Director: Miguel Arteta
Writer: Sam Pitman (screenplay by), Adam Cole-Kelly (screenplay by), Danielle Sanchez-Witzel (story by)
Stars: Salma Hayek, Rose Byrne, Tiffany Haddish, Billy Porter

Synopsis: Two friends with very different ideals start a beauty company together. One is more practical while the other wants to earn her fortune and live a lavish lifestyle.

[/info]

A cast alone does not make a good film. There are so many moving parts, that it is sometimes silly how much stock we put in actors, or even directors. Even Scorsese made New York, New York. But we all have that one actor or actress for whom we will watch terrible movies just for a glimpse of them. Some of us have more than one, and that can lead us to some dark places. But every great once in a while, despite all early indications, a movie will surprise you. You know, it looked genuinely awful in trailers and early reviews were abysmal.  And yet, you enjoy it! Personally, I can think of at least one movie every year that fits this description. Like A Boss starring my personal favorite Rose Byrne and Tiffany Haddish is absolutely not a surprise.

When talking to people about this movie in the lead up, terms like “boring,”  “unoriginal,” and “not funny” were hurled in my direction. No joy is taken in the fact that these descriptors are completely correct. Just like there are no perfect movies, Like A Boss is not devoid of charm, at least not completely. There are probably about 20 good minutes buried in the runtime. All of those minutes are either at the very beginning at the very end. Unfortunately, that leaves a good hour in the middle that is missing an engaging story, interesting visual choices, and most damning of all, comedy.

To say that the script could have used another edit is insulting to films that get close to being good. In any buddy comedy in which there is a “breakup”, a certain suspension of disbelief is needed. But we can only go so far. It is hard to imagine a world in which an audience member has bought in to this supposed argument between our two leads. There is a nice message about female friendship and that connection, but again, the script is so subpar that it must hammer this point home, repeatedly.

The cast is game for anything, which is why some of the bits work. When best friends Mel (Byrne) and Mia (Haddish) are hanging out together, either in their house or with their friends at a baby shower, Like A Boss is genuinely fun. But of course, this is before the plot kicks into gear. The movie screeches to a halt when our villainess Claire Luna (Salma Hayek) enters the scene. Cartoonish evil is fine, especially in a comedy, but this performance is wildly out of tone with everything else on the screen. Audience members may find themselves staring at this caricature as an oddity, but certainly not an entertaining one. The supporting characters, especially Barrett (Billy Porter) are a welcome distraction to the aforementioned plot, but that is all they are. And later on, Barrett and Sydney (Jennifer Coolidge) are ground under the gears of that plot in ways that lack any form of human sense.

It is a real shame to see this much wasted talent on display for 90 minutes. As thoughts return to the baby shower sequence, which is genuinely funny, it makes one wonder what a film focused on all these women could have been. Sure, we’ve seen similar things in movies like Bridesmaids, but we can always use a buddy comedy that is female focused, even now.

Maybe too much to expect from a January release, but would it have killed Like A Boss to be funny? With this group of women in a different movie with a funny script, it is easy to imagine a surprise runaway hit. But not this year, not with this movie.

Overall Grade: D+

[divider]

Director: William Eubank
Writer: Brian Duffield, Adam Cozad
Stars: Kristen Stewart, Jessica Henwick, T.J. Miller, Vincent Cassel, John Gallagher Jr.

Synopsis: A crew of aquatic researchers work to get to safety after an earthquake devastates their subterranean laboratory. But the crew has more than the ocean seabed to fear.

[/info]

There’s nothing better than seeing films with new or original ideas, especially horror or action-thrillers. Underwater is a mostly original thriller, with a few borrowed ideas, that makes for an interesting start for 2020. It tells the story of the crew of an underwater facility located in the Mariana Trench and their struggle to survive a catastrophic event seven miles below the surface.

The movie jumps right into the action – there is almost no story or character building before things go awry, save for a newspaper article style exposition dump in the opening credits. Generally, not having any story telling is an issue, but I think it works in this film and immediately sets the tone for what’s to come.  Kristen Stewart stars as Norah, a mechanical engineer, capable of keeping her cool and quick thinking while the station implodes around her. There is a small supporting cast of (mostly) interesting characters: Vincent Cassel is the fearless leader and man with the plan, Captain Lucien. Jessica Henwick is biologist Emily, engineer Liam Smith is played by John Gallagher Jr, and rounding out the team is comedic relief Paul, job unknown, who is unfortunately played by T.J. Miller. With the station quickly crumbling around them, the group must make an impossible trek across the sea floor in hopes to reaching the last remaining escape pods.

I went into this screening with relatively low expectations and ended up enjoying myself. Underwater is an extremely tense, isolationist, claustrophobic thriller. It was so nerve-wracking and suspenseful my body actually hurt after the movie from being tensed up for 90 minutes. It’s getting many comparisons to films like Alien (1979) or The Abyss (1989) which I can see- strong female lead, alone, underwater/in a hostile environment… There were a few scenes that even reminded me of Alien, but overall Underwater is its own movie. What it does best is manipulate its audience with the use or non-use of sound. The lack of music and any sound beside the actor talking or breathing really puts the audience down there, on the seafloor, alone, waiting for something to come get them. It’s a brilliant technique, that if done well, elevates the film. I’ve seen it done in many horror or space movies and It’s very effective. They managed to get some storytelling done without much time for characters to explain their backstories or have any real conversations. You get clues through out the movie by reading things on walls and screens, paying attention to the little things characters do or say, and I think it works for this type of movie. Long monologues wouldn’t make sense in an “against-the-clock” thriller. It’ definitely a film I want to see again, at home, when I can pause and rewind to see anything I missed in the theater. I also really liked Kristen Stewart, she looks awesome with the shaved head and I can’t wait to see her in another action flick.

My biggest complaint about Underwater is with its editing. It was hard to watch or keep track of what was going on at times, especially during scary or action-filled sequences. There are a few scenes where characters are dragged or move around quickly and it’s so blurry or choppy it’s easy to lose track of who went where and how it happened. It’s also fairly obvious that scenes were cut to keep a PG-13 rating. The positive side of that criticism is hopefully there’s an unrated director’s cut in our near future! The only other negatives I could come up with was the lack of character development for Smith (John Gallagher Jr). His character wasn’t particularly important to the overall story, but I’ve been in love with Gallagher since The Newsroom (2012-2014) and was excited to see him in something again (and with a beard!) His character is hinted at having some relevant backstory with other characters so I wish they would have given him a little bit more to work with. My other issue is with T.J. Miller. Yes, he has moments of comedic relief, but he’s a “problematic” casting choice as it’s difficult to separate is off camera problems with seeing him on screen. That being said, his character’s storyline isn’t all sunshine and rainbows (can’t get into more details without spoilers…) So, if his casting is the only thing preventing you from wanting to see Underwater, I recommend giving it a chance, he doesn’t ruin the movie.

To wrap up, Underwater is a welcomed addition to the sparse but cherished “aquatic thriller” genre. It borrows themes and ideas from its predecessors but makes its own way with a strong female lead, interesting supporting cast, and intense underwater sequences. I understand it may not be for everybody, it suffers from choppy editing and poor casting decisions. If you’re on the fence and thrillers are your thing, I highly suggest giving it a chance on the big screen. In the future I believe it may develop a following – especially if I’m correct about a possible unrated director’s cut!

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]

Director: Karim Aïnouz
Writer: Murilo Hauser (screenplay), Martha Batalha (based on the book by: “A Vida Invisível de Eurídice Gusmão”)
Stars: Julia Stockler, Carol Duarte, Flávia Gusmão, António Fonseca

Synopsis: Two sisters born in Rio de Janeiro make their way through life, each mistakenly believing the other is living out her dreams half a world away.

[/info]

Men are, to put it mildly, the worst. More on that later.

Invisible Life opens with two sisters, Euridice and Guida (Carol Duarte and Julia Stockler respectively), becoming separated during a jaunt in the jungle. They call out for one another, only to hear their own voices echo back. A clever foreshadow for what’s to come…

At its heart, Karim Ainouz’s fabulous melodrama is about sisterhood and how that special bond can never be fully severed—no matter how hard the patriarchy may try. Although the story is melodramatic by design, the two lead performances keep it from veering into soapy territory.

Duarte and Stockler—who bear such a striking resemblance that I admit I mistook them more than once—deliver grounded, three-dimensional portrayals. The blood between Euridice and Guida is thick, and their energies are perfectly balanced. Their sisterly yin and yang is freakishly believable; there’s a real harmony even when they’re not on screen together. Duarte’s Euridice is studious and ambitious, as she painstakingly works to master the piano, while Stockler’s Guida is more free-spirited and impulsive, as she flexes her feminine wiles.

They also share a penchant for sailors. One night, Guida runs off with hers—all the way to Greece. Months later, she returns to Rio de Janeiro, single and pregnant. Turns out what’s-his-name didn’t love her after all. Go figure… Then, Guida is abandoned again when her stern yet humiliation-prone father Manuel (Antonio Fonseca), ashamed of his unwed and expectant daughter, disowns her—making sure to mention that Guida need not run to Euridice, who he says has left Brazil to study music in Europe. Stockler conveys Guida’s sense of loss so lucidly.

Meanwhile, Euridice is in fact still in Rio de Janeiro, having been married off to a man named Antenor (Gregorio Duvivier) and unable to live out her dream of being a world-renowned concert pianist when she also becomes unintentionally pregnant. Antenor is sexually pushy, even coercing intercourse in the middle of Euridice’s piano-playing. These scenes especially prove why it’s important to empower female cinematographers. Helene Louvart shoots these scenarios sans any male gaze and depicts them for what they are: abuse and marital rape. Duarte’s internal turmoil is so painfully palpable.

As the years go on, the sisters live parallel lives, mere miles away, in the same enormous city, unsure when or if they will ever see each other again.

Invisible Life may not be queer on its surface, but Ainouz is an openly gay filmmaker, so queer themes are gonna happen, whether consciously or not. With Guida’s story in particular, Ainouz explores the idea of a chosen family. Unable to give up her newborn child and continue a cycle of abandonment, Guida befriends a prostitute (Barbara Santos) and together they become a (same-sex) parental unit for Guida’s son. An unusual thing for 1950s Brazil to say the least.

And with Euridice, we have a character who weds someone she does not truly love in order to please her family and maintain appearances. She had no intention to start a family, but had little choice in the matter, because Euridice has little control over her life and body. In many ways, her life is not hers to live. A concept persecuted persons know all too well.

Because the villainy of the patriarchy is the main thesis of this film. It’s what drives the sisters apart and keeps them oppressed. It’s what renders so many women second-class citizens. Inferior. Uncared for. Invisible. Okay, fine. It’s not men who are evil. What’s really rotten is the system that props them up and pushes down the rest—a system that many men are uninterested in dismantling. Or even acknowledging the existence of. This is the story of two women—sisters—who’ve fallen victim to that system (by design), and how their undying love for one another, and need to reunite, drives them to fight on.

Sublime without becoming overly sentimental, Invisible Life plays out like Douglas Sirk by way of Todd Haynes with a dash of Claire Denis. And, yes, although the runtime exceeds two hours, the finale is worth it. Heart-wrenching and near-cathartic—thanks in large part to the unshowy devastation of Fernanda Montenegro, Brazilian acting legend and the rightful owner of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Oscar.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Director: Terrence Malick
Writer: Terrence Malick
Stars: August Diehl, Valerie Pachner, Maria Simon

Synopsis: The Austrian Franz Jägerstätter, a conscientious objector, refuses to fight for the Nazis in World War II.

[/info]

Terrence Malick has returned. There was a time when that phrase was a lot more significant. Not because the relevance or quality of Malick’s films have dropped per se, but because of how frequently he now releases his projects of void-like notions. Since his acclaimed outing of The Tree of Life, it hasn’t been a strange occurrence to see a new outing from him every 2-3 years. And while A Hidden Life is plausibly his most devoted work of art since the former, I don’t think it assumes the role of this grand payoff of artistic integrity that others might perceive it to carry.

There’s no condemning Malick’s eye for imagery. We’ve taken note of this in his previous projects and even so with the most recent string of impromptu contemporary-set films. There are flooring instances of countryside scenery throughout the film. DP Jörg Widmer (who has never worked with Malick prior fascinatingly enough) is an absolute marvel. The elegance of using natural lighting against the depicted Austrian landscape is a challenge in itself. Yet Widmer amply construes every ounce of frame through the entrancing picture-esque terrain that in some ways resembles that of desktop wallpaper (which is more of a compliment than anything). It’s all positioned at the center of this conflict by displaying beauty even at the stigma of affliction, albeit intermittently.

While complaints are evident about the somewhat swift and unorthodox editing style, I think it sits well as an underlying companion for the film. The movie, moreso the first hour, entails a lot of exposition and implementation of the main relationship at hand (as expected) through the lens of these very compiled factions of clips. Comparing it to something episodic has become an over-hashed trope of detail for recent films, but this principle of editing feels more like an exertion of creative power rather than a gimmick – especially since it was Malick who edited it himself. It aides vastly in keeping the audience to the fullest depth of intrigue even with its slow-burning culmination of action.

I reward the film’s diligence and centerpiece of focus in its runtime, as it really does expand itself across the entire 175 minute span. It stays committed through this wobbly way of extrapolating sympathy from the viewer. These sequences of greenery and wildlife that instill you into a state of home, which then eventually switches to a brief dialogue/voiceover of the characters justification or explanation of their actions. It feels overtly acquired yet not earned. It’s actually what induced my loss of early interest that I had for the film. Diehl and Pachner both give very humane performances, despite them being directly subdued under the conscience of the movies themes of decadence that can be bombarding at times. The two of them are both equally integral for the movie’s subtext of conflict and the core testament at heart. Which all in all, is actually no small feat considering this physicality the film has morphed into it.

There’s a lot of interesting sentiments about one’s own belief system and the triviality of behavior relating to the film’s setting, but it’s never in a semblance of cohesion. And even when it rarely is, it’s not enough to galvanize the viewer back in to it’s narrative. Once it’s all said and done, there’s a very drab bookend kind of closure. It feels relatively resolute just due to how grueling the emotional buildup to it is, but universally I just don’t think it’s thorough enough in terms of resonance. If the film had the ability to grip me all throughout it’s exploration of Jägerstätter’s resistance, then it could’ve worked well on its own.

I certainly wish I could’ve taken more from A Hidden Life, especially since his recent projects have been promising despite how little in artistic merit many have called them out for. What all of those had however, was this lingering spirit to them. The elegance of Malick’s presentation of commonality is what was so attractive. They were bombastic and exaggerated, and A Hidden’s Life’s conflict is delineated in such a monumental way. But it’s vacant of a sensibility to spark whoever may be watching it. I’m positive there’s a devout group of Malick fans out there – and even just specific audiences for that matter that are down for the ride of this one.

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 359:

[divider]

Director: Greta Gerwig
Writer: Greta Gerwig, based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott
Stars: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet

Synopsis: Jo March reflects back and forth on her life, telling the beloved story of the March sisters – four young women each determined to live life on their own terms.

[/info]

There have been seven big screen adaptations of Louisa May Acott’s Little Women, the first being released over a century ago in 1917, (it’s worth adding that this adaptation has sadly been lost to time). Over the years we have seen adaptations starring the likes of Katherine Hepburn in 1933 and Winona Ryder in 1994, there’s just something about this story which has a timeless quality to it despite the novel being released in 1868.

However, with the sheer number of adaptations (the last one being in 2018), some were slightly apprehensive when it was announced that Lady Bird’s director and writer Greta Gerwig’s next film was to be her own adaptation of Little Women. How could Gerwig make this Victorian story appealing for a modern-day audience? And could she also stay faithful to the source material? Well, it’s safe to say that Gerwig proves that she is more than capable of adapting this revered piece of literature, and she does a fantastic job of updating the novel for contemporary cinema goers. Little Women is an absolute treat of a film and one that I urge people to seek out.

Little Women starts off in 1868, Jo March (Saoirse Ronan) is a teacher living in New York. She sells stories to an editor called Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts), stories which she doesn’t put her name to and stories which she doesn’t particularly enjoy writing but does so as they make money. Jo receives news that she must return home to Massachusetts, due to her sister Beth’s (Eliza Scanlen) illness. The film’s narrative is interwoven with events that took place seven years before, where we see the sisters Jo, Beth, Meg (Emma Watson) and Amy (Florence Pugh) come of age. We watch them bicker and fight with each other, fall in love and more importantly create a profound bond together as sisters.

Jo’s main relationship is with Laurie (Timothée Chalamet) the grandson of their neighbor Mr. Laurence (Chris Cooper). The film explodes with Ronan and Chalamet chemistry, and they bounce off each other’s quirkiness in an effortlessly cool fashion. However, Jo has bigger ambitions than marriage unlike her sister Amy who has to soldier the burden of saving her family from financial ruin as her Aunt March (Meryl Streep) continuously reminds her. Jo often seems baffled by Amy’s and Meg’s decision to pursue marriage, begging Meg at one point to run away together so Meg can become an actress. In this beautiful, heartbreaking scene Meg quietly responds back with “Just because my dreams are different from yours doesn’t mean they’re not important.” A powerful message that we should all consider and take away from this film.

The film’s strengths lie with its performances and everyone shines here. Ronan captures the feistiness of Jo, a character who seems larger-than-life but also relatable in so many ways. Pugh manages to capture the inner turmoil of Amy, making her appear more sympathetic rather than simply bratty. The supporting cast are also brilliant with Laura Dern portraying the girls’ mother, a woman who is desperately trying to hold her family together while her husband is away fighting. There is such a heartbreaking tenderness to Dern performance, that we feel for her every time we witness her putting on a brave face for her daughters.

Gerwig’s direction is flawless, and she reestablishes the fact that she has an ear for dialogue. The best scenes are when the sisters are bickering, or are participating in a fast-paced conversation with each other. Gerwig directs these in the style of a Robert Altman picture, full of energy and liveliness. Gerwig doesn’t only have an ear for dialogue, but she has an eye for natural beauty and along with her cinematographer Yorick Le Saux, they manage to recreate an authentic looking New York and Massachuttes. Le Saux’s camera manages to capture the cosy intimacy inside the March home in such an effective manner that we feel like we are there curled up in front of the fire. Other highlights include Alexandre Desplat’s charming score, and Jacqueline Durran’s costume design (yes, each outfit captures the girl’s unique personalities wonderfully).

The only slight issue with the film is with Gerwig’s and editor Nick Houy’s decision to cross-cut between the two timelines, and when it first occurs it can be quite jarring. Some viewers may find this a distraction and struggle slightly to follow the storyline but once you get accustomed to the timelines then you can become swept up in all of the film’s beauty and splendor. Gerwig’s Little Women has all the hallmarks of becoming a beloved Christmas movie, and one that can be enjoyed by not only for little women, but for little men too.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 356:

[divider]