Last of the Monster Kids

Last of the Monster Kids
"LAST OF THE MONSTER KIDS" - Available Now on the Amazon Kindle Marketplace!

Sunday, March 10, 2024

OSCARS 2024 LIVE BLOG!



6:30 - Welcome to Film Thoughts' annual live blog of the Academy Awards ceremony! 

I started blogging the awards show - literally writing down my thoughts on this here blog and just publishing it as I go - in 2010. At the time, the idea of a "Live Blog," a running commentary on a live event, was still a relevant idea. Nowadays, we just post our thoughts on Twitter via our phones or whatever. However, I am committed to doing things the old way. Actually nobody has ever done it like this, so I guess I'm committed to doing things my way! In other words, for the six people reading this: Reload early, reload often to see more of my pointless observations throughout the night! This is as off-the-cuff as I get these days.

6:40 - Because my film nerdiness about film and my obsessive compulsive streaks roll into each other, I feel the need to watch every one of the nominated movies. I like to be informed, ya know! Maybe I do this - and, by extension, write these reviews - because I like to pretend I'm an Academy member or something. Following that logic, here's what I would vote for if I got a vote. 


Does it make me crazy that I put more thought into these than the people actually the Academy? Yes! Yes, it does!

6:47 - I have just been informed that Lupito N'yonga's win for "12 Years a Slave" was almost a decade ago! I am crumbling into dust!

6:51 - It seems Hulu is doing a tell-all documentary about Bon Jovi, presumably because we've run out of eighties rock bands to do tell-all documentaries about.

6:59 - Once again, the time of year where I have to endure Jimmy Kimmel has arrived...

7:05 - Another reason to hate Daylight Savings Time: The Oscars starting while the sun is still out feels wrong.

7:07 - This is a good opening montage but, all these exciting or inspiring clips flashing on-screen with exactly ONE shot from "The Zone of Interest" is pretty funny.

7:09 - Oh yeah, there was an Actor's Strike last year.

7:11 - I'm not drinking tonight but if I was I would take a shot every time there's a Barbenheimer joke.

Christopher Nolan smiling politely at the porn addiction joke. Okay, "Sillian" Murphy was a decent joke.

7:12 - RDJ's reaction shot was so much better than the actual joke.

7:13 - Messi! Yes, Messi is here at the Oscars!

7:14 - Jokes about "Killers of the Flower Moon" being long were old four months ago, dude.

7:17 - Achievement in Casting is a weird category to add when people have been begging for a Stunts category for years. But it's fine.

The jokes are leaning hard on reaction shots tonight.

7:19 - A.I. could definitely take your job, Jimmy. 

7:20 - That's nice to invite a bunch of teamsters and folks on-stage. Workers unite!

"Should we give out some Oscars?" Please, get on with it!

7:22 - So each of the acting categories are going to be introduced like this? This will result in a lot of awkward looking at teleprompters, I predict. 

7:23 - This category is Da'Vine's to loose, as far as I'm concerned. 

7:26 - I'm glad she won. Hopefully they don't announce the nominations like this for every category or else we really are going to be here all night. 

7:28 - That was a sweet speech and I like the shout-out to her publicist. 

7:33 - I don't think it'll happen but I'm so rooting for Paul Giamatti to win tonight. Look at him, he looks so happy to be here!

7:34 - I'm ashamed to admit that I would absolutely watch the Silver Oscars. Jesus, when will the hosts stop making jokes about animation only being for kids?

7:35 - The Animated Shorts category was pretty weak this year but rooting for "Ninety-Five Senses" or "Pachyderm!" 

7:36 - I do believe I said "War is Over!" was going to win in my reviews, obviously because it is the worst of the nominees! 

7:38 - Haha, you're not going to play Sean Lennon off the stage, assholes! 

I do think "The Boy and the Heron" will win and I'm fine with that. But I really did love "Robot Dreams." 

7:39 - Hayao Miyazaki is too damn cool for the Oscars. He doesn't give a shit. Why would he show up for this? Gotta love it. 

Can't wait to hear Billy Ellish's nominated strom. 

7:44 - I am still delighted that a movie as fucking weird as "Poor Things" got so many nominations. 

Did a 97 year old man write Kimmel's jokes tonight?

7:46 - This bit is fucking painful. 

It has no chance of winning but "May December" is my fave in this category. Considering the plagiarism controversy that started today, it'll be super awkward if "The Holdovers" wins.

7:48 - "Anatomy of a Fall" had a very tight screenplay, so I can't complain about it winning. 

7:49 - I missed that they played the "P.I.M.P." steel drum music as they walked on-screen. Awesome lol

7:50 - "American Fiction" is genuinely my pick for Adapted Screenplay. Also I expect it to win because it has the word "Fiction" in the title and Academy voters are very literal. Or they'll just give it to "Oppenheimer," I don't know.

7:52 - Didn't anyone else hear that banging noise from off-stage? Did Jimmy Kimmel fall off a ladder? Anyway, I genuinely don't understand why Hollywood doesn't function under the "15 four million dollar movie" philosophy Cord is rambling about here. 

7:54 - I do think the Billie song is pretty but I'm seriously rooting for "I'm Just Ken." I hope it doesn't get overlooked for being the silly option.

7:57 - No denying that Billie has got the rizz though. Like, I do not pay attention to pop music at all but I genuinely think she has an extraordinary voice. 

7:58 - Why are they making David Allen Grier stand in a random hallway? 

8:03 - I did enjoy the dissonance of the "Beetlejuice" theme starting over footage from "Past Lives."

8:04 - The Make-Up category is so weak tonight. I'm rooting for "Poor Things" since it's the only one tonight that isn't simply boring, realistic, old age make-ups. 

8:05 - At least they got that much right!

8:06 - Guy tells a good publicist joke and they play him off the stage! Typical. Wouldn't be upset if "Poor Things" sweeps both Make-Up and Production Design but I think "Barbie" will probably get it. Jack Fisk worked on "Barbie?!" 

8:08 - My predictions have been strangely on-point today and, guys, I'm scared. 

8:09 - Academy, you're never going to engineer a viral moment as good as Will Smith smacking someone. Stop trying! 

8:11 - Is that John Cena's actual body? Dude looks weird. This bit isn't great but as a precursor to Best Costume, that's a decent punchline. It's gonna be "Barbie," right? 

8:12 - Alright, so "Poor Things" is just going to sweep the technical categories? I'm not mad, just surprised. 

8:14 - Always kind of annoys me that the Academy makes time for dumb-ass skits but doesn't let people talk a little longer. But, at the same time, I do understand that people would probably ramble forever if they didn't do something. 

8:19 - The wins have mostly been on-point tonight - except for Animated Short, boooo - and the acceptance speeches have been fine. But, boy, the show itself has been slowwwwwww. 

8:20 - This makes me wish they still did all the Best Song nominations in a montage. Can you imagine this in-between the two "Barbie" songs? 

8:22 - What kind of hardcore rapping name is "Bad Bunny?" 

It has zero chance of winning but "Io Capitano" is so good. 

8:23 - Oh boy, I wonder how awkward "The Zone of Interest's" acceptance speech will be? Great movie though. 

8:25 - Kind of disappointed that Jonathan Glazer went for some "both-side-isms" with his acceptance speech. 

8:26 - The premise of this bit is pretty bad but Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling are selling it. The fact that they are honoring stuntmen really gives me hope they'll be preparing that for a proper category soon. 

8:32 - Okay, the AMC theater joke was solid. They do play a lot of commercials! 

8:35 - Sam Rockwell's beard rocks and it rocks well. 

8:37 - Christoph Waltz pontificating about Ken... Now that's art. 

8:38 - RDJ was my pick and and I'm glad he got it. Long overdue and he's fantastic in "Oppenheimer." Maybe next year, Gosling. 

8:39 - "I'd like to thank my terrible childhood." Jesus, they should let Robert host. 

It's amazing how much control of the stage this guy just takes within minutes. Total movie star charisma.

8:41 - The dog was clapping... THE DOG WAS CLAPPING. 

8:46 - She totally killed him, by the way. I believe she did it.

Anyway... ARNOLD IS IN THE HOUSE!

They did both try and kill Batman. "Batman, you son of a bitch!" 


8:47 - GODZILLA GODZILA GODZILLA GODZILLA

YES YES YES YES


8:48 - Arnold saying the words "Godzilla" at the Academy Awards... Is this real life? Am I awake? How is this possible? 

8:51 - Are you going to play the "Godzilla" team off the stage? Fuck you!

8:52 - I figured "Oppenheimer" had it in the bag. Editing was a pretty strong category this year. 

8:53 - "Chris Nolan, you're cool too." Accurate! 

8:54 - "American Symphony" is destined to be a forgotten Oscar nomination and I wouldn't vote for it to win. But I do like this song! It's pretty, you guys. 

8:55 - The decision to play clips from totally unrelated movies over this song was an odd one though.

8:59 - "Maestro" was the most painfully Oscar-bait-y movie in a nomination slate largely devoid of it this year. 

9:00 - I am digging the orchestral version of "Barbie Girl." 

9:01 - It's almost impressive how every single one of Kimmel's bit are just flopping tonight. 

9:02 - I'm sure "20 Days in Mariupol" will win Best Documentary Feature, on account of its "importance." Even if the film made me feel uneasy in some ways. As for Documentary Short, I have no idea. "Nai Nai & Wai Po" probably. This is a decent bit, Kate is doing here. 

9:04 - "Island In Between" was my pick and I knew it had no chance of winning. "The Last Repair Shop" was pleasant, so I guess I'm fine with this. 

9:05 - "The Eternal Memory" was my favorite of this slate, by the way. Heartbreaking film. Not surprised it didn't win though. 

9:09 - If "20 Days in Mariupol" winning an Oscar has any effect on the people in Ukraine, then I guess that film will have served its purpose. I'm still not sure movies, even documentary films, have any power to actually change the face of global politics though. How far can "awareness" take us, ya know? 

9:13 - Has there been a harder movie in Oscar history to fit into the pageantry of the night than "The Zone of Interest?" It just resists any sort of celebratory vibes. 

9:14 - I would genuinely love to see "El Conde" win Cinematography but that won't happen lol. It was a black-and-white movie about vampires! Of course I loved the way it looked!

"Oppenheimer" is a fine second choice. I probably would've given the Silver Oscar to "Killers of the Flower Moon," personally. But Hoyte van Hoytema is long overdue. 

9:16 - The Live Action short line-up was... Not the best. Please, give it to "Henry Sugar" and not that "The After" or "Red, White, and Blue" garbage. 

9:17 - Really wish Wes Anderson could have been here to accept his first Oscar. I guess this makes up for "Asteroid City" getting snubbed! One of these days, he's going to win Best Director and Best Picture for his third or fourth worst movie. 

9:18 - When will the curse of Diane Warren be lifted from the Oscars? Anyway, here's to "Flamin' Hot," another addition to the list of truly random ass movies to get nominated just because Warren touched them. 

9:24 - The more I think about "American Fiction," the more I loved it. One of the better movies about the creative process that I've seen recently. 

9:25 - John Mulhoney completely outclassing Jimmy Kimmel within seconds. Just comes out, does a totally unrelated bit about "Field of Dreams," and fucking kills it.

9:27 - Anyway, I feel like "The Zone of Interest" kind of has to win Best Sound, right? I mean, sound is so pivotal to that film. But "Oppenheimer's" sound design is definitely powerful too. 

Alright, good.

9:29 - This got has a nice hat and nice side burns. British people wishing folks Happy Mother's Day has become a real reoccurring theme tonight?

It's "Ken" time, baby. 

9:30 - I've been a fan of Gosling for a while but, really, he managed to find such a total match for his particular charisma in Ken. He made that whole damn movie, in my opinion. 

9:31 - The choreography here definitely deserves some notice. Holy shit, is that Slash?! 

9:33 - It was a showstopper in the movie and a showstopper tonight. A highlight of what has been a very slow night. 

9:38 - So that "Wicked" movie looks bad, right? 

9:39 - I'm personally rooting for "Killers of the Flower Moon" to take home Best Score but I bet "Oppenheimer" gets it. 

9:41 - Billie Ellish won Best Song because "What Was I Made For" was the serious song from "Barbie," even though anyone who just watched the performances could tell you that "I'm Just Ken" is the one that always brings the house down. But what do I know? 

9:43 - This acceptance speech is pretty fucking cute though, not going to lie. 

9:49 - Time for the annual game to see who gets left out of the In Memoriam montage. 

9:51 - The Academy's insistence on not giving the viewers at home a clear look at what names are appearing on-screen continues to annoy the hell out of me. It's such an easy thing not to fuck up and yet they do, every year!

9:56 - Kimmel's jokes are extremely heavy on puns tonight. He's not even trying. 

Anyway, Nic Cage is here, motherfuckers!

9:57 - Jeffrey Wright is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors working right now. Would love for him to win. He won't though! Paul Giamatti winning would be so fantastic but I'm still kind of banking on Cillian getting. 

9:58 - "Would I have done that? Hell yes!" And that's why Nic Cage rocks. Anyway, Bradley Cooper suuuuuucks. If he wins, I'm going to scream! 

10:00 - Cillian is great, so I do not object to him winning. It's kind of crazy that he's never even been nominated before? 

10:03 - So "Oppenheimer" is sweeping now, right? Just like we all knew it would. I like it when Steven Spielberg talks. 

10:04 - All the film bros I knew in college are vindicated. Nolan has an Oscar now. 

10:06 - I know I've been complaining all night about how flat the show has been but, I'll say this much... Staring the show at seven has made the evening go by a little faster. Will the broadcast actually be shorter than "Killers of the Flower Moon?" We are getting dangerously close. 

10:10 - Emma Stone has really crept up the predictions as we've gotten closer to the Oscars. LIly Gladstone winning is not certain, though I still think the Academy passing over a chance to give an Oscar to a Native American for the first time is unlikely. We shall see!

10:11 - Anyway, Michelle... She did it! 

10:13 - I love Carey Mulligan, so it really shows you how fucking mid "Maestro" was that I'm annoyed that she even got nominated for it. 

10:14 - Oh shit. People on Twitter are going to be soooooo mad. 

10:15 - Alright, there's going to be a massive backlash against "Poor Things" now. It's still a really good movie! There's going to be an even bigger backlash against Emma Stone now. She's still great! Look at how fucking charming she is right now! Lily Gladstone is great but let's stop forming petty rivalries over this shit. 

10:18 - I can't believe people like Jimmy Kimmel still think they're going to stop Trump with dumb jokes. We are so past that point, Jimmy! We can't snark our way out of this one...

10:20 - Anyway, here's Big Al. Pacino still has it though. Oppenheimer Sweep! 

10:25 - I love that one shot of Bradley Cooper looking sad.

And we're ending the night on a lame cell phone joke. Kimmel really did suck all the air out of hte room, didn't he?

10:26 - Wait, excuse me, we end on a stupid reference to the fake Kimmel/Matt Damon feud. How dare you drag Messi into this!

10:28 - Anyway, as for the show itself... Kimmel really fucking sucked as host tonight! He just seemed like he did not want to be there! The presentation got off to an extremely slow start and the pacing never quite perked up from there. However, there were some great moments from presenters and especially winners. "I'm Just Ken" brought the house down and fucking "Godzilla" won an Oscar! I can't be mad about that. Overall, I would say the show itself was a bland affair but, as always, the Oscars broadcast is always worth watching for those special wins.

And now that the Oscars are over, I can't get back to watching trash! Thank you and good night! 

Saturday, March 9, 2024

OSCARS 2024: Final Reviews Round-Up

This marks my fifth year completing the Oscar Death Race. I'm still not at the point where both watching everything and writing full-length reviews of everything is realistic for me, I did manage to write full length reviews for 44 of the 53 nominated movies this year. (My review of "Society of the Snow" will be part of my J.A. Bayona Director Report Card, whenever that happens.) Here's capsule reviews of everything else! See you at the Live Blog!


The Boy and the Heron

Thank god we still have a master like Miyazaki around to gift us with these beautiful, detailed worlds. “The Boy and the Heron's” fantasy novel structure allows the director to reflect on themes like growth, acceptance, forgetting, ecological collapses, and archetypes Jungian and alchemic. Through it all, there's the unmissable sense of Miyazaki grappling with his own legacy and wondering if anyone can shoulder the burden. Of course, it's an absolutely gorgeous, incredibly creative fantasy as well. [9/10]


The Creator

Summarizes all of Gareth Edwards' strengths and weaknesses as a filmmaker. On one hand, this looks damn good. The cinematography has a vast, epic quality to it. The special effects and production design are fantastic, creating a lived-in version of the future that seems plausibly connected to our current world. On the other hand, the characters and story here are as stock-parts as can be. Charismatic as John David Washington is, he can only do so much to elevate a hero with yet another dead wife and baby to motivate him. You never feel anything for him or his relationship with his surrogate robot daughter. The themes and subtext are as warmed-over and obvious as can be, the movie essentially saying nothing about mankind's relationship with robots or each other. [5/10]


El Conde

Gorgeous black-and-white cinematography makes this one of the year's best looking movies. The first act, which dryly sets up an alternate history where Augusto Pinochet is a vampire, in-between brutal violence and darkly funny satire, is fantastic. Once it settles into being a slightly comedic story of family in-fighting and finances, it becomes less interesting. The last third features enough twists to keep my attention, even if this is never as strong as when taking a poetic or epic approach to its vampiric subject. I'm not Chilean, so I can't reflect on whether this is a tasteful or tactful treatment of real life butchery though. [8/10]


Elemental

Pixar tries their hand at a romantic-comedy and it's not half-bad. The chemistry between Ember and Wade is genuinely sweet. That allows many routine moments – the big romantic gesture to win her back, for example – feel a lot more earned. It helps that the conflict that inevitably breaks the two up is based in something more meaningful, the push-and-pull of wanting to please your parents but also live your own life, than the contrived melodrama usually seen in this genre. The animation is also lovely and the Element City setting allows for some clever sight gags. As a discussion about being a foreigner assimilating into a big city, I'm not sure the film has anything clever to say though. [6.5/10]


Four Daughters

The meta conceit, of having the real people and the actors playing them in re-enactments directly interacting, produces some interesting results. Olfa was not a good mother, though you do come to understand many of her actions. Overall, this is a good portrait of the delicate balance of dysfunction and deep emotional bonds that keep most families together. Once it becomes more of an issues doc, about how two of the sisters became radicalized, this bends more towards a tragic atmosphere. [6/10]


Golda

Approaches history as a chamber drama, focusing mostly on people in command centers and offices tersely discussing geopolitical moves and strategies. The result is that “Golda” is all about how the Yom Kippur War made one woman feel really bad. Perhaps not the most responsible direction to approach this story with, especially in light of recent events! Director Guy Nattiv is also fond of some extremely heavy-handed visual symbolism. Having said that, there is something weirdly captivating in the choice to shoot this biopic like a horror movie, with its vertigo-inducing camera angles and seasick close-ups. The performances are sturdy and, yeah, the make-up is pretty good. [6/10]


Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Maybe it lacks the magic of Spielberg. However, “Dial of Destiny” does provide geriatric Indiana Jones with a fitting send-off. There's a layer of regrets to Harrison Ford's performance, that grows more evident as the film goes on. Mads Mikkelsen makes a compelling, conniving villain. I like that this one makes the points that Nazis never really went away and we should always punch them. The McGuffin is an intriguing one, leading to some exciting action, ancient temple set-pieces, and a surprising finale. And you know what? I even like Indy's new sidekicks in this. [7/10]


Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One

I've somehow never seen a single “Mission: Impossible” movie before, so any meaning the callbacks to previous films or the characters' established history didn't mean anything to me. The plot is a largely unimportant MacGuffin hunt, so many of the exposition scenes are tedious. However, the cast is decent. Cruise and Atwell having decent chemistry and Pom Klementof is a good unhinged henchwoman. The action scenes are obviously the main attraction here. Some of the melee fights look a bit silly but the stunt work is generally excellent. I do admire the film's commitment to topping itself with more ludicrous set pieces. Guess I gotta watch the rest of these now? [7/10]


The Teacher's Lounge

As a thriller about how a single mistake can have oversized ramifications on your life and other people, this is often nerve-wracking. The music is very intense, the camera emphasizes the crushing smallness of the school rooms, and Leonie Benesch gives an excellent performance as a woman barely holding it together. One definitely feels like there's commentary here about the omnipresence of surveillance in our modern age and how easily so-called “cancel culture” can get out of control. I wish this actually had an ending though! [7/10]

Thursday, February 29, 2024

OSCARS 2024: Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)


Many years ago, Martin Scorsese said he would like to make a movie in every cinematic genre possible. Considering this – and knowing his love of classic Hollywood and everything therein – it's surprising that he's never made a western before. When it was first announced that Scorsese was circling an adaptation of David Grann's non-fiction book “Killers of the Flower Moon,” it was assumed that Scorsese and the western would finally meet. Yet, as the script went through several years of development, the focus changed more. Meetings with representatives of the actual Osage Nation convinced Scorsese and Eric Roth to rewrite the film, to center more around the Native American perspective. The resulting, epic length motion picture was backed almost solely by Apple, in their continued attempt to buy award season prestige. It worked, because a new Marty movie is always an event, but “Killers of the Flower Moon” has also proven to be a hotly debated new masterpiece from one of America's greatest living directors. 

In 1897, oil is discovered on the Osage Nation reservation in Oklahoma. By 1921, the oil boom had made the Osage some of the richest people in the country per capita. William Hale, a local sheriff and ranch owner, invites his nephew Ernest Burkhart to live with him. Hale's relationship with the Osage is close but he's actually been plotting for years to steal their headrights to the land, via murder and marrying wealthy Native women off to white men. He convinces Ernest to seduce Mollie Kyle, a sickly but very wealthy Osage woman. The two soon marry, Ernest immediately involved in Hale's murderous, criminal plot. The Osage are well aware of the deaths and attempt their own investigations but Hale does everything he can to suppress them. It's not until Mollie – who Ernest is slowly poisoning – lobbies Washington directly that authorities start looking into the crimes.

More than anything else, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a case study of the mechanics of evil. The film's three-and-a-half hour length is largely devoted to showing every step by which Hale and his associates slowly massacred the Osage population. He integrates himself into the community, working so closely with the Osage that he's even present at the meeting where the tribe elders announce their plan to root out the killers. As played by a chillingly stately Robert De Niro, Hale is depicted as an always polite master schemer who is an expert at telling people what they want to hear. From there, he engineers a campaign of murder, oppression and manipulation that runs through every strata in the town. White doctors are his underlings. Outside investigators are beaten or killed. Murder is carried out casually, as it suits his plans. In one of the film's most chilling sequences, Hale coldly states how a depressed Osage man must stay alive long enough for his insurance plan on him to pay off. 

If “Killers of the Flower Moon” dedicates much of its extensive runtime to showing how these vile plans were carried out so casually, Roth's script also makes sure to shine a light on the character of such evil men. Ernest Buckhart declares, early on, that he loves money. He robs a group of Osage partiers, before immediately loosing all the jewels on a bad poker hand. Later, the entire plan is nearly blown up by Burkhart foolishly letting an accomplice steal his car. If Hale is such a convincing manipulator that he can operate practically in the light, Ernest is such a total stodge as to obey every command thoughtlessly. Leonardo DiCaprio, showing little in the way of movie star vanity, plays Burkhart as a grunting, lowly criminal motivated only by greed and the loosest sense of pride in his own mindless actions. When Hale drags Ernest into a Masonic temple and paddles his ass, it reveals him more and more as an overgrown child acting out horrible deeds on behalf of powers. This reveals a clear message: Evil isn't complicated. It's stupid and common, motivated only by taking want it wants from those who are vulnerable. 

As a post-mortem on these infamous murders, “Killers of the Flower Moon” takes a detached, almost clinical approach to its violence. Scorsese devotes screen time to many of the murders, both before and after the fact. Often, we see the victims cut down by gunshots in long distance shots. This distance only emphasizes how casual the killers were about their actions. A bullet pops off, a body falls to the ground, and it's left to be discovered. This happens over and over again. Hale and his henchmen were so confident in their plans that little steps were necessary to cover their tracks. The only time Scorsese moves in close for the violence is when a home near Ernest and Molly's place is blown up with dynamite. We see the gaping head wound of the victims, who are still, seeming to maintain a level of dignity in death that are beyond their murderers. Not coincidently, this is when the deaths seem to start to actually effect even a simpleton like Burkhart. 

Throughout the film, attention to brought to how many of the Osage people were deemed “incompetent” by the government, requiring a guardianship to manage their own money. Burkhart argues with a funeral home owner, over being charged “Osage prices.” The doctors and Hale joke openly about murdering an Osage member to his face. People who knew Ernest are depicted as being well aware of what he was doing. This occurs alongside casual racism, from people who dismiss the indigenous people as savages, or a newsreel about the Tulsa race massacre. “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a long movie and it uses that length to repeatedly hammer home how the American environment of the time allowed this to happen without a moment's glance. If greed motivated Hale's scheme, if unquestioning men like Ernest Burkhart carried it out, then the systemic forces of prejudice that infect every corner of American culture is responsible for letting it happen uninterrupted. 

Yes, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is about white forces stomping out Native American culture. It does this through means cultural, political, and interpersonal. The first scene has an Osage elder bemoaning that their children will not speak their language. Mollie's mother states that all her children have married white men. The spectre of liquor and American consumerism, brought to the Osage by the white man, haunts the whole movie. Scorsese's effort to center the Native perspective surely resulted in the expanded role for the Osage figureheads. Lily Gladstone – of Piegan Blackfoot and Nez Perce heritage herself – plays Mollie as wounded and sometimes helpless to the forces around her. Yet she also maintains an incredible sense of dignity. Every Osage character in the film does. Her conflicted feelings are brought to life through several meaningful moments of voiceover narration. The movie grants the indigenous people a complicated, fleshed-out personality that we really see even in thoughtful films about how Native Americans have been abused and absorbed by the white culture all around them.

Without falling back on stereotypes of Indian mysticism, the film respects the Osage culture with haunting visions of animal spirits and ancient ancestors. These are elements of the film's powerful cinematography, the warm, earthy images often feeling like paintings come to life. This pairs with a harsh, rambling score that establishes the feeling of a crushing, advancing machine that can't be stopped. In its last third, “Killers of the Flower Moon” becomes a courtroom drama devoted to showing how even a feckless man like Ernest Burkhart can realize his own wrong-doing. Without the ability to intellectually justify his actions like Hale – always scheming, even from his jail cell –  does, Ernest is left to wallow in his own miserable suffering. It all proceeds a haunting final scene, which puts a perfect point on the idea that all of American culture is at fault for letting this happen, up to and including Scorsese himself.

Though intimidating in its length, “Killers of the Flower Moon” is sure to rank as one of Scorsese's most pointed movies. In a career obsessed with how men perform violent acts, the film sees the director truly examining the cause and effect of violence. It's an exhausting yet graceful examination of the controlling systems that allow these things to happen while also functioning as an indictment on those that did wrong and a tribute to those that still survive. [9/10]

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

OSCARS 2024: Barbie (2023)


In 2009, it was announced that Mattel was developing a film based on their world-famous Barbie doll. This was part of a wave of Hollywood films in the wake of Michael Bay's “Transformers,” trying to develop franchises out of beloved toy brands. Most of these projects that came out flopped and many more died on the vine. Yet “Barbie” stuck around. Versions of the film starring Amy Schumer and Anne Hathaway never manifested. Through it all, nobody was much excited for a movie based on the plastic blonde. Until the latest star on the project, Margot Robbie, got indie darling Greta Gerwig signed on to direct. As more casting and information came out, people became more excited about this “Barbie” movie. By the time it released last summer, it was among the most anticipated films of the year. The project continued to defy the odds by becoming the biggest hit of the year, well reviewed, and is now nominated for multiple Academy Awards. 

Gerwig's film begins in Barbie Land, the pink, pastel alternate reality populated by Mattel's playthings. Multiple versions of the doll rule the land while, multiple versions of her male counterpart Ken serve as studly, vacant-minded second class citizens. Life seems ideal in Barbie Land... Except for when the blondest, most stereotypical Barbie begins to have unavoidable thoughts of death. Once her feet are no longer pointy and her thighs get cellulite, she visits the so-called Weird Barbie. She's informed that the child playing with her in the Real World must be having this sadness and that Barbie must travel to the mortal realm to resolve this issue. The neediest, beach-iest Ken accompanies her as she discovers the real world is a lot more complicated. She also meets Sasha, a grumpy tweener, and her mother Gloria, who happens to work for Mattel as a Barbie designer. Meanwhile, Ken discovers the concept of patriarchy brings it back to Barbie Land, flipping the idyllic, pink world on its head.

As a comedy, “Barbie” operates in two separate modes, clearly divided along its two worlds. The first is a highly campy homage to the history of the “Barbie” product line. The film takes great delight in blowing up the various “Barbie” play-sets, vehicles, accessories, and accessories into life-sized props and sets. The film highlights several bizarre artifacts from “Barbie” history, like some of the more regrettable variations on the dolls and forgotten characters like Midge, Allen (played by Michael Cera at his most hilariously deadpan), and a pooping dog. The physics of this world operate under a cartoon, play-time logic. Most prominently, the playthings/people within this world act in an exaggerated manner you'd expect from a kid on a sugar high. When presented with Barbie's flat feet, people scream in overblown horror. The Kens posture against each other in a juvenile manner, a little girl's version of manly squabbles. It's a bit grating, especially in the early scenes, but I also have to commend the movie for its creative embracing of this artificial world and all that entails.

If “Barbie” had devoted itself totally to this Barbie Land, it probably would've been a pretty amusing – if slightly insufferable – motion picture. However, this is also a fish-out-of-water film that transports Barbie and Ken into our real world. Contrasting the naïve yet weirdly perspective Barbie with the harsh realities of our reality produces the biggest laughs in the film. Such as her denial of Sasha's claim that she's a fascist, the joke that easily got the largest reaction out of me. Or the running gag of her and Ken's inability to understand paying for things. These scenes capitalize on “Barbie's” biggest positive. Margot Robbie's considerable charm and excellent comedic timing makes this plastic doll a personable, living thing that is repeatedly baffled by everything that's happen with moments of hilarious insight. This peaks during an amusing sight gag, once Robbie's Barbie succumbs to the depression she feels. 

Probably the smartest thing Gerwig did while constructing “Barbie” is embracing the doll's complicated relationship with feminism. The utopian Barbie Land acknowledges that “Barbie,” as an ideal, presents a perfected version of femininity that can accomplish anything. This contrasts roughly with the real world conception of the doll, as a fetishized sexual object. If Gerwig had left it at that, I think “Barbie” would be a much stronger film. Instead, the script gets increasingly didactic as it goes along. There's phony feeling platitudes, like Barbie telling an old woman that she's beautiful. This tendency peaks during America Ferrera's monologue about the contradictory nature of being a woman, a flat laying down of the movie's themes that Ferrera does admittedly deliver in a fiery manner. After that, “Barbie” ladles it on, growing more sentimental as it heads into an overlong epilogue. 

“Barbie's” feminist messaging being so blunt might be why the movie ends up getting stolen by Ryan Gosling's Ken. Gosling strikes the perfect amount of brainlessness, playing a character who becomes a malicious antagonist almost by accident, because he's just too dumb to know any better. Maybe that's because Gosling always has that sad puppy dog glare in his eyes, even during Ken's most sexist moments. Gosling also has a stunning comedic timing, with a weirdo energy that manages to make even normal lines into huge laughs. The go-for-broke quality Gosling brings to Ken is one hundred perfect on display during the “I'm Just Ken” musical number, a moment of such perfectly joyous silliness that it immediately became one of my favorite moment in movies last year. The musical number is so brilliantly pulled off that everything that follows feels unnecessary. 

If “Barbie” trusted its own message more, and was willing to convey its idea to its audience with more subtly, it would be a stronger, funnier film. (This weakness is also evident in the toothless satire directed at the Mattel corporation.) On the other hand, the fact that a movie made to sell dolls was this fresh, amusing, and pointed in the first place is nothing short of a miracle. It does have some insightful things to say about femininity, masculinity, and their roles in the world while also being kind of delightfully weird. At least by the standards of 145 million dollar kids movies. Robbie and Gosling are fantastic and their performances go a long way to making the movie as enjoyable as it is. If studios want to give I.P. projects like this to auteurs like Gerwig more often, that can only be a net-gain for the film world. [7/10]

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

OSCARS 2024: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)


Five years after “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse's” release, its impact is already clear. Multiple American animated movies have emulated its distinctive visuals. The comic book concepts of a multi-verse became even more popular since then. And it further cemented Spider-Man's place as the most popular superhero of all time. Naturally, because comic book stories never end, a sequel was planned right from the beginning. Yet there was a slight problem. Part of why “Into the Spider-Verse” became such an unexpected commercial and critical success was that nobody expected it to be good. Just look at the other components of Sony's on-going disastrous attempt to spin the bits and pieces of the “Spider-Man” rights they own into a successful franchise for an example of how low expectations were. A sequel, “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” actually had an uphill battle of its own, because people really liked the first one. Well, I guess they pulled it off again, as the sequel has been well received in its own right. Months after the hype has died down, why do I think now?

Following the events of “Into the Spider-Verse,” Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy have continued to operate as the respective Spider-People of their universes. That's when an incursion by another universe's Vulture draws Gwen into an inter-dimensional league of other Spider-People who police the multi-verse. She goes to visit Miles, around the time he's challenged by a new villain called the Spot and is dealing with some issues with his parents. After the Spot learns how to travel to other dimensions, Miles follows Gwen into another world. This delves Miles into a multi-versal adventure, where he meets a collection of new Spider-Men – some have his best interest at heart, others have plans of their own for him – and he'll learn a lot more about himself. 

The animation style of “Into the Spider-Verse” was what signaled to many people that the movie was more than just a quickie cash-in project. “Across the Spider-Verse” clearly sets out to top the original by having an even more explosive visual sense. Time is spent developing the look for each dimension, Gwen's world being characterized by water color like palette. Or Spider-Punk always being surrounded by zine style cut-out art. When the Vulture – from the Marvel 1602 world, it seems – appears, it's as hand-drawn blueprints. The film doubles down on the comic inspiration of the first one, with even more world balloons, thought bubbles, and sound effects appearing on-screen. In truth, “Across the Spider-Verse's” hyperactive visuals are so frantic and constant at times, it borders on the overwhelming. This might be one of the few films I've seen that felt more coherent at home than on the big screen. Nevertheless, it is a hell of a spectacle. 

This visual playfulness peaks during a sequence in the middle of the movie, where Miles is chased through the Society headquarters by a whole horde of Spider-People. This includes such colorful sights as Spider-Cat, Spider-Rex, and a cowboy Spider-Man. It's a lot of fun. So are cameos from the LEGO Spider-Man universe. Yet, sometimes, “Across the Spider-Verse” piles on the references and in-jokes to the point that they feel stifling. I appreciate the shout-outs to the 1967 “Spider-Man” cartoon. Yet cameos from Andrew Garfield or a desperate connection to the MCU makes the movie feel more like an extension of a massive corporate product than as, ya know, a movie meant to tell a story. This is evident in the appearance from Spider-Man characters that end up barely contributing anything to the story too.

Another weakness in “Across the Spider-Verse” is that the film goes out of its way to tell us what Miles Morales' entire character arc is going to be. Before leaving on his latest adventure, his mother tells him not to allow anyone to tell him he doesn't belong. This completely predicts what happens to him later, Miles establishing his own destiny, his own right to exist against a horde of authority figures that tell him he has no right to be here. This is further set-up by the plot's focus on “Canon Events,” another example of a determined history being laid out for our hero. One that, obviously, he's going to deny. It's all laid on a little thick.

I say he's “going to” because... “Across the Spider-Verse” doesn't actually have an ending. If you follow comic book movie and entertainment news, you were probably aware that this sequel was originally announced as a Part One. That designation was dropped from the title but clearly the structure was not changed in anyway. “Across the Spider-Verse” fills up its run time by expanding on characters' back stories and introducing a horde of new heroes and rivals. This is fine. The movie builds to a climax during Miles' conflict with the other Spider-Men. The film then continues to an extended epilogue, which exists solely to set-up a cliffhanger. Not a particularly compelling one, if I'm being blunt. The truth is “Across the Spider-Verse” ends right when it's starting to feel like it's finally gained momentum. 

The apparent flaws with “Across the Spider-Verse” are all the more frustrating because, when it works, it works really well. The subplot focuses on Gwen and her universe are compelling. The slower scenes devoted to her interactions with Miles are really cute, suggesting a gentle kind of romantic tension between the two. Once again, I find myself feeling like a “Spider-Man” story works best when focusing on the smaller stakes, rather than the universe toppling threats. Yes, “Across the Spider-Verse” is an impressive visual experience, that does a lot of really cool shit, and is a loving homage to the “Spider-Man” franchise's history. However, it's also a fundamentally incomplete film, leaving the viewer ultimately unsatisfied. [7/10]

Monday, February 26, 2024

Director Report Card: Christopher Nolan (2023)



Other directors could have made “Oppenheimer.” J. Robert Oppenheimer is a pivotal figure, not just in science, but in modern history as we know it. He's already been the subject of many different biographies, a BBC serial, a play, and a few previous films. This is the kind of respectable topic that you'd expect any number of stately, award season-friendly biopics could be made about. Other directors could have made “Oppenheimer” but only Christopher Nolan could have made it a blockbuster. Nolan is one of the few directors you can sell a movie on and Universal knew it, selling the hell out of the film to general audience. When paired by the buzz generated by the “Barbenheimer” meme, a serious, R-rated drama about the niche topics of history and nuclear physics ended up becoming one of the highest grossing films of 2023. It might also be one of the highly lauded films of Nolan's frequently praised work.

In 1954, J. Robert Oppenheimer is interviewed by a security hearing for his possible communist connections and for rumors he might've been linked to a Russian spy that reported on the Trinity program. He recounts his professional career, beginning his studies at Cambridge and how a meeting with  Niels Bohr encouraged him to study theoretical physics. He's questioned about his relationship with known communist Jean Tatlock and how he met his wife, Kitty. Eventually, after becoming the head of the physics department at Berkeley, he's recruited to help create a nuclear bomb for the U.S. military. The further away from these events Oppenheimer grows, the more he comes to regret his actions. Meanwhile, in 1959, Lewis Strauss gives his opinion on Oppenheimer to the Senate while awaiting confirmation in the president's cabinet. 

Christopher Nolan would first come to most people's attention thanks to “Memento,” a movie that gained praise for its non-linear story structure. Timelines that leap around have continued to become a lauded part of Nolan's future film, in the flashback heavy structures of “The Prestige” or “Inception's” multi-layered narrative. Yet it feels like it's been a while since a Nolan movie has gone back-and-forth like that. “Oppenheimer” does something very similar to “Memento,” in the way it follows two separate timelines that are differentiate by one being in black-and-white. That Oppenheimer telling his story to the security hearing also triggers extensive flashbacks, that make up the bulk of the movie's runtime, is another example of Nolan's favorite storytelling trick. This structure resembles the way memory works while also creating of chances for narrative ironies. 

Lots of movies attempt to sum up a prominent person's entire life, within a few hours. Yet “Oppenheimer” really does set out to synthesize a man's professional, political, and personal lives. It's a lot more than just a summing up of J. Robert Oppenheimer's career, starting with his school career, following throughout the creation of the nuclear bomb, and the aftermath of those events. Nolan – working from script he wrote himself – finds thematic links between all sectors of Oppenheimer's life. His political beliefs influence his career choices and the judgements made on him later in life. His tumultuous love life effects his professional decisions. It's all linked, no action existing in a vacuum. “Oppenheimer” is a movie of chain events – visually symbolized in the first shot being of ripples forming in a puddle – and, likewise, everything Robert does echoes through every other aspect of his world. 

Ironically, as much as “Oppenheimer” is a movie about one event triggering another, it zeroes in on J. Robert Oppenheimer's greatest flaw (at least in this telling): His inability to see the consequences of his action, to perceive what might follow from the events he triggers. He womanizes, juggling Jean and Kitty without guessing that this might effect both women negatively. He's well aware that his communism connections will be scrutinized by the government. Yet he doesn't report it when a colleague suggests sharing information with the Russians. Of course, the biggest example of this is the bomb itself. Afterwards, he feels remorse and regrets for all his mistakes, breaking down or wringing his hands about it. However, that's only after the fact. Oppie says early on that he's not great at the math side of physics, seeming to represent his inability to predict the fallout of his own actions in every corner of his life.

Of course, it's not like Oppenheimer was alone in his tendency to disconnect his actions from his consequences. When the film was first released, there was an exhausting round of Discourse about the film not showing the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some where offended that a movie about the mass death of thousands of Japanese people centered on a white guy feeling bad about it. This seems to overlooked a key scene. When deciding what cities to drop the nuclear bombs on, Secretary of War William L. Stimson rules out Kyoto partially because he honeymooned there with his wife. It's such a callous, telling line. An American has been to this place and therefore disqualifies it from annihilation. The rest of Japan is fine to be destroyed though, in his eyes. Not showing the bombing just further illustrates Oppenheimer's disconnect from his own actions and what happens because of them. 

It confirms all the clichés we have about the Academy that the only time they've given Nolan a Best Director nominations have been for his “serious,” non-genre films. This is all the funny, because “Oppenheimer” has more in common with his science fiction and superhero films than it at first appears. The scene where Oppie puts on his famous fedora for the first time feels a lot like Batman putting on the cowl for the first time. Similarly, the script makes drops references to future events the same way a comic book movie includes shout-outs to famous future characters or events. The famous quote from the Bhagavad Gita is highlighted long before it'll become relevant to Oppenheimer's life. Los Alamos is whispered in a hushed tone long before Robert is recruited to help build the bomb. John F. Kennedy gets a name-drop that recalls the Joker's appearance being teased at the end of “Batman Begins.” Considering some people have entertained the (unlikely) theory that “Oppenheimer” is a metaphor for Nolan's own feelings about birthing the ubiquity of the superhero genre, this becomes all the more ironic.

No matter how much “Oppenheimer” resembles Nolan's previous movies, you can feel him attempting to stretch himself too. Another similarity with “Memento” is, much the same that film primarily took place in Leonard Shelby's mind, everything in the “Fusion” timeline is told from J. Robert Oppenheimer's perspective. (To the point that the screenplay was written in the first person.) Setting this story in Oppenheimer's own memories allows Nolan to indulge in a kind of visual symbolism that isn't typical of him. It's not exactly subtle. When recounting his sex life to the security hearing, Robert imagines himself naked before them. At the same time, he feels responsibility for Jean's death, her body weighing down on his chest. After reluctantly trying to celebrate the bomb successfully falling, he steps in a pile of ash. This visualizes him realizing just what he's unleashed. Think of this as Film Theory 101 for the kind of Reddit Bros that venerate Nolan as one of the greats. That's not wrong. Yet it is interesting to see the director blend some of his past styles into something new for him.

Maybe the movie's visual signifiers arise out of its desire to make the invisible world Oppenheimer observes visible. This is evident through a number of visual effects shots, of strings of atoms and molecules, of stars burning out in space. Moments like this is when “Oppenheimer,” to me, feels like its really pushing towards something bigger. The film is not made for physicists and I'm absolutely not one either. Yet the steps Nolan and his team took to illustrate the scientific concepts beyond our physical world impresses me. You also see this in the thundering sound design, that piles on otherworldly bursts of noise and corresponding walls of silence to further show us the strength of these unseen forces on our world. 

That sound design is also excellent at building suspense. Whenever Oppenheimer feels overwhelming, there's a cavalcade of stomping noise on the soundtrack. This can't help but make your heartbeat rise, in fearful anticipation of what might happen... Which is pretty surprising, since we do know what happens. “Oppenheimer” pulls off a neat trick, of leaving us feel suspense over foregone conclusions. We know that the nuclear bomb won't start a chain reaction that destroys the world. We know that J. Robert Oppenheimer is ultimately dismissed of any un-American activities. Yet the film is so brilliantly assembled, so tightly edited and so beautifully photographed, that it all comes together fantastically. All the craftsmen involved in the making of “Oppenheimer” were operating at the top of their game.

At the center of the film is a career-best performance from Cillian Murphy. Murphy's deep blue eyes convey so much emotion, most painful during the scenes where he's barely holding himself together under the consideration pressure of what he's done. Such as when he's grappling with Jean's suicide or the consequences of the bomb. It's amazing how much Murphy can tells with just a look or the angle of his face. He carries the entire movie on his shoulders, making even the most melodramatic dialogue – such as the final line – come off as mythic and profound. 

Murphy is supported by an incredible cast, composed largely of some of the best character actors of our modern age. Basically every part has a recognizable face in it, from a bellowing Jason Clarke as Roger Robb or a suitably sweaty David Dastmalchian as William Borden. Robert Downey Jr. is fantastic as Strauss, a man whose petty grievances and resentments boil under the surface until finally overflowing in the last act. If you look at Strauss as the movie's antagonist, he's not the most sinister part in the film. In just a few scenes, Casey Affleck projects a deep sense of malevolence. Dane DeHaan is also coldly calculating as Kenneth Nichols, seeming to glare at other humans with an alien gaze. The heart break and erratic moods of Jean are brought to life with a real depth by Florence Pough. 

Ultimately, “Oppenheimer” is likely to go down in cinema history as one of the best biographic films ever made, that grapples with the complexities of the man at its center while also giving us a holistic understanding of this figure. It handles the heavy meaning of the nuclear bomb, how it changed the world forever. On a technical level, it is a massive achievement, its music, sound design, cinematography, and editing all operating on a top level. A massively talented cast and a director playing with his own styles and themes in fascinating ways insures it's a strong watch, every single time. Sure to be discussed and debated for years to come, it's another masterpiece from one of the great commercial filmmakers of our time. [Grade: A]

Sunday, February 25, 2024

Director Report Card: Ridley Scott (2023)



In 1927, French filmmaker Abel Gance unleashed a five and a half hour long epic about the life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Though now regarded as one of the greatest films of the silent era, Gance's “Napoleon” was divisively received at the time. The film was edited and cut down afterwards, being the subject of numerous restorations in the nearly one hundred years since its completion. In the early seventies, Stanley Kubrick sought to make a movie about Napoleon, which he promised would be “the best movie ever made.” After years of meticulous research, Kubrick couldn't secure funding for the film and it was never made. There have been many films actually made about Bonaparte and many others not made – Charlie Chaplin also attempted to adapt the emperor's story – but Gance's compromised vision and Kubrick's unmade epic tend to overshadow them all. I suppose the irony is too great to ignore, of great filmmakers trying and failing to make a movie about one of history's most ambitious, and ultimately humbled, conquerors. 

Ridley Scott is a great admirer of Kubrick. You can see the influence of “Barry Lyndon” – the movie Stanley made instead of his “Napoleon – on almost everything Scott has done. Considering Scott's own career of successful and unrealized historical epics, it's not surprising that Ridley has been trying to make his own “Napoleon” movie for quite a while. He approached David Scarpa to write a film on the subject in 2017 and the movie, initially given the unfortunate title of “Kitbag," had been in-and-out of development since then. Finally, Scott would clear his ever-packed dance card and be able to move forward with the now retitled “Napoleon” in 2022, the film releasing last November. 

In the aftermath of Marie Antoinette's execution, a young French army officer named Napoleon Bonaparte leads the Siege of Toulon. This elevates Napoleon through the ranks and he soon defends the new government from royalist insurrectionists. After leading a successful military campaign in Egypt, Napoleon overthrows the French Directory. He declares himself Emperor shortly afterwards. Bonaparte soon leads the French military against the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians, and the English. All the while, the love of his life – a woman named Josephine – inspires and infuriates him as he strives for greatness.

It's the one thing every one knows about Napoleon. He was short and he sought to make up for this inadequacy by conquering Europe. This is, of course, not true. The French emperor was considered of average height for his time. However, that hasn't stopped the idea of the Napoleon Complex from entering popular usage. While Scott's film makes no comment on Napoleon's height, it does run with the idea that his desire for conquest was driven by psychological insecurities. “Napoleon” depicts the military leader as obsessed with achieving what he perceives as his destiny. He talks often of his greatness. After conquering Egypt, he looks a mummy in the eyes and playfully places his hat atop the sarcophagus. As if he's saying to one king that he has surpassed him. This was a man, determined to rule, by any means necessary.

Scott's film only hints at Bonaparte's back story. We meet his mother, whom he seems very close to, though any further details are left unspoken. His brother plays a prominent role in the earlier scenes before disappearing from the story all together. We never learn exactly where the emperor's unquenchable thirst for power came from, what inadequacy drove him to try and conquer the world, yet clearly there was something there. He has frequent arguments with his underlings. He seeks to establish dominance over other country's rulers in petty manners. He's obsessed with securing an heir, as if his inability to do so reflects on his strength somehow. Without being a full psychological breakdown of Napoleon's mind, the film runs with the idea that, behind every great leader, there's a great amount of neurosis. 

The greatest source of Napoleon's insecurities, this film would have us believe, was his relationship with Josephine. Upon setting eyes on the woman, he's immediately drawn to her. The seduction plays out quickly. Their sexually activities are depicted as frequent but brutish. Josephine teases him, forcing him to beg for it, while he stamps his feet and whinnies like a horse. She insists he's nothing without her. When he learns she has taken a lover, he uproots his entire military campaign and heads back to France. In other words, he seeks to conquer Josephine much the same way he sought to conquer the world. Just like the world, she resists him. And it drives him fucking nuts. It's a dysfunctional love story, a constant push and pull of submission and dominance between two stubborn individuals. In other words: The interplay of power and sex that Scott has played with across his last few films continues here. 

In fact, the details of Napoleon and Josephine's maladaptive relationship take up so much time in Scott's films, that some have characterized the whole movie as a comedy of sorts. Considering “House of Gucci” was a pulpy parody disguised as an operatic tragedy, it's not an unreasonable suggestions. At times, “Napoleon” definitely plays into this reading. The film depicts the Coup of 18 Brumaire as slapstick comedy. Bonaparte flees from a raging Directory, stumbling over himself several times. French politics are shown as a tumultuous circus all throughout, various leaders bickering childishly among themselves, passion often erupting into shouting and physical violence. Scott elevating events to absurd heights, such as in the stealth comedy of “Hannibal” or “Black Rain,” is probably not the most unreasonable approach to French politics. 

The main attraction of “Napoleon” was, perhaps, seeing Joaquin Phoenix and Ridley Scott reunite for the first time since “Gladiator.” Phoenix is, after all, one of the great actors of our time. He's especially good at playing intense individuals hype-fixated on their obsessions, whether they be Johnny Cash or the Joker. When combined with a script that focuses on Napoleon's neurosis, Phoenix plays the emperor as a bit of a weirdo. He carries himself with a sense of grandeur throughout but pairs it with sad eyes and a nervously furrowed brow. No matter how hard this Napoleon wants to be seen as great, it's only a veneer always about to crack up and reveal the vulnerability underneath. When he arrives in Moscow, abandoned by its ruler, his voice cracks in disappointment that no one is here. It's a compelling angle to approach the general from, Phoenix giving a memorably neurotic performance.

If Phoenix's Napoleon is a hurt little boy trying to prove himself, over and over again, Vanessa Kirby plays Josephine as something like a scheming femme fatale. From the moment Napoleon sets his eyes on her, she teases and tempts him. She clearly knows how to get a reaction out of him and uses it to her advantage throughout. It's only when the two are forced to divorced – due to Josephine's inability to mother an heir – that her feelings towards Napoleon seem to change. Josephine does love him, it seems, and not just when it's politically advantageous. Kirby is very convincing as a seductive, ball-busting mistress. She is less certain when playing a woman genuinely in love. But I think that's probably a weakness of the script, than anything else. 

Ultimately, despite having some interesting ideas about the psychological hang-ups of 1800s world leaders, “Napoleon” is still a historical epic directed by Ridley Scott. And we know what those look like by this point. Dariusz Wolski, Scott's regular cinematographer since “Prometheus,” is back behind the camera. As in “Exodus” and “The Last Duel,” he guarantees the film has a gloomy, overcast look through most of its runtime. It seems the sun is never shining whenever Napoleon is on the battlefield, even when he's in the middle of the Egyptian desert. The interiors are largely lit by candles, giving them a warm and painterly glow that blends with the washed-out colors in such a way that the film is rarely interesting to look at. Of course, Scott's movies have kind of looked like this since “Gladiator,” so I don't really blame Wolski.

Having said that, “Napoleon” certainly does have its cool moments. Even if Scott's obsession with theatrical violence can come off as juvenile sometimes, the bloody moments in “Napoleon” are still notable. The sheer destructive powers of cannonballs are displayed when they tear a horse's chest open or rip through a line of insurrectionists. The battle scenes are fittingly chaotic, full of bullets whizzing by and bodies crumbling to the ground. The moment that was most heavily advertised in the trailers, where Napoléon lures the Prussian army out onto an icy lake only to shatter it with artillery, is indeed a highlight of the film. However, a later scene, of the Russian forces leaving the bodies of dead French soldiers hanging from the trees recall the horror movie dread of Scott's “Alien” movies.

By this point, it's a cliché that Ridley Scott's historical epics are almost always abbreviated in theaters. It's all but expected by now that a longer, better, director's cut will emerge at a later date. Indeed, Scott has impishly promised that a four hour long cut of “Napoleon” exists somewhere.  If the theatrical cut of “Napoleon” – already long at 157 minutes – is missing around ninety minutes of footage, that certainly explains some things about its pacing. As it exists now, “Napoleon” does play a bit like the Wikipedia article version of history. It quickly passes through the historical events, reducing many of Napoleon's campaigns and wars down to a single battle each. It feels like a summary of a much longer history at times. 

”Napoleon” was produced by Apple Original Films, the studio shelling out around 200 million dollars in order to get the sometimes critically acclaimed auteur on-board their fledging studio. They marketed the hell out of “Napoleon,” hoping to grab the same crowd that turned up for “Oppenheimer” earlier in the year. It didn't quite work out, as the film underperformed at the box office. It also hasn't become an awards season juggernaut, grabbing only three Oscar nominations in the technical categories. Scott has already moved on to a new studio willing to give him a blank check. I have no doubt that the longer cut of “Napoleon” will be superior, should it ever emerge. As the film exists now, it is a sometimes interesting historical epic, at its best when focusing on the foibles of its legendary protagonist and his lover and far more routine (and clipped down) when dedicating time to the battles you expect to see. [Grade: B-]