#Movie #Review: Spider-Man: No Way Home Has Surprises, And A Caring Heart

Great visuals, good villains an okay plot and one, big (if expected) plot twist make Spider-Man: No Way Home the hit of the winter. It drew record pandemic-era crowds to theaters, and took in almost a billion dollars in box office, which is quite amazing.

(SPOILERS BELOW)

Tom Holland does an excellent job as the latest incarnation of Spider-Man in this latest film, which follows his outing as Peter Parker to the world. 

Struggling with the burden of everyone knowing his secret identity, however, is too much emotional baggage for him to bear, and he asks fellow Avenger Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) to cast a spell that lets everyone in the world forget that Spider-Man is Peter Parker (with the exception of his closest friends) something that was maliciously revealed about Parker at the end of the previous Spider-Man film, Far From Home (2019.)

The spell actually works too well, drawing in not only several villains from multiple universes, but (and here is the big spoiler, that was ruined by several studio leaks) two previous Spider-Man actors, Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire. 

Together, the three Spider-Men tackle the villains in a climactic scene at the Statue of Liberty in New York City. But in a vain attempt to repair the rift in space-time, Doctor Strange is forced to cast a spell that makes even Spider-Man's friends, including his high school girlfriend, played convincingly by the 25-year-old actress Zendaya, forget that Spider-Man is actually Parker.

The post credit scene indicates that Doctor Strange will be continuing his battle against the torn-apart multiverse, which was ruptured by his hasty spell-casting on behalf of Spidey.

The film carries with it a lot of surprises and clever dialogue, as can be expected from a Marvel film. The three actors playing Spider-Man are given a lot of this clever dialogue, and seeing them together is an incredible treat.

The audience cheered when the two actors come through a portal summoned by Strange's magic (but temporarily wielded by Parker's friend, Ned - played by Jacob Batalon.)

Holland doesn't take the easy way out, though, instead insisting on helping the villains create a better life for themselves before being sent back through the portal into their own universes, curing  them of the ills that torment them.

Spider-Man's caring heart for these otherwise irredeemable villains is an incredible message of selflessness playing out on screens.

The only criticism that could be leveled against No Way Home is that perhaps there were too many villains claiming the action. Marvel films are often incredibly crowded to begin with. 

One could mention the disappointing recent Eternals film, which was a bit of a muddled effort because it tried to introduce nine superheroes in one film, with two more in the post-credit scenes.

But no one left the theater upset by this Spider-Man movie. Instead, fans are likely eagerly awaiting what comes next. Strange's adventure is just beginning, and rumor has it that Tobey Maguire may return as Spider-Man from the other universe to perhaps assist Tom Holland once again. I can't wait to see what's next!

#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 #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.