ubik-79634 Reviews

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)

Thoughtful, visually stunning addition to the saga

[8/10 · 25 May 2024]

It's the nice kind of sequel (or prequel) that doesn't try to give more of the same but goes in a (relatively) different direction. Instead of trying to one-up "Fury Road" on the action level, "Furiosa" dwells on the titular character's background story while, for the first time, giving some worldbuilding info on The Wasteland. There's still some very cool action mind you (the truck chase sequence), which again feels both cutting-edge and old-school - you can see and feel it in your bones that there's only limited CGI here and most of what transpires on screen is real.

But the heart of the film is the sad, tragic story of how Furiosa became who she is. The film takes its sweet own time to get there, and there might be one set piece too many somewhere around there (Bullet Town, anyone?), but it does make sense to spend time on the series of events, fateful encounters and traumas that define her. It's kind of what the first "Mad Max" did for Mel Gibson's character, although "Furiosa" takes the vengeance trope much more thoughtfully. And this is a post-apocalyptic tale after all, so you do need to address themes of human nature and whether or not man (or woman) will always be a wolf for (wo)man, but here this is done in striking personal terms that make total sense.

Miller is a great director who can tell a story visually, with a handful of beautiful shots that say it all. I will remember for a long time the time-lapsed shot of the tree growing while clinging to Furiosa's hair on it. That's beautiful storytelling if you ask me.

Civil War (2024)

A Vietnam War movie masquerading as speculative fiction

[8/10 · 17 April 2024]

Some twenty years ago filmmakers like M. Night Shyamalan ("Signs") or Spielberg ("War of the Worlds") offered interesting visions of global disaster: their stories were told through the perspective, not of soldiers or U. S. Presidents but of common folks, modest people with little information about the bigger picture, the whys and hows of the unfolding disaster. More recently Sam Esmail did the same in "Leave the World Behind", grounding his story in the striking reality of average individuals with no particular connection to the events and no particular skills or abilities to survive and thrive during such a worldwide disaster. "Civil War" belongs to the same family of down to earth auteur blockbusters, going even farther because we are never given much exposition like a scene of people watching the news and allowing us to learn more about the situation. The film trusts you to accept the absence of such narrative spoon-feeding and to be ok with not knowing everything - you are free to fill in the blanks yourself. The movie is also more radical in that we are spared the usual family dynamics of a father (often white, good-looking, virile and strong) trying to reconnect with his estranged son or ex-wife etc. On the contrary "Civil War", as befits a film conjured up by Alex Garland ("Ex Machina", "Devs") is a pretty unsentimental, cool-headed look at the utter savagery that can grip nations seemingly overnight, be they Rwanda, Haiti or, yes, the United States.

The film largely avoids politics (including racial politics) because its point is that this kind of horror can happen anywhere, for any kind of reason. Not because of an outside invasion but because fellow citizens turn against each other and hack or execute their former neighbors without a second thought. There is a great scene where one of the journalists asks a soldier who they are firing at and why; the soldier looks at him in utter bewilderment like he was a moron or an alien - they're just shooting back at somebody shooting at them, period. This is the brutal absurdity of the (very) grim spectacle and one of many scenes that reminded me of "Full Metal Jacket"; because of the presence of reporters mediating for the audience, because of the immense irony conveyed by cheerful songs playing over images of carnage, and because the film highlights, sometimes in slow motion, how much the soldiers are getting a tremendous kick out of killing (even the male journalist says at one point he has a hard-on looking on at a battle in the far distance). Shots of helicopters ferrying troops over the woods were the icing on top of the Vietnam War movie cake.

Where the film fails at being excellent for me is in its main characters, who are not as engaging or interesting as they should have been. In particular, the dynamic between the Kirsten Dunst character and the girl is rather artificial and transparent - you can easily guess the final twist. If you often get the impression you are getting the movie version of what could easily have been an HBO show (mostly because it's been so long since movies quit such ambitious storytelling), this lack of character treatment and development is where the parallel ends.

This should not detract from what is a supremely interesting and engaging auteur blockbuster, one which never makes warfare exciting (even during the D. C. battle), keeps its story beats at human level and has actually a few things to say - or rather, trusts you to think about what you saw and draw your own conclusions.

The Lone Gunmen (2001)

Idiotic and lame

[2/10 · 4 March 2024]

It is difficult to overstate the sheer artistic failure that "The Lone Gunmen" represents. If I didn't know any better I'd say that the writers behind this show had no idea what the characters were all about. But that is clearly not true since they were all X-files veterans who had already written for the Lone Gunmen characters ("The Lone Gunmen" is an "X-files" spin-off). Vince Gilligan, one of the co-creators and main writers (and who would go on to create "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul") had in fact written or co-written the two (very cool and enjoyable) X-files episodes centering on the characters.

Whatever the reason, it is an inescapable fact of Nature that "The Lone Gunmen" sucks, big time. Whoever made the decision to make this show into "Mission Impossible with Geeks" doomed it to become a forced, vaguely slapstick comedy which is anything but funny (how many times can we see Frohike comically falling to the ground??). It becomes painfully obvious very early on that this show has nothing to say, no central (or peripheral at that) theme, and that the conspiracy theories these characters are known for are only treated as comic fodder of the lamest kind. Initially the three lone gunmen were a fascinating insight into the mentality and lifestyle of the conspiracy-obsessed crowd, who seem to have only gained in prominence as the years went by. Building a show around them was a perfect opportunity to dwell deeper into that side of things and know more about Flat Earthers and their ilk. Instead, the writers decided they wanted to see Frohike wear lederhosen and be a tango dancer, because that's funny, right??

Clearly out of ideas even though the show is barely getting started, the writers just decide to parody movies or other TV series, inserting jokes involving people farting, doing a rectal exam on a cow or a baby pissing on somebody. It never gets much higher than that, and in fact "The Lone Gunmen" is remarkable for how fast (episode 2 or 3) it becomes idiotic and appalling. If I didn't know any better I'd say FOX forced our unenthused writers to create that TV series. Alas, they seem to have actually volunteered out of sincere enthusiasm at the idea.

The two new characters, Jimmy Bond (his name is meant to be a joke I guess) and Yves Harlow bring absolutely nothing to the show except sex appeal, and the attraction between the two might be the lamest appealing element in a show that absolutely insists on relying on every conceivable cliché imaginable. Worse, they steal valuable screen time and have narrative roles that could easily have been taken up by one of our lone gunmen. The episode built around Jimmy is perhaps the lamest of the series, which is saying a lot. Absurdist, nonsensical humor is an art unto itself, and maybe they should show "The Lone Gunmen" in film school to show how it's NOT done.

It's a shame we never get to see the geek world they're supposed to evolve in (the way we did in the X-files episode "Unusual Suspects"), no Star Trek conventions, Dungeons & Dragons games, etc. It's a shame we never really see them doing their investigative work as reporters, instead focusing on their super spy antics. It's a shame we never get to see what their private lives look like, what they do at night, the kind of friends they hang out with, the movies they like to watch, etc. No, let's do instead an episode with chimps, lots of 'em! Chimps are so funny, right??

The later success of a show like "The Big Bang Theory" proves that focusing on ultra geek characters has vast potential. But that means you must treat them as geeks, not as super operatives with the latest tech who chase after the bad guys (including a poacher??). Otherwise you just end up with an idiotic and lame show that has the vibe of a Stephen J. Cannell series from the 80s (and not the best kind). In "The A Team" at least they spare us (most of the time) the slapstick pseudo-humor.

Full Contact (1992)

Sleazy piece of trash from the long, sick, sweaty 80s

[1/10 · 29 February 2024]

Being an amateur of Hong Kong action flicks from the 80s and 90s, and of Ringo Lam's classic actioner "City on Fire", I was wide-eyed excited at the idea of discovering "Full Contact", and on a big screen at that. If you add the film's great cast - not only Chow Yun Fat but also Simon Yam and Anthony Wong - you should have a classic on your hands, right?? Well, er, as it turns out, "Full Contact" is more of a classic among stinkers, an appalling piece of trash you would expect to have been released straight to seedy video clubs patronized by drooling early 90s insels with posters of Van Damne and Jeff Fahey in their dirty bedrooms.

You could write PhD theses on the depiction of masculinity in "Full Contact", with grungy Chow trying to look cool on his Harley Davidson, making sure we can see his tatoo (oooooh, a tatooooo, how exciting) on his bulging bicep, swinging his switchblade knife while a random Nazi swastika shows up in the background of a shot to make him even more of a bad boy. The villain (Yam) is a flamboyant, "show queen" homosexual filmed eating sausages in close up, and who Chow, who is extremely witty you see, tells to go wash his a** before their next showdown (this film is full of such classic one-liners). The female gang member is a supremely annoying nympho who's busy touching herself in the middle of a heist, looking for her G spot. Chow and his buddie (Wong) bond over how the latter had to do that b**** to make the plot move forward (in a scene meant to turn on the 13-year-olds in the audience, which would be about 50% of the public, the other half being the aforementioned sociopathic insels). As for our hero's romantic interest she's there to look good and to dance suggestively for the camera, because she happens to be a nightclub dancer and we need sexy dance numbers from time to time, right?

"Full Contact" is like the distilled essence of all those cheap, sleazy, straight-to-VHS-hell 1980s pseudo films that make Steven Seagal movies look like nuanced, thoughtful meditations on life and death by comparison. "Full Contact" is the bottom of a bottomless barrel, a nasty little insight into the deranged psyche of the long 1980s and their obsession for a caricature of tougher-than-tough, sweaty hetero masculinity. I have seen my fair share of such deranged films, but I have to rank "Full Contact" as the absolute worst, which in a (very) sick way is a compliment. Thank god such pseudo-films were already on their way out by 1992 (as was the heyday of Hong Kong cinema, perhaps not coincidentally). As I was quickly on my way out of the theater, groaning so audibly that people turned and stared at me, but relieved I was back in the civilized (?) 21st century.

The Zone of Interest (2023)

Suggesting horror while showing the monster

[8/10 · 28 February 2024]

For decades there has been a drawn out debate over what exactly to show of the Holocaust. Many old-school critics and intellectuals felt that actually showing the killings and gassing would somewhat cheapen the Shoah by sensationalizing it; that due respect meant keeping at a respectful distance from the gas chambers; that not showing the "inconceivable" was the only way of not dulling people's sense of outrage. Alain Resnais' documentary "Night and Fog" (1956) only showed the rusted train tracks leading to Auschwitz. In "The Big Red One" (1980), Samuel Fuller (a WW2 vet) shows the rows of crematorium ovens, letting you fill in the blanks. On the other hand, Spielberg's "Schindler's List" (1993), while showing much more, was fiercely attacked for NOT showing Jews being gassed in so-called showers, although their sheer relief at feeling water coursing on their skins was perhaps an even more powerful statement.

These debates help explain "The Zone of Interest" and its editorial choice of (almost) never entering Auschwitz, instead keeping right behind the wall and just showing (repeatedly) the smoke of the train carrying Jews (mostly) inside the camp and featuring hell-like sounds of death (screams, shouts, shots) on its soundtrack. The contrast between such a soundscape and the daily reality of the camp's commandant's family (their garden, their swimming pool, receiving people for teatime) is chilling to the bone. The film makes great use of only suggesting instead of showing, creating a rich, horrible world that is (almost) always off screen. In this way you could call it the "Jaws" of Holocaust films: making things even more horrible and stressful by not actually showing the horror but only tantalizing glimpses of it.

On the other hand, we do see the monster: the Kommandant is the protagonist of the film and we follow what is essentially the anatomy of everyday evil: this man is plain if not dull, a banal, mediocre-looking pater familias who kisses and tucks in his daughter after having raped a female prisoner. The monster is also his wife, who is so keen on clinging to her little house and garden as though these were harmless suburbs wherever, and who clearly will never give a second thought about Jews, including her domestic servants. I was somehow reminded of "Dogville", which also made great use of a bold scenographic choice to highlight the pettiness and sheer cruelty regular people are capable of. There's saying it and sounding very trite, and then there's visualizing it the way these two films do and making it terrifyingly real.

All this being said, I do feel the film has essentially run its course after an hour or so, after which point it repeats itself (exactly how many times do we see the train's smoke artfully rising over the wall?). At that point the narrative also takes us on an uninteresting journey away from the camp, which I think is a mistake: the narrative and emotional heart of the film, its zone of interest, is the bourgeois house and family living blissfully next to Hell.

Perfect Days (2023)

Atmospheric, thoughtful meditation

[9/10 · 22 January 2024]

Seeing "Perfect Days" in Tokyo was a blessing for me, and you can bet the day after I was exploring the toilets of Shibuya (hopefully that doesn't come across as a creepy statement...) and trying hot coffee cans out of vending machines (not so bad actually). But mostly I was, like so many other people I guess, enthralled by the simplicity and yet deep profundity of this story. This, the sense of everyday poetry as seen through the eyes of a modest, intellectually curious city worker strongly reminded me of "Patterson", another contemplative ode to the simple pleasures we need to open ourselves to.

You could argue Wim Wenders (a German director who seems very comfortable making films set in other cultures) made a film that feels very Asian in its emphasis on contemplation and atmosphere, our relationship with both nature and urban life, and the small details that can make everyday life so magical once we pay proper attention to them. But I would say this is exactly the job of any great artist and philosopher of a certain sensitive bend, whatever their nationality or cultural background. There is a whiff of Thoreau here, although the film is far removed from any attempt at philosophizing and singing the praises of the simple, analog life. As far as local color is concerned I certainly could have done with fewer shots of the Skytree, but hey, Tokyo is indeed a beautiful city, and this is probably the kind of images foreign audiences expect anyway.

The best story are the simplest ones as they say, and I loved the way the same scenes and shots could convey so much comfort and sadness, like the penultimate shot of the protagonist smiling/crying while driving through the streets of Tokyo and listening to Nina Simone. There definitely is something sad, lonely and brave about this man, in which I am not denying the beauty and appeal of this man's threadbare, analog life. At the same time there is certainly a lot to learn from such a lifestyle, about what we choose to invest in financially and emotionally. I am writing this on the Tokyo subway, where most of us are busy losing ourselves on our phones. Hopefully once I get off I'll throw my phone on the tracks and get on with my life.

The capacity to convey so much meaning and questions in so few lines of dialogue is the sign of a great film, so masterful and confident in the strength of its story and its lead actor (the great Koji Yakusho) that it doesn't even need an actual story, or to impress you with ostentatious shots or melodramatic flourishes. At the same time this is an invitation to reflect on our own lifestyles and life choices. The narrative is as minimalistic as this man's daily life, yet it might be as deep and as true to life, and perhaps there is something to be learned from that.

Meanwhile, it turns out the transparent glass toilets (located next to Yoyogi Park) take too much time to turn opaque when it's cold outside, so they're always opaque from mid-October to mid-May. That, however, does not take away any of the beauty even public toilets can have.

Maestro (2023)

Visually stunning, narratively disappointing

[7/10 · 22 January 2024]

I was blown away by the direction in this film. Seemingly every scene is shot in an interesting way, with nice angles, movements, lighting, framing, etc. The way some of the conversations and arguments between the two leads are filmed in (very) long shots for example, to visualize the conflict and their growing apart, was great. Or the very nice, discreet way the aftermath of her death is filmed, through the window as the kids run through the garden to embrace their father and they are all hidden from view for one sec by the window frame. Or the scene at the very beginning of him waking up to a phone call breaking the big news of his career, and the tracking shot following him from the room to the auditorium in Carnegie Hall to convey the excitement of the thing. And of course the impressive tracking shot in the church while he so vehemently conducts in front of the audience and his wife. I could go on and on, but the point is that I was so riveted by so many nice visual ideas (which somehow never smacked of ostentatiousness but really served the storytelling) that I was absorbed in the film.

This is all the more spectacular as the story itself is far from fascinating. I respect the choice of focusing on Bernstein's private life instead of recounting the creation of "West Side Story" etc. I think the best biopics are those (unlike, say, "Napoleon") that make clear editorial choices and do not try to cram everything in. This being said, it's rather an odd choice to focus on his relationship to Bernstein's wife, at the expanse of his relationships (rather than mere "affairs", as I've seen them characterized here and there) with various men. I wanted to see and know more about this side of things, the story of a gay man forced to live out his sexual and sentimental life in such a closeted manner in conservative America.

I guess some people will always complain no matter what your choices are, including myself, but there is a sense in "Maestro" that the visual virtuosity and excellence of the acting (Cooper's voice and mannerisms are fascinating, while Mulligan is outstanding in a more subdued way) hardly conceal more problematic narrative choices. The finetuning of factual history, for example, with the Bernsteins making up before she is diagnosed with cancer and Leonard not leaving her after her initial diagnosis (which in reality he did), do a disservice to a story that had much more potential. In a way this reminds me of Spielberg's recent "West Side Story": formally stunning, great camera work, but playing it safe storywise. "Maestro" shows enough to hint at everything else the movie could have dealt with.

The Killer (2023)

Empty shell

[4/10 · 19 January 2024]

Being an amateur of films about hieratic, disciplined, asocial contract killers (what can I say, there are worse hobbies I guess), I was curious to see what a director like David Fincher could do with the material. As it happens, not much.

The attraction of such films is first and foremost the titular killer, his personality, his outlook on life, his discipline, how different he is from "normies", as he calls them here. "Le Samouraï" or even "Drive" are interesting because of how cold, inhuman but also, paradoxically, very human the titular killer character is. How lonesome and suicidal, which, in the best of this type of films, can come across as thoughtful commentary on our Social Darwinian society, a Romantic kind of alienation, or, what it means to be a "strong", committed individual. On that front "The Killer" is, to say the least, disappointing. His use of a smartwatch felt more like product placement than a fascinating lifestyle proposition or sarcastic comment. He tells us he's different from most everyone (he's a very talkative narrator, weirdly enough), but it never exactly translates on screen. Our professional killer has rather trite thoughts on life and human nature (people are mostly bad and selfish, wow), and his greatest insight seems to be that people confuse skepticism and cynicism. Thanks, Sherlock.

Things go awry once we learn he actually has friends and people he cares for, which goes against everything this guy is supposed to stand for. Initially "Leon" only has a plant to look after, while the neo-samurai in the great "Ghost Dog" has pigeons and an ice cream vendor who doesn't even speak his language. These guys are murderers but they also are awkward and touching in the way they can eventually open up. They have a code and there is a certain nobility about them, as in the best gangster movies and (neo)westerns. There is nothing to "The Killer".

Most of the film focuses on his tracking down and killing those responsible for injuring whoever. The investigation is rather dull, while the killings are, on the whole, ok. The fight inside the house is pretty good, although it doesn't reveal anything about the character, how brutal or rough he can be (for what it's worth the best movie fistfight in recent celluloid memory is to be found in the Chinese flick "Hidden Blade"). His methods for approaching his victims are pedestrian or, sometimes, unconvincing. The scenes with Tilda Swinton are silly and even ridiculous. At that point the film leaves any credibility behind.

There is a sense in which the film consciously rejects the tropes mentioned above, even refusing to be radical in its narrative or aesthetic choices. I was even wondering whether this might be, not exactly a parody or a deconstruction, but a pushing back against the genre's conventions, as the anti-climax at the end might reveal. Maybe "The Killer" is doing its best to prevent us from actually admiring or being attracted to this character? But that also means not admiring or being attracted to the movie itself. Well, at least there's nice images and a nice soundtrack.

Godzilla Minus One (2023)

Interesting but ultimately disappointing

[6/10 · 14 January 2024]

I probably set the bar too high in my excited expectations for "Gojira -1.0". It came with quite a lot of positive buzz, and it was the first live-action take on the monster by Toho in a long while, which I hoped would save the character from the mediocre Hollywood adaptations by Legendary Pictures. Alas, although it is one firm notch above those U. S. adaptations, this is, ultimately, yet another mediocre adaptation.

The interesting idea here is to make the movie a historical drama set in post-war Japan (although you wouldn't really know that from the weak historical reconstitution) and to anchor the story around a failed kamikaze pilot. The director is Takashi Yamazaki, who already made (the controversial) "The Fighter Pilot" in 2013, already about kamikaze pilots, so that figures, and it is indeed an interesting idea for a Godzilla feature. This time around, it's not so much the atomic bomb but, more broadly, the war's trauma that Godzilla the Giant Ugly Symbol carries with it. Tokyo is barely being rebuilt from its ashes that the monster comes stomping on Ginza, which the journalists witnessing the destruction make a point to underline. The flotilla that takes on the beast at the end is made up of vets who explicitly (they say so) hope to make up for the war - although this time, the film is keen to emphasize, they will do so as civilians (the point being that Japanese military authorities failed the nation during the war by putting such a cheap price on human life; I know that because it is literally stated as such by a character at one point). And of course, we have our kamikaze pilot, whose emotional journey consists in leaving his war behind and turning to life again. I know that because he actually says so, almost verbatim.

In fact, everything is explicitly stated in this movie, because clearly they don't think you are smart enough to understand the point on your own. So instead of showing and conveying points with something like subtlety or nuance, they drive the point home repeatedly in the most unimaginative way EVER through heavy-handed, dull dialogue. At one point the hero turns from his would-be wife and kid to a photograph of his dead parents, literally wondering ALOUD if he should choose life or death. Audiences would be too stupid to get the point without the comment, right??

The worst is the denouement, where everything the film has been building towards from the start is suddenly spurned by two twists that transform a Godzilla yarn into, of all things, a feel-good movie. This is so unlikely and absurd (like, you can overcome trauma, hatred and despair by, ya know, just changing your mind) as to almost make the movie into a parody, except that I don't think this was the filmmakers' intention. I have nothing against happy endings, but they need to be earned, deserved. You can't just go in one direction and then just switch to the opposite direction at the end, that's just facile writing. This does in fact feel like a commercial concession for a movie that did otherwise have artistic ambitions.

And if you think I'm applying standards that shouldn't be used for a kaiju flick, I'm not the one who had the idea of inserting drama, war-related trauma and the theme of sacrifice here, okay?? But hey, Godzilla is badass, sure, whatever.

The Bishop's Wife (1947)

Too religious for me, too creepy for a Christmas classic

[6/10 · 27 December 2023]

The 1946/1947 and 1947/1948 Christmas seasons at the movies were unusually prolific. In the 21st century audiences fondly remember "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Miracle on 34th Street" as two ultimate classics, especially the first one as far as non-US territories are concerned. Fewer remember "The Bishop's Wife", which has a common history with "It's a Wonderful life": Cary Grant was first supposed to be doing that film (what a bad idea that would have been), which explains his continued interest in a Christmas movie where an angel comes to the rescue of a distressed man. This is where the similarities stop though: thankfully "The Bishop's Wife" rapidly goes in a widely different direction and becomes its own thing.

By focusing this time on the angel, Cary Grant is given the spotlight, and seeing him in that role is very enjoyable: deliciously suave, ultra charming Grant could never play regular Joes like Jimmy Stewart could, but he was perfect for out-of-this-life characters, like billionaires, high flying thieves... or angels. Seeing him gently handle/manipulate people with that happy, charming little mischievous smile of his is the true delight of this flick.

The story itself, on the other hand, I find far less appealing, and I suspect its heavy-handed religious content is part of the reason the film has been largely forgotten over the years. It was also probably confusing for many audiences worldwide to think of a married bishop - few people have even heard of Episcopalians and, in the absence of any precision in the film, many at least in Europe would have associated a collar-wearing man with a Catholic priest. Confusing to say the least.

My guess as to why this did not become a Christmas classic would also revolve around the lack of a child character at the center of the story (there is a child, but we barely get glimpses of her). Instead this is at heart a romance, and a rather osé one at that (an angel gets it on with a bishop's wife? My oh my). This ironically might not (this is only a wild guess) have pleased religiously inclined audiences of that era. So the story pulls in contradictory directions at the same time, while never acknowledging the awkwardness of its main conceit. While the transparent wife feels just like the stereotypical housewife that's been disregarded by her busy husband one too many times, Grant's angel gradually looms like a hypocrite who is doing his best to actually seduce her, lying to people and using his powers to trick them. The wife never actually seems to be falling in love with him though, which makes him appear like something of a maniac - a talented Mr. Ripley from the heavens. Yet the film clearly wants you to still feel sympathetic for that character and his plight, and feel for him because he, er, may have fallen in love with that dull chick. Are we still talking about a would be Christmas classic, seriously? What may be missing is any reason for him to change his mind and leave the stage, any kind of twist or emotional climax like a confrontation, a comeuppance or sudden realization that this is wrong. By trying to be too gentle with a story that called for more robust storytelling, "The Bishop's Wife" ultimately misses the mark.

Frogs (1972)

Bring back the frogs

[2/10 · 17 December 2023]

As Einstein taught us, everything is relative, and that includes "Frogs". So depending on the observer's position, this film is either an abysmally bad flick with laughable kill scenes and absurd close-ups on sour-looking frogs, or a rather decent exploitation film by a studio (AIP) used to producing much, much worse. And as quantum theory taught us, maybe the film can be both things at the same time. Worse than bad, it's pretty lame, but at least there is none of the rearview projections, obvious models or latex creatures used in myriad other such B movies. The story and the characters are more dull than the frogs, but at least the film can boast a roster of actors who would go on to prosper in greener (and less insecticide-infested) pastures: future Academy Award nominee Sam Elliott (who would thrive in westerns) got here his first leading man role, while Joan Van Ark would become famous for her parts in primetime soaps "Dallas" and "Knots Landing" (which compared to "Frogs" feel like deep existential meditations on human vanity). We even have here, as the bad-tempered patriarch, venerable actor Ray Milland, once Paramount's highest-paid actor and who worked for such greats as Billy Wilder (he received the best actor Oscar and Cannes prize for "The Lost Weekend"), Fritz Lang or Hitchcock (the great, underrated "Dial M for Murder"). Alas, by the 1970s Milland was condemned to appearing in exploitation flicks like "Frog", which probably explains his sour expression throughout. As for the titular frogs, they would soon fall back into oblivion, as 1970s ecohorror movies would prefer (in descending order of absurdity) sharks, bears, dogs, rats, cockroaches, ants or even rabbits (?!) to them. That, to me, is the saddest part. I hope they can eventually make a comeback. Cinema needs more man-eating, sour-looking frogs.

In America (2002)

Interesting but problematic

[6/10 · 14 December 2023]

Despite its title (and what the official poster implies), this movie has little to say about the immigrant experience, except perhaps a handful of scenes early on. At heart this is a family drama centering on a tragedy that still haunts these characters. "In America" is a partly autobiographical story by renowned Irish director Jim Sheridan and it does feel heartfelt throughout, although it can also fall at times into unadulterated sentimentalism. Bizarrely, although the story is supposed to take place in the 80s (the family goes to watch "E. T." to remind you of that fact) the (low-budget) production made zero attempt at even pretending this was the 80s (they even included footage of Times Square today), which I found more confusing than artistically motivated. The real issue I have, however, is the way the film relies on a questionable trope: a black man who somehow has mystical powers and lives only to help the white characters in the story, after which he dutifully dies. Such characters (who can be from other minorities, the point being that they are from a minority) will always be positive, but subservient and somehow different, more attuned to traditions, the earth, the world of spirits, etc. "In America" in fact presents something like a classic example of that trope, with the character even symbolically dying to allow for the white baby to survive. The fact that he was an artist dying of aids is perhaps the only effort the filmmakers made towards situating the film in the 80s... and is another rather tiresome cliché. A shame, because otherwise this film features good actors and some intense scenes.

Empire of the Ants (1977)

Thank god for cringy gender dynamics

[1/10 · 12 December 2023]

Even for B-movie, drive-in fare, "Empire of the Ants" is pretty lame. Part of the H. G. Wells trilogy produced by schlock studio AIP in the late 1970s (along with "Food of the Gods" and "The Island of Dr. Moreau"), the movie is directed by Bert I. Gordon, who also supervised the special effects - and special they are. Gordon was nicknamed Mr. Big because, well, that's his initials but also because he made it his questionable specialty throughout his dubious career (spent mostly cranking out pictures from AIP's dank basement) to make movies featuring giant creatures or people ("The Amazing Colossal Man," "Village of the Giants," "War of the Colossal Beast," "Attack of the Puppet People" which although it features, er, puppet people, rests on the same idea and tech, etc.). Problem is, by 1977 he was still using the same low-tech special effects (models, process shots, latex creatures waved by crewmembers in front of the camera) typical of the 50s. The result is quite laughable to say the least, including the point of view shots from the killer ants. The characters are dull and the story tedious, even the last act which (very) vaguely attempts to channel "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" but goes nowhere fast. The film tries to reappropriate the Scary Ants angle from contemporary creature features like "The Hellstrom Chronicles" or "Phase IV," but all it amounts to is a generic prologue with a generic voiceover about ants being our evolutionary competitors (which might be the only connection to the H. G. Wells story of the same name). The gender dynamics are pretty standard for the era but still very cringe, although that may make them the only so-bad-it's-good part of the movie. And I write that fully cognizant of the attempted rape scene early on. I guess that's what it means to be a deviant cinephile, right?

The Boy and the Heron (2023)

Thoughtful, deeply allegorical fairy tale

[9/10 · 9 December 2023]

At one point in the film the heron realizes he's been speaking too much and says (in the subtitled version), "Loose lips sink ships," which is an expression from WW2 propaganda. I have no doubt an equivalent reference was already there in Japanese, and it helped me realize how much Mahito's adventure was a metaphor for the war, something which becomes more explicit toward the end.

At the same time and as in the best of Ghibli the story draws heavily and very adroitly from old-style myths, fables and fairy tales (even featuring the much maligned stepmother, or amusing little grannies instead of dwarves), which are essentially the same the world over. The film stays true to fairy tales' tough and disturbing "graphic" content, deep and complex psychological import and comment on our place and role in the world and the human experience (the original title translates as "How do you live?", from a 1930s novel). This is still a modern fairy tale, however, and so it gets translated in modern idiom as a coming of age narrative about a child facing a terrible reality and in need of escape (but the kind of healthy escape from the prison of reality that Tolkien was talking about).

The world he sets out to explore is like a dreamscape into a collective, mythical subconscious, and so makes little sense on a purely rational plane (even less than some of Miyazaki's earlier films). The narrative makes little effort to explain everything, which might frustrate the rationally inclined but which also promises to reward subsequent viewings and, well, thinking (dreaming?) about it. The ending is pretty abrupt, especially compared to a first act that takes its sweet little time, but I feel this is part of the film's refusal to offer a neat and tidy narrative package, with a nice little bow on top of it. Like dreams, or fairy tales, this is a maze, one which actually leads somewhere if you only care to go to the trouble of exploring it.

The ambitious narrative cleverly weaves all this with its running commentary on the war (the flying squad of pelicans eating souls in the night sky, the tower built at the beginning of the Meiji era as a metaphor for Imperial Japan, the martial king of the parakeets). This makes "The Boy and the Heron" into a sort of culmination for Miyazaki's work as it brings together all of his career-long preoccupations and themes (WW2 was brought to the foreground in "The Wind Rises", which focused on a character who made war planes, like Mahito's, and in fact Miyazaki's, father). It is also reminiscent of other Ghibli films, including (early on) Isao Takahata's devastating masterpiece "Grave of the Fireflies" (another director who was a child during the war) or the more recent "When Marnie Was There", which shares a somewhat similar premise. But mostly this is an unmistakable Miyazaki film, with a girl as a supporting character who would have been the heroine in another of his films, and where even the inevitable cuddly little creatures (the warawara) bring poetry and a thoughtful comment about the circle of life and death.

Sadly some people cannot help themselves and will unfavorably compare this to "Spirited Away", because they just want more of the same. Such people do not deserve "The Boy and the Heron" and everything it can bring them. Their loss.

Wonka (2023)

Rather fun but too calibrated and polished

[6/10 · 6 December 2023]

Origin stories can be hit ("Wicked" the musical) or miss (who even remembers "Oz the Great and Powerful"?). On that scale "Wonka" is closer to hit than miss, although it's far from a masterpiece. The film is funny, and has a number of witty ideas (many of which make it in the trailer, like the fine against daydreaming). It also has delicious characters, starting with Hugh Grant's Oompa Loompa, the real memorable character of the piece. It all rings true to the spirit of Roald Dahl, although the double missing mommy storyline felt somewhat forced. What prevents this movie from being great, however, is that it often stays in safe, blockbuster-friendly territory, and resists the Call of the Absurd that could have transcended it. The film is often more amusing than really funny and rather more cute than touching, while its dose of whimsy always feels extremely calibrated, like its CGI visuals. Yet it was easy to see how putting Mr Bean and a runaway giraffe together in a church could have led to wilder results than what we are ultimately given. Or how Keegan-Michael Key as the chief of police could have brought more as a supporting character. Maybe it's remembering Tim Burton's brand of humor, which was already in decline when he made "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and yet felt more satirical than this very tame "Wonka". Or maybe seeing sweet, cloying Chalamet in a fantasy version of Paris reminded me of "The French Dispatch" and Wes Anderson's inimitable take on whimsy. In fact, if you really want a memorable take on Dahl, you should check out Anderson's short movies - I find them more personal and authentic than this very corporate friendly, very safe "Wonka".

The Bridge Curse: Ritual (2023)

Could have been more than just ok

[6/10 · 3 December 2023]

The film, from horror powerhouse Taiwan, starts with an interesting angle: students are working on an Augmented Reality video game based on a haunted, er, university. Said students (who are as dim-witted as most characters in this type of story) test out their game on location (why they need to test out the game when it's nearing completion rather than early on in the development process is unclear). The actual ghosts soon start layering with the AR gaming, which is an original approach and fairly interesting (what is really there and where??). We get a number of point of view shots from CCTV cameras and the gamers' equipment, and when handled well such subjective shots are always a great strategy to immerse viewers and turn up the horror quotient. Yet the film soon leaves that idea behind to focus on the real ghosts, which is a shame because everything becomes much more pedestrian at that point. Thankfully the visual dynamic is replaced by narrative ingenuity as a late twist shakes things up and saves the film... until a final revelation that's too rushed to have much impact (and perhaps the fact that I haven't seen the first film doesn't help). In the end the film is ok but clearly had potential for more.

Phase IV (1974)

The legend of "Phase IV"

[4/10 · 1 December 2023]

Nothing really works in this atypical 1970s creature feature, the only film directed by legendary graphics designer Saul Bass. For some reason the scientists know from the very start that the ants are mutating and can be (somehow) dangerous, robbing audiences of any kind of pleasurable suspense (the type when audiences gleefully wait for the incredulous citizenry and pretentious scientists to get their comeuppance, as in "The Birds"). True, the scientist played by Nigel Davenport (who already played a Dangerous Deranged Dude in "No Blade of Grass") is an overconfident, overbearing science guy who will eventually get punished, but that is far from enough. In reality nobody seems that surprised that mutated ants are posing a threat (maybe they watched "Them!" reruns on local TV one too many times). The reason why nobody comes to their rescue is not properly addressed either, while the characters (especially the girl) are bland to the extreme. Except perhaps, once again, Nigel Mad Scientist Davenport's, who has at least the decency of slowly falling into madness, although that does not amount to much. The scenes showing the ants underground are visually successful (they hired some of the people who worked on "The Hellstrom Project") but rather dull - they're basically shots of ants going about their business. This can be a problem since we get quite a lot of these, including moments when one individual ant is supposed to be threatening. One for instance gets inside the girl's clothes, making you expect something terrible - until the scene unexplainably peters out. The film itself peters out, partly due to its final, "2001"-like, trippy sequence being removed from the final cut. That (rather clunky) sequence (now freely available online) testifies to the ambition this unusual film initially had... and the legend of its removal might be the only thing going for it today. On the other hand, if you compare this to contemporary AIP exploitation flicks like "Empire of the Ants", then it is a sober, contemplative film which you might say refuses to go for the obvious tricks.

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes (2023)

Snow Always Lands on Top

[2/10 · 30 November 2023]

Being old (bordering on decrepit) and never having been a huge fan of teen drama, even when I was a teen myself (in the 18th century), I get the nagging feeling that "The Hunger Games: The Ballad etc." was not exactly meant for me. Mind you, I love post-apocalyptic dystopian fare like any other regular chap, so I thought I'd give this film a go. But well, this is the kind of post-apo yarn where folks are always impeccably dressed with perfect hairdos and teeth, because hey, you may live in a soul-crushing totalitarian society and still care about your physique, right? This made me think of "Logan's Run" (yes, I'm old), which is a compliment I guess... kind of.

I particularly enjoyed each time we see Mr. Hottie show off his impeccable torso and abs (5 times in about 2 hours and 30mn, it must have been in his contract). At that point I also decided to mindlessly enjoy the ineffable Peter Dinklage (not his torso and abs though). I felt some schadenfreude at seeing him go through the motions of a Song of Ice and F..., er, a Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, heartily quaffing wine while philosophizing about the Snow family. Good old times... Speaking of which, what kind of name is Coriolanus Snow?? Ah well, rather than try to make sense of the Shakespearean ref I heartily enjoyed all the wordplays and witty metaphors based on snow ("Snow always lands on top"). Finally the subtle Christian imagery (he gets bitten by a snake, get it???) revealed this flick to be a deep meditation on good and evil in this fallen world of ours, human nature, and white teeth. Especially white teeth.

The Bed Sitting Room (1969)

Funnier than my review (thankfully)

[7/10 · 29 November 2023]

The 1960s satire boom did not only lead to the Monty Pythons, although they remain the Holy Grail of British comedy (haha, did you get it??). At approximately the same time as the "Flying Circus" was irremediably savaging the minds of millions of unsuspecting Brits, "The Bed Sitting Room" was released to equally unsuspecting Brit audiences (they clearly are more circumspect by now). Both share the same type of nonsensical satirical humor, while Richard Lester's film deftly mocks the absurdities of war (the conflict lasted 2mn28sec, including the signing of the peace treaty, a line which never fails to amuse me). After all these years, though, let's be frank and subversive: "The Bed Sitting Room" kind of lags in the middle (like my... wit). It started out as a one-act, one-man play in 1962, and I feel whoever adapted it as a longer story did not entirely succeed (or try very hard). Some of it feels, after a while, heavily repetitive, with subplots concerning an annoying trunk and a hasty marriage which fail to amuse me much (when you are short on ideas, just introduce a cuckold husband, that will do the trick). The soundtrack, with its heavy-handed emphasis of comical moments ('hey, this is funny, hahaha!') also gets on my nerves. So I would agree with reviewers who have, since the film's release, been pointing out the amount of padding that hinders the film (well, yes, I try to make sure none of my ideas are actually original, that would be pretentious really). Overall, though, this is still a fine example of Oh So British satirical humor, and nobody does it better... than the Monty Pythons.

Napoleon (2023)

The Private Lives of Joséphine and Bonaparte (if only)

[5/10 · 26 November 2023]

One thing going for this version of "Napoleon" is that it has a clear angle on the French emperor - telling the familiar story from a private, even intimate perspective. In fact the movie would have been better off being called "The Private Lives of Joséphine and Bonaparte", as this is where the emotional and narrative heart of the film lies. It also allows the film to avoid yet another panegyric for a much more critical, if not exactly nuanced, portrayal of the not-so-great, vain little emperor.

The only problem is that the filmmakers also wanted to have a regular rise-and-fall biopic along with a sturm und drang historical epic, the consequence being that the story goes in two different directions. As a result the film always feels, somehow, off. There probably was a narrative and emotional way of connecting the two story arcs, but the filmmakers missed it. Joséphine de Beauharnais should have been a protagonist, but she only is a supporting character, one whose exit from the stage is rather abrupt and disappointing. By ultimately reducing her to Napoleon's mere love interest the film doesn't hold its promise of telling you Bonaparte's private life in any substantial way. Socially Joséphine only existed because of her powerful husband, and ironically this is also true narratively - once they divorce she is unceremoniously thrown out of the story, because in reality it couldn't care less about her.

Sometimes the film feels like it wants to focus on their toxic relationship, but keeps being pulled to the larger war drama being played on a continental scale. Even on that front, the story is far too ambitious in its scope, starting with Toulon and rushing through a catalogue of events to end in St Helena. In essence the narrative is multitasking and tells too much too fast, never taking the time to elaborate on anything - too often we are given a series of vignettes instead of actual scenes. Even the political scheming and backstabbing is treated too quickly and haphazardly, which is a shame. Scorsese is first-class at handling that kind of ambitious storytelling, while conveying the emotional and psychological complexity of its main character. But then Scorsese will spend 3+ hours on stories that are not half as complex, while for his 1927 masterpiece Abel Gance needed 5.5 hours just to tell the story of Napoleon's early years... On the other hand fine films (1960's "Austerlitz", 1970's "Waterloo") were made that only focused on a single battle...

Bonaparte is an interesting character here, but again the narrative fails to convey the true nature of his personality. It is impossible to understand Bonaparte (and his superhero alter ego, Napoleon) without looking at his extended Italian-Corsican family, including the many brothers and sisters he installed at the head of puppet states all over Europe, and his influential mother. I don't mind some historical inaccuracies, and I'm not even criticizing the bizarre Battle of the Pyramids, which were in reality miles away, or soldiers even bombarding the pyramids themselves (!?!) because I guess it looks cool. But it is a shame that Bonaparte is not shown at his true age early on - in reality he was only 24 when promoted to brigadier general after the fall of Toulon. And, crucially, he was only 26 when he met 32-year-old Joséphine, who already was a widow and mother of two. This age gap and difference in life experiences would really have helped characterize their relationship and would have helped explain his immaturity and awkwardness. On the public front, it is impossible to understand how Napoleon, often portrayed as an awkward buffoon, managed to rise to power and inspire such fervent loyalty in his men and the people of France. This is rather unfair for a man who was clearly a shrewd (and as manipulative and narcissistic as they come) politician and general. You'd imagine he was at least charismatic... This also explains why the movie feels so bizarre sometimes, with Joaquin Phoenix's spouting Napoleon seemingly always on the verge of saying something absurd or embarrassing and the movie of becoming a satirical comedy. Phoenix and Scott were going for something interesting here but I'm not sure they quite nailed it....

I will always fantasize about Kubrick's own version had he been able to bring it to fruition. Instead he made "Barry Lyndon", which is such a fine example of historical drama, epic storytelling and emotional and psychological finesse - everything this movie is not. But hey who knows, perhaps the director's cut will solve all of these issues and reveal Ridley Scott's version to be a true masterpiece, similarly to what happened to Gance's own "Napoleon"? The line between greatness and mediocrity is a very thin one, after all. One that more than one director's cut has crossed, starting with Ridley Scott's.

Anatomy of a Fall (2023)

Good, snowy courtroom drama that left me cold

[7/10 · 24 November 2023]

It's difficult for me to see what makes this movie not just good but great. Good it certainly is: very intense, with many uncomfortable, post-mortem close-ups into a complex, twisted relationship which keeps adding new layers as the story slowly unfolds. I liked the courtroom drama, which is fairly typical (last minute witness!) but with interesting beats featuring the prosecutor and various experts appearing pretty biased and unfair toward the defendant. I do prefer however the recent "Saint Omer", which is less cliché, more contemplative and more effective (on me) in its emotional impact.

Otherwise, I cannot say I was interested in the protagonist, which is a problem for what is essentially a character study. I was left cold by this woman (what would French cinema be without novelists and university professors as protagonists??), her son and late husband, their relationship, petty dishonesties, intellectual fallibility, devouring ambitions, etc. I guess the film is supposed to stay with you because of the many subtle hints that she may indeed have committed the crime (e.g. The very last scene), but I couldn't care less. You are not supposed to necessarily like or empathize with that tough woman, but the movie does its best to make you interested in her, her psychological makeup and her (mis)deeds, and on that level it failed with me (or did I fail the movie?). I guess the film has to do with definitions and perceptions of the Truth, as perceived by a judge and the jury, the media, the public or the kid, and as rendered by a novelist (her novels eerily echo what really happened) or a filmmaker, giving the film a limited metafictional dimension. In the end you have to decide what happened for yourself, the way the kid has to. A child who is blind, like Justice. This is all very smart, but, again, I fail to be emotionally involved.

The film also reminded me of "Night of the Twelfth", another murder mystery set in the snowy mountains above Grenoble (my hometown, which I assure you is in fact a very peaceful place... Mostly). But at least that less ambitious genre film had an angle and subject matter that made it echo through the cold Alpine summits, and resonate through my mind. "Anatomie d'une chute", on the other hand, just left me cold.

The Edge of the Blade (2023)

Capable but a missed opportunity

[6/10 · 24 November 2023]

I discovered "Edge of the Blade" (aka Une Affaire d'honneur) at the Hong Kong French Film Festival, Vincent Perez was on hand to present his latest feature as director and actor. The film is a capable, entertaining and very good-looking period drama that borders on the swashbuckler, a genre that made Perez famous. The fights are very well-handled, and the historical background is a fascinating one: on the one hand the craze for duels following freedom of the press laws (now journalists could freely tarnish people's reputation), and first-wave feminism on the other. Both aspects, however, remain in the background and subservient to a main plot centering on male revenge dramatics that's not exactly enthralling. Considering who the real Marie-Rose Astié de Valsayre was (a freethinker, a doctor, a composer, a duellist, a passionate feminist), it's a shame to make her into a supporting character who can only watch the last duel from a distance. The protagonist, on the other hand, is a cliché war-scarred, hieratic veteran who speaks like a shaolin master and develops a vague crush on Ms. De Valsayre (cue aborted love story). That, I believe, is not the ideal treatment of the character. Perez himself in the Q&A session after the screening made it clear how incredible her life had been. My thought then was, hey, somebody should make a movie about her! In the end, "Edge of the Blade" made me want to watch that as-yet-inexistent movie, which is perhaps its greatest accomplishment.

Thanksgiving (I) (2023)

Cheese instead of camp

[3/10 · 18 November 2023]

Why in the world would you take a parody of 70s/80s slashers and make it into a straightforward, unironic horror flick? Why??!? The 2007 fake trailer for "Grindhouse" was everything this feature version is not: fun, funny and witty. Sure, there are some, er, humorous moments in "Thanksgiving", but too often the film feels like a forthright (and uninspired at that) splatter film - more "I Know What You Did Last Summer" than "Scream". The characters, including the final girl (but with the notable exception of the arms dealer dude) are dull. The plot is predictable (it took me 20 mn to guess who the killer was and little more to know how he would be dispatched) and often includes far-fetched or impossible twists. The death scenes are not particularly exciting and confuse gory with fun. At no point do you get the feeling that this movie is winking at you knowingly, concealing its satirical nature behind a pose. If Roth's intention was to make a camp and self-aware film this is a total failure - unless it was all too subtle for me, which I grant you is a possibility. When the killer exclaims, "And this time there will be no leftovers!", it just comes across as a cheesy line, not as a campy reference to b-grade movies.

What the filmmakers have accomplished here is make an exploitation film that takes all the kitschy fun out of exploitation flicks and only keeps the tedium. But hey, maybe that's what the joke is all about??

No More Bets (2023)

Good surprise

[7/10 · 14 November 2023]

Expecting nothing expecting more than a thriller/action movie, I was pleasantly surprised by "No More Bets". The movie takes its subject matter (scams around online gambling) seriously and describes rather precisely the mechanisms that undergird these operations. Narratively the film is original since it follows three different characters and does not really feature a protagonist or "hero". It focuses on victims - how they fall for scams, how they are led to addiction and eventual misery - but also the scammers and how they run their operation. Said scammers are actually depicted in a rather nuanced way (as the film goes on anyway), with kidnapped individuals who tend to become willing accomplices (or do they?), and willing accomplices who might not be entirely evil. The boss is an interesting character, who one second tries to rape one of his victims and the next is a smiling daddy who cheerfully introduces his daughter to that very same victim. Cold.

The film has its flaws though: its focus on victims sometimes veers toward graceless melodrama, although that can be compensated somewhat by other scenes. I'm thinking mostly of the alternate montage that shows the eventual demise of a victim and the scammers wildly celebrating the millions they just made. Ouch.

Finally, while the ending is unabashedly didactic, the pro-Chine police propaganda is as heavy handed as in Zhang Yimou's "Under the Light". The end result is that while most of the story sounds frighteningly real, the last part comes across mostly as fake.

Still, on the whole this is one of the most interesting commercial films to be released this year in China.

The Marvels (2023)

A lot of fluff. And fluffy cats.

[5/10 · 13 November 2023]

"The Marvels" is as generic a Marvel film as you could think of, what with its story of magic wearable artefacts spread out in the universe, vague revenge story and the weight of the past, destruction of whole planets and genocide, big repetitive brawls in new exotic settings, the Earth being vaguely threatened, and oh, healthy doses of family bonding aboard shiny spaceships and space stations (what would we be without those???).

It's the comedy that works best though, and I did enjoy Kamala's antics. Excitable, super-enthusiastic, awkward Kamala reminded me of Peter Parker in the Marvel iterations, and her relationship to Danvers is not unlike that of Peter with Iron Man, without feeling as derivative as the rest of the film, somehow. Getting a fresh character with an outsider's perspective on our heroes is always a welcome idea, and it works well here. The singing planet and the cats are very fun too, and they reminded me (a thought that flashed through my bored mind while watching "Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" and "Quantumania" mostly) of how much I wish Marvel would let go and get farther off the beaten path towards more fanciful and whimsical territory (à la WandaVision).

The drama on the other hand feels forced and incoherent, both on the small scale (the half-hearted tension between Danvers and Rambeau) and big. Danvers never seems that concerned with the consequences of her actions and tidily resolves at the end a situation that should not be so easily solvable (otherwise there is no real dramatic weight and never really was). This in essence is formulaic plotting and weak dramaturgy at their very worst. Perhaps the most problematic however is how, like many other installments, the villain is only a mediocre adversary with rotten character motivation. That in turn prevents our superheroes from shining or proving their moral worth as they should.

Oh well, at least there's the cats.