what happened.

          Daisy Edgar-Jones is a great British actor, and so far I’ve seen her as a modern American woman in Fresh and now a real Southern gal in this. She looks just like a young Anne Hathaway, and continuing down the line, the actress that plays young Kya reminds me of a younger Abigail Breslin. The auditions for her love interests must’ve had the requirement of super strong chins because oh boy are they sharp. I think the directing is pretty basic and has some awkward delivery of lines with the kid actors, but I do appreciate how they shot the film at real locations. The Louisiana bayous provide some great shots, and having lived in North Carolina in 2021, it was fun to hear some shoutouts to cities there.

          The end credits are worth watching for the Taylor Swift song. I’m not like her biggest fan, but that song slaps—give her an Oscar nom. I haven’t read the book, but I’m guessing some lines were taken straight from the pages and translated really well to the screen. Some elements of the love triangle are simplistic and the themes can be just a bit heavy-handed, but all in all, I think I was missing a bit of Southern culture being up here in Wisconsin; this was one of my favorite movies of 2022 and easily receives my recommendation for anyone looking for a romantic movie.

Don't Worry Darling

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: Pretty sure a comma is needed in the title

Score: 5/10

          The score above might feel harsh. This isn’t a terrible movie. But it’s certainly also not great. It relies too heavily on shock factor moments and the reveal behind the plot, but the story has holes and the flow of the film is far too inconsistent. Since this is a spoiler-free review, we won’t talk heavily about the plot, but there’s plenty to discuss.

          Don’t Worry Darling had plenty of drama outside of filming. It’s the sophomoric film for director (and supporting actress) Olivia Wilde, and we have Florence Pugh, Harry Styles (yes, the guy who puts sugar on watermelons or something), and Chris Pine. A video went viral with Styles possibly spitting on Pine, and Styles’ relationship with Wilde appears to be quite rocky. In a strange way, it made the whole experience of watching the film more entertaining, but outside of that, none of the outside drama affects my scoring.

          Stars Pugh and Styles are lovers living in an idyllic community against what appears to be the backdrop of the 50s—think Marty McFly traveling to the past. While Pugh lovingly takes care of the house and day drinks with bff Wilde, their husbands, including Styles, go to work for the community company referred to as Project Victory. The leader is Pine, and he clearly comes across as charming and dominating; the community loves him, but it’s very apparent something else is happening.

          One of the best things Wilde captures as a director is the synchronicity of the daily activities (Pugh making coffee and breakfast and wiping windows, the husbands driving off to work). It’s hypnotizing to watch, and it only adds to that feeling of something off with the world around. From the very early scenes, I was getting huge The Truman Show vibes.

          The film is played as a psychological thriller as Pugh starts questioning everything, and nobody appears to take her seriously. And this is where the film falls flat most. If you watch the trailer for the movie, you’ll see quick moments like Pugh wrapping her face with plastic wrap, glass squeezing her against the wall while cleaning a hallway, crushing eggs without any yolk inside, etc. All of these moments are certainly engaging and slightly unnerving. But that’s also exactly what they are—moments. There’s never buildup to these actions—only occasional quick changes to obscure and somewhat abstract shots of stuff that are, again, in sync and played both forward and backward. And once the film reveals its revelation, it works but won’t blow you away. It fits well with the underlying narrative, but it won’t really shock anyone and leads to some plotholes.

          But the film is still entertaining! Florence Pugh can do no wrong, and if anyone is questioning Styles as an actor, don’t forget that Christopher Nolan gave him a substantial role in Dunkirk. Styles does overact sometimes, but he’s still fun. Pine is good, but he also does this small chuckle after going through all of his monologues. The best way to write out what his chuckle sounds like is: “heh heh.” And he does it way too much. The soundtrack is great, and the costumes are amazing.

          Don’t let the score get too much in your head. If you want a good time at the movies, you’ll probably enjoy Don’t Worry Darling. But it doesn’t succeed as much as it hoped. For an “R” rated film, it’s pretty tame in terms of disturbing content. I’ll defend only giving this a 5/10, but hey, I was still entertained at the end of the day.

Barbarian

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: Felt like a barbarian eating my popcorn watching this

Score: 9/10

          This is the best horror film of the year for me. It’s also the twistiest. So with that said, I’ll keep the details limited to preserve the experience for you when you take my advice to go watch this movie. And without much else at the theaters to pay attention to, now is a great time to check it out.

          I’ll say this much about it. We start off with our star Tess arriving to her AirBnB on a dark and stormy night. To her surprise there’s already a man there. His name is Keith, and he genuinely appears to be a normal guy, if a little reserved, wondering why there’s a woman at the doorstep in the middle of the night. It turns out that he rented the place using a different app, and rather than putting Tess out for the night, he invites her to come in just to be able to use the wifi and figure this situation out. You can see the skepticism and internal alarms going off in Tess’ eyes, but she relents. And of course with this being a horror movie, there’s more to this setup than meets the eye.

          It’s also absolutely worth noting that Keith is played by Bill Skarsgard. If his eyes look at all familiar, it’s because he played the titular clown in It. And that knowledge kept playing in my mind as Tess reluctantly stepped into the unknown house. In a great coincidence, I had just recently watched the horror film Drag Me to Hell from a decade ago. I don’t recommend that Sam Raimi directed flick; however, it has Justin Long playing the sweet, sympathetic boyfriend. Why do I bring this up? Well, the only other piece of information I’ll divulge is that he makes an appearance in this film.

          In a bit of a redundant statement, this movie starts immediately. What I described above consists of the first 10 minutes of the film. And this is a brisk film, but how does it fill the rest of the screentime? Well, that’s where the twistiness comes into play. But it takes more than the ability to make M. Night Shyamalan proud to create a great film. Without beating you over the head, Barbarian really impressed me by its ability to have me wonder about the morals of the characters and what the film is ultimately trying to say by the time the credits roll around. It’s not like material that you take to Sunday Bible School, but it scratches beneath the surface that say slasher flicks don’t even make an attempt at while being wildly entertaining.

          There’s plenty to rave about this film. The dialogue has a naturalistic feel to it. There’s a couple lines that feel closer to lazy writing, but it works really well overall. The score is also great. And one of my favorite things is how the film shoots its different characters. The film frequently is on Tess’ face, but we also get to peek over her shoulder. So as she faces forward, we’re squirming in our seats and wondering what might be behind her. In contrast, once Long makes his appearance, he brings about a carefree attitude like he won’t ever end up on the bottom no matter what life throws at him. Thus, he is shot more from behind as he frantically twists his head with no clear direction on what he’s doing.

          I am not familiar with leading actress Georgina Campbell, but she does a great job portraying a capable woman who is still aware of the dangers around her. Outside of a couple lines of dialogue, the only thing I feel like the film could’ve possibly improved upon was more of a character arc for the leading lady. But even writing out that critique, I have to recognize that not every movie needs to have the protagonist experience some sort of epiphany. The film had its goals with its story, succeeded, and excelled beyond what I was expecting in terms of simply being entertaining. So who is the barbarian of the film? In a twist piece of writing, I don’t reveal that answer. If you’re a fan of thriller horror films, you have to check Barbarian out.

Bird Box

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: Please don’t bring back the Bird Box challenge

Score: 6/10

          Bird Box is ultimately fine. There’s nothing egregious about it. But it does frustrate me in ways that I’ll discuss, and it also has the unfortunate circumstance of releasing after A Quiet Place and inevitably drawing the comparisons of being that movie except you can’t see instead of speak. It’s really more like M. Night Shymalan’s The Happening but better. Where the aforementioned film has people killing themselves for smelling the roses, Bird Box has people commit suicide after seeing some “creatures”.

          The film begins with a tense situation where our hero, Sandra Bullock’s Malorie, tells her 2 kids that they have to make a journey down a river blindfolded. It’s a fun premise, sets the tone appropriately, and introduces us to our main character in what feels like a post-apocalyptic setting. And it’s just enough of a tease for when it flashes back 5 years to Bullock pregnant and talking with her sister Jessica—played by Sarah Paulson—about mass suicides happening across Europe. During a prenatal visit at the hospital, the mysteries from the East have suddenly made their way over to the U.S., and Malorie and Jessica frantically start driving back while chaos ensues around them. Jessica is presented as the level-headed sister while Malorie doesn’t appear to have taken to the role of an expectant mother yet. But when Jessica’s eyes appear to simultaneously glow yet appear blank, she rambles about their mother and drives their car into incoming traffic. Malorie gives her best efforts to stop this episode, but the car crashes, Malorie escapes, and she manages to get people inside a house to let her in.

          This sets up the main focus of the story. We’re introduced to many characters in a classic apocalyptic setting now together all trying to survive. But as their story continues, it periodically flashes forward to Malorie and her 2 kids on the river; we assume we know the fate of everyone in the house, but there’s still the intrigue of what happens next and the hope that we as an audience want things to end well in both timelines—although we both know that’s more than likely not the outcome. So that’s the goal of the movie: make us care about the characters in the house knowing full well that all except Malorie and her unborn child most likely won’t make it. Oh, and before we talk about this more, I do need to address that on the river, Malorie calls the kids “Boy” and “Girl”. While I can see this as something you can get away with in a book, it feels hollow and too sharp from Malorie. Anyway, keep reading this review, People.

          The characters in the house are my biggest frustration with the film. We have all the stereotypes at this party: two young adults who are horny because they’re young, a sweet old lady, the grumpy old man who wants everyone off his lawn, a comedic relief, and the charming and caring romantic interest. Oh, and there’s also BD Wong who doesn’t fit any mold actually and isn’t actually trying to genetically mutate a giant dino for the literal, what would it be, 5^th film. Soon afterward, there’s a knocking at the door, and a young, sweet pregnant woman joins their crew as well.

          There’s some scenes with genuine tension like when they run out of supplies and take a car to the supermarket (they cleverly use GPS and detection systems on the car since they black out the windows) and back on the river when a crazy man encourages them to open their eyes. But since it’s proven that if they don’t look out at the open world they’re fine, some other scenes’ tension feels more manufactured. I do have to compare this to A Quiet Place. Yes, I understand the novel Bird Box is based off was released prior to A Quiet Place; however, I can still compare the quality of story and filmmaking and not run into the debate of originality between the two. But I digress. Whereas John Krasinski’s film introduces the malevolent creatures in the opening scene, we never see the creatures of this film. The rules feel more defined and it’s interesting to see how the characters in A Quiet Place have adapted to survive. Bird Box puts less emphasis on their vague creatures and focuses more on the characters. But that does put the mindset of, “Okay, just don’t look outside,” in my mind; plus, I didn’t find the Bird Box characters well fleshed out—which is central to the success. You learn a little about the creatures and their effects and how it affects the outside world, but it honestly isn’t as compelling as A Quiet Place.

          I see what Bird Box was going for, and all in all, it’s entertaining. The latter half is better with the focus being on Malorie, Boy, Girl, and the love interest Tom. John Malkovich plays a pretty decent role, and Lil Rel Howery is obviously the comedic relief. While I find A Quiet Place a true masterpiece in its execution of horror, Bird Box has some solid moments as well as more phoned in portions. But if you take it compared to The Happening, it’s basically what that movie could’ve been. If you haven’t watched it yet, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it enough. But for those that have already seen it, I have a feeling if you go back to it, you’ll see where I’m coming from in it not being as complete a film as it wants to be. Oh, and it took the birds thing from War of the Worlds. Sorry about it.

Predator Vs. Prey

 

Predator Official Rating: No, this is not a documentary about Ezra Miller

Score: 5/10

Prey Official Rating: Fifty Shades of Prey. Or Eat. Prey. Love. Or The Prey Man. Or...

Score: 8/10

          The original Predator movie is a well-beloved classic of the 80s. It’s spawned a series of sequels that I haven’t bothered to watch yet. But with the biggest film debut on Hulu, the concept of Prey as a prequel set 300 years in the past with the Comanche tribe in America serving as the setting and stars definitely intrigued me. And these two films are very different. The original is a cheesy action flick with loads of gore and big guns probably beloved by people that will change their mind upon a rewatch, and Prey is a much more cinematic and intimate experience with surprisingly good action to round it out. Let’s discuss.

          Predator has interesting elements about it. The story is completely irrelevant about hired mercenaries set on a rescue mission in the jungle or something of the sort. Again, doesn’t matter, and thankfully, they only bother with like 5 minutes of exposition before welcoming the characters to the jungle. The action is often classically over-the-top with unlimited rounds unloaded from firearms, ridiculously big and unnecessary explosions, and an overall sense of machismo that has since been characterized maybe by the likes of Michael Bay. Beyond that, however, you have star Arnold Schwarzenegger spewing lines cheesier than his Mr. Freeze character. But you also have the iconic Predator villain itself that has now infamously faced off against the xenomorphs from Alien and brings about the slasher horror genre to this film.

          The Predator creature has cool design elements, but since this is the original film, it also makes it hard to know what its actual threat level is, and some of its cooler elements aren’t revealed until halfway or even later into the film. Since much of its attack is centered around stealth, don’t expect to see much of the Predator in the film. Some of the kills are admittedly pretty cool, but there’s also an excess of gore that wasn’t to my liking.

          The stars are Arnie and Carl Weathers. All of the acting is really bad, but Weathers is the best and is surprisingly almost as ripped as Arnold. No joke, the most impressive thing about this film are the guns—and I’m not referring to firearms. The film’s cheesy elements weren’t entertaining enough for me, and the more horror sci-fi elements courtesy of the Predator were too few as well. The music from Alan Silvestri holds up really well and stands out from the same score that many action flicks currently seem to be using. Ultimately, for those that remember this film fondly, I don’t think you’ll enjoy it as much now because it’s honestly sub-par.

          Whereas Prey does just about everything it can to not only be a fresh and innovative take on the franchise, I truly believe it is far better than the original. This is not a perfect film, but the setting is interesting, this Predator is cool, and the action is far superior to the recent Marvel films (as far back until Shang-Chi because the choreography in that one is amazing).

          Taking place 300 years ago with a Comanche tribe, our heroine is trying to prove that where her talents and heart lie is actually out on the hunts. I watched this movie in English, but I’ve heard there’s a subtitled option where they speak the native language. Also can appreciate the culturally appropriate cast, but I do have to admit that the acting here isn’t the best either. But our main lead who looked like Aubrey Plaza to me is good enough.

          The dialogue is the weakest aspect of the film, but luckily, it’s pretty sparse overall. This also lends to the fact that since a large aspect of the film are the characters out on hunts, there’s not going to be many conversations had during this time. It’s a more intimate experience and really feels like you’ve been dropped in this era in history with the added sci-fi horror element of the Predator thrown in for good measure. Where the original overused guns and explosions, the (presumably) historically accurate use of weaponry adds the suspenseful element of how will these characters take down this powerful creature with the tools at hand.

          Portions of the score reminded me of The Last of the Mohicans, and I honestly wish they just riffed from the movie even more because the score from that film is incredible and works pretty well in Prey. And I know I said it earlier, but this film is simply cinematic. It reminds me of an indie film needing to stand out with clever practical shots, but this film has the benefit of a solid budget. Not only does the Predator look great, some of the realistic animals they create (a bear for instance) look better than other films I’ve seen recently because they don’t try having the animals perform weird gestures that feels outside of the bounds of reality which is the typical giveaway of something looking “fake.”

          If I had to sum it up, this film is like the videogame Horizon Zero Dawn mixed with the style of Eternals director Chloe Zhao. I’ve given her plenty of crap for the atrocious Nomadland, but I have given consistent praise of her landscape shots. And this film often shoots around waist-high for characters so that you have a view of the beautiful sky; to me it’s the film’s way of saying, “Look at me. We’re shooting this outside and not just on some green screen stage.”

          A couple action elements from the climax aren’t very believable, but there’s really dynamic fight choreography and Predator kills that raise this film from a competent sequel to being one of the best action films I’ve seen this year. When you compare that to the utterly unbelievable traps Arnie sets up for the Predator in like a couple of hours that would actually easily take one man weeks to do, there’s no competition on which is the better film. Not only do I say if you’re going to watch any film in the franchise, make it Prey, I’d make it required viewing for films that have come out in 2022.

House of Gill, Review of Gucci

 

Gillipedia Official Rating: Lady Gucci tries to save the day

Score: 6/10

          Do I care about Gucci? No, not really. Was I aware that there was a dramatic familial Italian drama behind the story of the company? Not in the slightest. And going into this film, I wasn’t shaking at the bits to learn the history. But when I see Lady Gaga and Adam Driver are being directed by Ridley Scott—that catches my interest. I feel like the marketing really oiled up the star-studded cast hoping to drag them along to the finish line of an Oscar-baity checker flag. This film has the stars and the budget and the conceit of being based on a real life story. So if you took a peak at the score above, why is the end result muddled and ultimately pretty meh?

          Well, it’s not because of Gaga. Following up her Oscar-nominated performance (where she should’ve won) from A Star is Born, Gaga shines as Patrizia, an Italian who tries to fit in with social classes above her while working for her father’s humble transportation business. The first third of the film is following her around as she meets the shy Maurizio played by one of this generation’s best talents in Adam Driver. He hopes of becoming a lawyer and doesn’t flaunt his Gucci family’s wealth. Patrizia clearly makes most of the moves in the relationship, and that balance of her ambition and his quiet intellect makes a solid couple. Holding back from a range of golf puns, Jeremy Irons plays Driver’s father. He considers Patrizia to be a bogey match for his son, and when Maurizio talks of marrying the girl, Irons boots him off the green and forces him into the bunker. Undeterred by his father’s disowning, Driver makes his way to Patrizia’s house to ask for her hand in marriage as well as a job at her father’s business.

          If the first third focuses on the stars’ relationship, the second act is Patrizia slowly inserting Maurizio back into the high-end clothing family business and thus getting herself involved as well. Irons’ brother is played by Pacino who instantly takes a liking to Patrizia and tells her to come visit the store in New York. While Pacino has a strong grip on the business, he has also come to terms with his bumbling son Paolo played by an unrecognizable Jared Leto. While most of the cast either embraces a subtle Italian accent or honestly doesn’t make an effort, Leto goes full-on Super Mario Bros. mama mia I uh cannota believa you coulda do this toa me! with his accent. And honestly, I’m here for it. Yes, it’s the clear comedic relief and brazenly over-the-top, but the contrast from the serious acting from everyone else is actually welcome.

          That’s enough for now about the story. Let’s discuss execution. Because aside from Leto, this movie over two and a half hours plays too much into family drama without being nearly as compelling as other Italian families like say The Godfather or any number of Scorcese films. But it also has an occasional inkling to think it is also a comedy, or at least it wants to insert enough comedic elements to pass the runtime along. There are moments that maybe are played for laughs? I’m honestly not sure or if the pacing and delivery of lines was just a little weird for serious dialogue.

          Outside of the film’s inability to hone in on a genre, it sadly also suffers from story. I think Gaga’s rise into the family business with her husband there as the bloodline name is pretty good overall. And we get about an hour and fifteen minutes worth of that content. If you’re not familiar with the story, you may have seen Salma Hayek also make an appearance in one scene and thought that was a bit weird—probably could’ve left that on the chopping block. Only, to actually tell the story of Gucci, it turns out the film has to pivot into new territory. The film is forced to change its pathway narratively due to the real-life circumstances, so after the halfway mark, House of Gucci really starts going downhill. Patrizia drives a wedge between Maurizio and his family, and he in turn becomes more and more obsessed with wealth and his newfound interest of behaving however he so chooses. What was built up over the first half feels thrown to the wayside a bit; I won’t say why, but it feels more like they were forced to reach the end point of the story rather than having the characters naturally progress toward the conclusion.

          The end result of Gucci has interesting criminal undertones and how the stars are ultimately involved; however, how we get to this point is disjointed among how this story is told. Combine that with a confused tone and it leaves a slightly sour taste in your mouth. But Gaga and a subtle Driver both shine. The makeup and hair people on Gaga alone deserve an Oscar, and the production design of this glamorous family is quite engaging to watch. Leto is wonderfully bizarre, and the characters overall are varied in their personalities. There’s parts to appreciate, but the end result isn’t altogether satisfying. When you don’t rise to the level of the Oscars when that is the clear intent, the film falls flat. House of Gucci ends up being par for the course. There it is, one last golf pun.