#Movie #Review #TheEternals: A Flawed, Muddled Effort [Stephen Abbott's blog]

In Marvel's The Eternals, ancient alien beings who have been living on Earth in secret for thousands of years come out of the shadows to reunite against mankind's most ancient enemy, the Deviants.

In what sounds like a perfect setup for a Marvel film, it is ultimately ruined by a muddled plot, sloppy dialogue, and far too many characters to keep track of, or care for.

The film starts out as a fairly good origin story for nine eternal beings who come to Earth around 5000 BC to protect humanity from the Deviants, porcupine-like creatures that are hell-bent on destroying humanity in its infancy.

They accomplish this initial goal early on, but the characters are shown remaining on guard duty for humanity throughout history, often with the story jumping back and forth in time to the present day, then back to the 1500s, and earlier, which quickly got confusing with nine characters involved.

While much has been made of the "politically correct" nature of the film, in part because it features characters (and actors) of several different nationalities, and includes both a deaf and gay characters for the first time in Marvel history (as far as we know)  we have to remember that this film, like all films today, are not only produced, but also shown, worldwide, and will likely make more money in China and Europe than in the US.

Indeed, the film was directed by Chinese-born Chloé Zhao, the first time for her as a director in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it will probably be her last.

(That said, the film has been banned in certain Arab countries because of the gay character, which features a minor, and brief, gay kiss between him and his husband that the directors would not cut from the film. Political Correctness is a double-edged sword in many parts of the world.)

Richard Madden plays Ikaris, who's who is prone to fly like Superman and even shoot lasers out of his eyes like Superman. Basically, he's Superman.

Adding some real star power to the film is Salma Hayek as Ajak who is ostensibly the leader of the group, and whose Secret knowledge of the mission they are undertaking on Earth is one of the true surprises of the film

Also, Angelina Jolie plays Athena, whom ancient peoples actually believe is the goddess of the same name. Jolene's character is haunted by a demon-like presence that makes her dangerous to the other eternals. While an interesting plot point, it kind of makes her character unreliable and sidelines her. 

With someone of that caliber playing a character in your film, you don't want something like this happening to her, making her basically a bit player.

Barry Keoghan is Druig, who is a sympathetic character, in that he wishes humanity would stop fighting one another. He wants to use his massive psychic abilities to control people's minds to make that instantly happen, worldwide, but is stopped by Ajak, who insists that they not interfere with humanity's progress.

Don Lee is Gilgamesh, who is a fearsome fighter, but seems to just rely on his brute strength here rather than any superpower.

All of these characters have something good to do, but as the film progresses, it is revealed that their mission is less than altruistic towards humanity. This moral ambiguity makes them less than heroes, which doesn't bode well for any sequel.

But the major problem with the film remains the characters' development. With nine new characters to introduce, there was always going to be a problem getting to know them all in an in-depth way, so that we cared about their mission and about them, personally. When main characters die here - and they do - many viewers are more likely to say, "Oh, well" rather than express shock.

The teenage-like chatter between some of the Eternals, akin to "Does he like me or not?" is childish and tedious, even if it's an on-again-off-again romance over 500 years and not over science class in a high School romance film.

Not content with this blizzard of characters in the film itself, the standard MCU post credits scenes (yes, there are two of them!) introduce three new characters to the Universe, although one of them appeared in the film posing as a human companion of one of the Eternals, hiding their superhero identity. 

A final twist in the end of the movie, in which three of the Eternals are abducted and taken somewhere off Earth, is meant to be dramatic, but is literally post-climactic, and it leaves audience members not really caring, even though it is likely the setup for an anticipated sequel.

It's doubtful such a sequel wilsl happen. Early Rotten Tomatoes numbers were terrible (now standing at 47% critics, 80% audience. 2017's Thor: Ragnarok was 93%/87% by comparison)

Fans of the comic book upon which this film was based are said to be unhappy with how the director interpreted the characters, some of which are said to bear little resemblance to the Eternals comic book series, and took liberties with the characters' traits.

Issues have been raised by the short character in the post-credit scene, but this is most evident in the Druig character, which in the comic books was portrayed as sadistic and evil, working undercover for the Soviet KGB as a torturer. In the film, as noted above, he sought universal peace.

Verdict: See this at a cheap matinee or when it streams.

#Movie #Review #Dune (2021)

In Dune, the 2021 film by director Denis Villeneuve, which is closely based on the 1965 book by Frank Herbert, Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) is a young man born on the planet Caladan, a lush, earth-like planet in the distant future (22,000 years in the future, 10,200 years after the Imperium was established, according to the book.)

He's the son of a Duke (Oscar Isaac) and has a destiny ahead of him as the future head of his family, the House Atreides. But he has an even greater destiny ahead of him that he can't even dream of. 

His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) however, can, and has dreamt it, as a member of the mystical quasi-religious Order, the Bene Gesserit. She begins to prepare Paul for some of the challenges he must face to determine whether he is "the One" foretold in prophesy by the Order.

His life begins to veer off towards that destiny when his family is ordered by the emperor of the Galaxy to take control of the planet Arrakis, which produces the mysterious "spice" that it's used to help spaceships fly and is incidentally a hallucinogen, created by huge sandworms that make the desert treacherous - and the entirety planet is covered by the desert.

The family, when they arrive on the planet, struggle to adapt to their new environment, which seems completely hostile to them, as it was to their previous occupiers, the Harkonnen family, who bear a grudge against the Atreides'.

We immediately take a shine to the boy and his family as they make their way through a maze of imperial intrigue and deceit, and learn of the messianic legacy Paul may have ahead of him. And even before leaving his home planet, he begins having a dreams about a mysterious girl on Arrakis, dreams that intensify once he inhales the Spice.

Every shot of this LONG, two and a half hour film is a visual masterpiece. Music by Hans Zimmer is spectacular, as well, adding a touch of wonder and mysticism to every act.

The film unwinds slowly, but it's all necessary, given the total alien nature of the plot. Because of this, it's not necessary for you to know the story before walking in the theater, but it does help if you've read the book or have seen the 1982 film that precede it, which is a lot shorter, but does not cover a lot of what's on the book.

Or, I should say, the first half of the book, because the director focused only on the first half of the book in this first installment.

This film is more complete than the 1982 film, and it's in fact the first of two, or even three, films the director hopes to film, using the author's source material (Herbert wrote several books about the Dune universe.)

Movie #2 is already green lit by the studio, and comes in October, 2023, with filming starting next year, which seems to be rushing things, given how sweeping and detailed this one is. "Epic" seems too small of a word for this film.

Even if you hate science fiction, you might like this film's story, which is Shakespearean. 

But Sci Fi, this definitely is, and the battle scenes are big, with ships, including airships that can lift heavy objects by inflating huge balloons, and the dragonfly-like Ornithopter, delightful to behold. My jaw dropped at the alien technology here. Yours will, too.

Five stars, if that matters.

#Movie #Review #CryMacho

In 1978, Mike Milo, a onetime rodeo star and washed-up horse breeder (Clint Eastwood)  takes a job from an ex-boss (country singer Dwight Yoakam) to bring the man's young son (Eduardo Minett) home and away from his alcoholic mother (Fernanda Urrejola) who doesn't care much for the boy, other than as a bargaining chip with his father.

Eastwood's character is given the mother's address in Mexico City, and she gives him extremely good instructions on where the boy could be found - in an illegal cock fighting arena - but later she seems upset that he found him.

Crossing rural Mexico on their back way to Texas, the unlikely pair, who often clash, faces a challenging journey, during which the world-weary horseman teaches the boy what it means to be a good man.

Along the way, Eastwood's character finds an unlikely partner in a much younger woman, Marta (Natalia Travern) who runs the cafe in the kind of dusty village Clint Eastwood that always showed up in westerns of old. Marta is a widow who runs the cafe and cares for her three young granddaughters.

I enjoyed the movie on a certain level, but the plot was very slow, and so was 91-year-old Clint, who didn't walk, so much as shuffled, throughout the film, which at times was painful to watch.

His voice was quiet and rapsy, which made it hard to hear his lines sometimes. For his age, he did a serviceable job, but clearly it was a stunt double in that ring with a wild horse he tamed. 

In retrospect, Eastwood, who produced, directed, and starred in the film, should have passed off the acting duties to a younger man in his 60s. I don't want to say he acted poorly in the film, but it wasn't up to his usual high standards.

The boy actor, Minett, has a great future in acting, and so does the rooster, who saved the day and steals the scene more than once!

Fernanda Urrejola, the rather deliciously evil mother here, is starring in the Netflix series Narcos, and acts in both Chile and Mexico.

I tentatively recommend the film, which is based on a 1975 novel of the same name by Richard Nash (who co-wrote the film's screenplay) because of the sweet story, but go into it knowing that something is lacking up on the screen.

#Movie #Review #Cruella

(Spoilers included!)

Disney's Cruella open to mixed reviews in late May, 2021, but it is well worth seeing and works as an Origin Story for this dastardly Disney character.

We first see her as Estella, a young girl who is born with her trademark black and white hair. From the beginning, she is a difficult child for her widowed mother, who puts her in a boarding school, where she is warned to be Estella, not a "Cruella."

She does not heed the advice, and gets in fights and causes other problems which results in her being expelled.

After her mother's death at the hands of a mysterious person living in a grand mansion, Estella ends up in 1970s London.

She quickly falls in with two young boys who earn their way in life as pickpockets and thieves. The two 12-year-old actors do an admirable job playing the Dickensian characters.

She stays with the young scamps over 10 years, and they become her surrogate family. But she wishes and hopes for more than the petty theft that keeps them alive, knowing that she has a great skill: designing clothing. One day, she's instantly hired by a designer, but is just put to work, Cinderella-like, scrubbing floors and toilets.

Frustrated, and in a drunken stupor (in a Disney film!) one evening after work, she re-does the front window of the fashion house's department store.

When the Baroness, who runs the fashion line "House of Liberty" (played by Emma Thompson) sees the dramatic window display the next day, she instantly hires Estella.

The relationship between the two Emma's is strained from the beginning. If anyone has seen The Devil Wears Prada, they will recognize the dynamic as one very similar to that between Anne Hathaway's Andrea and Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly. But the difference here is that unlike Miranda Priestly, the Baroness has a grudging admiration for Estella's talent as a designer from the start. 

But the tide turns when Estella realizes that the Baroness is responsible for her mother's death, and later learns who she actually is.

Surprisingly perhaps, for a Disney film, there is amazing depth of character here in the two leads.

The baroness character is the villain in the piece, rather than Cruella, who comes across as conflicted and sympathetic.

This is a big change from previous incarnations of the character by Disney. In the 1961 animated film 101 Dalmatians, she is portrayed as evil incarnate, hell bent on turning dogs into a coat. 

The live-action film of the same name in 1996, starring Glenn Close, stayed true to the storyline of a maniacal woman who wanted to turn the dogs into coats. That film, unlike this recent one, was deliberately over the top in its character portrayals, basically making it a live-action cartoon. An interesting bit of trivia is that Glenn Close was an executive producer of Cruella, as was Emma Stone.

But this film, which should be seen more as a reboot than a sequel or prequel to the previous Disney efforts, has the lead character explicitly telling another character that she did not turn the Baroness's three Dalmatians into coats, despite wearing a suspiciously dotted coat during one of her fashion events.  In fact, the character loves dogs in this film, and even has one as a pet.

She chalked it up to a malicious rumor when asked about it, one no doubt she was promoting herself in order to boost her image as a ruthless designer.

That kind of sophisticated thought coming from a character in a Disney film isn't really expected. But because she actually didn't kill the dogs, or even attempt it, we are allowed to sympathize with her plight as an orphan who has been wronged.

No doubt adhering to new Oscar rules, the film includes a diverse cast, including Kirby Howell-Baptiste, as a starry eyed reporter who knew Estelle as a child, and John McCrae, who plays an effeminate second-hand clothing store owner who befriends Estelle, and later helps her when she becomes Cruella.

The film is a veritable linen closet of film tropes from the past. As mentioned above, the almost obvious nod to The Devil Wears Prada, but since this is an origin story of an orphan whose parent has been killed, one could also say Batman can be found here as well. And like Batman, and other superheroes, Cruella struggles internally here with hatred for her foe, a hatred that she knows is changing her.

Cruella is therefore a Scarlett O'Hara figure, who latches onto people and does what she needs to do to survive. Because she has not crossed the line and actually murdered her opponent, or the dogs, she can remain sympathetic to audiences.

I have to mention the wonderful soundtrack to this film, which takes place in the 1970s. One film reviewer noted, "A punk song in a Disney film! Punk is dead!" 

Artists included Queen, Supertramp, The Doors, Ike and Tina Turner, Blondie and The Clash. Actor John McCrae recorded a cover of The Stooge's raucous 1969 song, "I Want to be Your Dog," for the film's soundtrack.

Expect at least one sequel, which is already in development.

#Movie #Review: #WonderWoman1984 [Stephen Abbott's Blog]

WONDER WOMAN 1984 REVIEW

(MINOR SPOILERS)

I'll start this review by saying that if you haven't seen Wonder woman 1984 yet, go see it, and go see it in an actual movie theater, if one is open in your area.

That's not to say it's the best film ever (more in a couple of sentences) because it actually isn't. But you should go see it to get out of the house and to experience the big, boisterous thing that it is on the screen, and because you deserve to be around other people at this point.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let me tell you what I really think about this film.

As I said, it's big, and boisterous, and it's filled with lots of action, explosions, and drama. That's not to say it's a James Bond film. James Bond films are a lot more believable than this one, which is, after all, based on a comic book.

It involves fantasy, not reality. And silly fantasy, at that. That is abundantly clear when you consider how one of the characters from the previous Wonder Woman film (which was indeed wonderful!) is brought back to life in this film.

I won't ruin for you HOW Wonder Woman's man, Steve comes back after being killed off in the last movie, because it's central to the plot. But you might have heard about it already, and it's morally troubling once you think about the implications.

Let's just say you are going to love the intro to this film, which is a flashback to Diana's past as a child on the Amazonians' home island, Themyscira. Young Diana is played by the wonderfully talented 13-year-old Lilly Aspell, a Scottish actress who is quite a gifted horseback rider, and performed all her own stunts in the film. 

I was surprised to learn she's the same actress who played young Diana in the 2017 Wonder Woman movie as well. She has a bright future ahead of her. Director Patty Jenkins deftly weaves in elements of this early story later in the film.

The very end of the movie (post credits) also includes a wonderful scene that I will not spoil here, but the fact that I'm calling attention to the front and the back of this film being the most notable parts should say something about the center of the film. It's a hot mess in places!

But there was a lot to like here. From the trailers you can tell that it's quite nostalgic. And for someone who was in high school in 1984 like myself, it was a rather fun romp through that era.

While I would have liked to have heard a lot more music from the era in this film (which would have made me buy the soundtrack in a heartbeat) I enjoyed seeing the clothing, the styles and the cultural references like breakdancing that Jenkins brought to the screen.

Some have brought up anachronisms. like showing video on 1980s era computer screens (they lacked that capability) and the poster for a punk band on the wall was actually from a post 1984 concert, and in the south, not Washington DC. 

A t-shirt shown in the film (the Cro-mags' "Age of Quarrel") allegedly came from a punk band's 1986 album by that name, but the shirt was actually given to Jenkins by the band's lead singer John Joseph, and he says it was actually recorded in 1984. Okay.

And while finding anachronisms is really fun - I nitpicked and found Back to the Future mistakes for 35 years, after all - we can't get bogged down in too much of that.

Pedro Pascal was at times well cast as businessman Maxwell Lord, but the performance and the way it was written was mostly over-the-top. I guess that was either an acting choice or a directing choice on the part of Jenkins, and we have to remember it was a comic book role, after all. But in many scenes, it was distractingly bad.

Still, I understood the character and in the end, and even emphasized with him, based on his epiphany.

Gal Gidot is excellent as Diana. Some found her performance a bit wooden, but I found her to be charming and mature in the role after two outings on the screen.

The actress portrayed Diana's adaptation to the 1980s beautifully. And she instructed Chris Pine's character quite efficiently. 

MINOR SPOILERS HERE (Perhaps too efficiently, because the script has Pine's Steve Trevor - who is directly from World War I - calling a plane a jet, and then immediately flying it, without any training! It's things like this that stretch credulity beyond its breaking point. Yes, even in a film with an invisible jet!

Kristen Wiig was pretty interesting as "Cheetah."  I was not familiar with this character in the comic books before the film, so I don't know if it was adapted there the same way, or differently. 

But the character seemed to be a little "off" for some reason, a role certainly not well-developed in this film. When she played the mild-mannered Barbara Minerva, with her oversized glasses and awkward mannerisms, she was the most effective. 

When she turned into Cheetah, the archenemy of Wonder Woman, I had trouble believing that the transformation was as quick as it was on screen. Again, I know this was probably covered over several comic books over many years, but it just didn't "click" onscreen here.

But again, overall this was a pretty good effort by Jenkins and the cast here. Go see it for the explosions, car chase, and fantasy. Ignore the anachronisms and over-the-top acting in places. It's worth a ticket in a real movie theater. Or, if you must, or have to, it's even worth the subscription to HBO Max.