Weekend Watch - All of Us Strangers

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the BAFTA-nominated film from Andrew Haigh that finally got a theatrical release at a theater within feasible driving distance of my house this weekend – All of Us Strangers. The film, adapted from Taichi Yamada’s novel Strangers, stars Andrew Scott, Paul Mescal, Jamie Bell, and Claire Foy in a story about a lonely screenwriter (Scott) whose work on a script based on his own adolescent tragedy leads him back to his childhood home where his deceased parents (Bell and Foy) are seemingly still alive, while he also starts to open himself up to a relationship with a fellow tenant (Mescal) at his supremely vacant apartment complex. The intimate and mind-bending film has already received six BAFTA nominations, a Golden Globe nomination, and a Critics Choice Award nomination. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A; this film meets and exceeds expectations at almost every level.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes, assuming that it’s playing in your area and you’re allowed/able to go see R-rated films.

Why?

                All of Us Strangers does, in fact, live up to the expectations that I have had about it. It delivers a beautifully acted, emotional, engaging, well-shot, mentally stimulating, and intimate look at grief, love, memory, family, and the universal human need for connection and intimacy. On the one hand, it offers a devastating portrayal of loneliness and its consequences when left unchecked, but on the other, it presents the audience with the beautiful nature of the alternative – opening yourself up to being vulnerable with others who might be able to love you (platonically, paternally, romantically, or any other way) and whom you might love in return. Andrew Haigh’s adaptation of Yamada’s novel takes the premise of what I understand to be a fantasy/romance/mystery/horror-lite story (based on the plot synopses I’ve read) whose focus is on letting go of past hurts and loss so that you can connect with your present and twists it into something that lacks a bit of that horror element but that leans hard into the other aspects to tell a story of opening up despite past hurts because of the need that everyone has for connection. Add to that adaptation the four excellent performances from Scott, Mescal, Bell, and Foy, and you’ve got yourself a modern masterpiece of film.

                I think that there exists a problematic and simplistic reading of this film as a purely LGBTQ+ story about how, in fact, being non-cis non-het is inherently isolating to the point of total despair. Adam (Scott) consistently describes himself as lonely, even from childhood before the deaths of his parents, and attributes that loneliness to his sense of feeling different and his fear of being judged and/or ostracized by his peers and his parents for being gay. Likewise, Harry (Mescal) talks about his lack of contact with his family once he told them about his sexuality being an operating factor in his own loneliness and isolation. I think, though, that reading such an interpretation – “the gays are lonely and sad” – into this film is reductive and dismissive of what Haigh (and the cast) are actually trying to accomplish. Their isolation doesn’t stem from their sexuality; it stems from the sense of rejection that they chose to latch onto, that society continues to push everyone toward. This fear of potentially being hurt by others because someone did once hurt you or someone like you seems to permeate modern society and relationships, from children to work environments to families to romantic partnerships to everything in between, and it’s that type of isolation that Haigh seeks to highlight – isolation driven by fear, fearing that you’ll never be loved or be enough but also fearing the possibility of finding out whether or not you are right. It’s so much deeper than a story of gay men being isolated, and it being told from an LGBTQ+ perspective simply lends more truth and power to its universal nature – that I, a straight man, can resonate with and recognize the tension of needing connection but fearing the hurt that comes when you connect with imperfect people as an imperfect person. It’s powerful.

                To top it all off, though, each of the four actors in this film (because it really is just a four-person film with two other credited actors who share one line between the two of them) delivers some of their best work, and when Oscar nominations leave all four of them out on Tuesday, it’s going to be a travesty. Claire Foy as Adam’s mother gets the opportunity to play this maternal figure to a forty-something man while being five to ten years younger than him due to the circumstances of her life and death. It’s a fascinating performance to watch because of how natural it feels, how, no matter the age of your child, you never stop being a mother – with all the highs and lows of motherhood included. Across from her, Jamie Bell plays Adam’s father in what is arguably the most emotionally taxing role of the film as he comes to terms with his treatment of his son while alive, forgive himself, and ask for a chance to be better in one of the most touching scenes from a film in the past year. Paul Mescal provides the perfect sounding board for Adam’s newfound desire for intimacy, offering a caring and interested romantic partner who hides his own pain just as deep down as Adam. It’s a strong supporting performance that comes to a climax in the film’s final sequences when his own pain and isolation finally make themselves known, and the audience gets to see the fullness of his own character development that’s been happening across the film. Finally, without Andrew Scott, this film simply doesn't work. His combination of longing, loneliness, and eventual acceptance come through in every facial expression, movement, and line delivery as he takes the audience along with him on this emotional ride of learning to connect with others and shed his fear of rejection. His is actually one of the best male performances of the year.

                All of Us Strangers gives audiences a glimpse at the power of films to tell universal truths in compelling and emotionally engaging packages thanks to the excellent adaptation and direction of Andrew Haigh and the spot-on performances from all four of the film’s primary players. On the surface this film could be one of the bleakest and most depressing looks at the current state of humanity, but deep down it offers a beautiful alternative if we can only get over ourselves and let others into our hurts and fears and see their own as we want to be seen. If you’ve got this film showing at a theater near you, I can’t stress enough how much you should go check it out. If not, definitely find it when it hits streaming.

Weekend Watch - Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Netflix Animation’s new Best Animated Feature frontrunner, Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio. The film is a reimagining of the classic tale, set in fascist Italy, done with stop-motion animation, and featuring the voice talents of Ewan McGregor, David Bradley, Gregory Mann, Ron Perlman, Finn Wolfhard, Christoph Waltz, Tilda Swinton, and a few others. The animated musical is now streaming on Netflix; let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; the many reimagined elements of the story keep it fresh, and it has enough emotional weight to engage both children and adults.

Should you Watch This Film? I think so. The animation, del Toro’s direction, and the story itself make it a quality film, worth watching for most audiences (note: there are a few scenes that take on a bit of del Toro’s horror proclivities, so think of this more like Alice in Wonderland than Zootopia in terms of its kid-friendliness).

Why?

                Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio has been easily one of the most anticipated films of the year, particularly for fans of “real cinema” (awards bait films), and it lives up to that hype for the most part. It’s not going to win Best Picture or anything, but the argument against this winning Best Animated Feature is going to be very hard to get across (apparently the Puss in Boots sequel bangs though, so I might have to eat my words in a couple of weeks). The film’s animation style, its reimagined story elements, and the story as a whole go a long way in making the film one of the best of 2022.

                Mark Gustafson’s animation direction is gorgeous to look at, bringing del Toro’s vision to life with rich textures, expressive characters, and scenes chock full of minute details to hold the audience’s attention. His most famous other work is Fantastic Mr. Fox, Wes Anderson’s first stop-motion film, which is also phenomenal and animated with similar excellence. In Pinocchio, Gustafson has created for del Toro a world that is equally fantastic and realistic, reminiscent of the production design of two of the prolific director’s greatest films – The Shape of Water and Pan’s Labyrinth. It feels grounded enough to give the story a sense of realism but also fantastical enough to take the audience into another world just adjacent to ours.

                Gustafson’s animation allows del Toro’s reimagining of the classic tale to really work well. The film contains most of the story beats of the classic book and Disney’s animated adaptation but with a totally different brand of execution. Geppetto makes a boy out of wood who is then brought to life by a fantastical blue creature. The boy then gets involved with a circus, Count Volpe, and a boy named Candlestick before being swallowed by a large sea creature along with his father and then escaping out of its blowhole. Those surface-level similarities are where the parallels end. Del Toro has chosen to set his Pinocchio in fascist Italy, a choice that allows him to craft yet another beautiful, anti-fascist story of dark childlike wonderment. The characters and backstory are a bit more fleshed out than in the Disney version, and the moral of the story is not the basic (and a bit overdone) “Children, obey your parents.” Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio engages with a far deeper theme – what it means to be a “real boy” and how society treats its children. It is a film that is made not just for the children who will watch it and enjoy the whimsical animation and the funny songs and Ewan McGregor’s lighthearted narration but also for the parents who will watch it with their children and be drawn into a story about parenting and the treatment of children and the ills of fascism and the importance of childlike wonderment – I should point out here, that the film is trying to do a lot, and only the most important themes of the film really get fleshed out while the others feel a bit more like hints of spice to keep the audience guessing.

                One of the only other major drawbacks of this new take on the story is that, with its extra story beats, it has extended its runtime to nearly two hours, making it one that might be more difficult to watch with smaller children. I do think that the animation, the songs, and the characters should be enough to keep them engrossed for most of it though. I also think that even people (like myself) without children will be able to find plenty to enjoy here. Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio is an excellent animated feature for anyone who takes the time to watch it, presenting the classic story in a new way that presents an entirely new and arguably more important message for a new generation of movie watchers, though perhaps in an overlong format.

Weekend Watch - The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a review and recommendations. This week’s subject, as voted by our Instagram followers, is The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, Amazon Prime Video’s new show set in Middle Earth, thousands of years before the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies. The show stars Morfydd Clark, Ismael Cruz Cordova, Markella Kavenagh, Megan Richards, Charlie Vickers, Robert Aramayo, Nazanin Boniadi, and others as a slew of returning and new characters in the Lord of the Rings franchise. The first three episodes are streaming now, and that’s what this review will be based on. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; a fun return to Middle Earth, it might not have as much of a pull for new viewers.

Should you Watch This Show? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: This show probably has more to offer fans of the franchise than new viewers, but its production value and originality might be enough for them too.

Why?

                The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power offers a new look at the history of Middle Earth, bringing a combination of familiar characters and new faces, set at the pivotal moments surrounding the forging of the Rings of Power. Thus far, the show has done a good job showcasing its many storylines, giving the audience a solid mix of action, potential romance, suspense, drama, and lore dumps across its three currently streaming episodes. The leading performers have done well with their roles so far, with Morfydd Clark’s Galadriel, Ismael Cruz Cordova’s Arondir, and Markella Kavenagh’s Nori Brandyfoot featuring as early standouts. With each of these new/old characters come storylines that should grasp the interest of Tolkien die-hards and new viewers. The stories of the fall of Numenor, the hunt for and return of Sauron, the forging of the Rings, the coming of the Istari (wizards), and the founding of the kingdoms of Gondor and Rohan have all been seeded just in these first episodes, offering plenty of potential for great tales as the show moves forward. Against the backdrop of these great moments, the show has also brought plenty of the personal character moments that made the Lord of the Rings trilogy into one of the greatest ever made. Galadriel’s rescue by Halbrand in the sea, Nori’s decision to help “the Stranger”, Arondir’s complicated relationship with Bronwyn, and Elrond’s friendship with the dwarf prince Durin and his wife are all personal moments that already stand out as important and memorable in these first episodes. But perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the show’s story so far has been the teasing of Sauron’s return. Due to the nature of the show’s overall story, we know Sauron is coming, but we don’t know the form he will take, other than deceptive. So far, at least two possibilities have been teased with potentially another coming at the conclusion of this week’s episode. I have enjoyed the mystery surrounding the show’s ultimate villain so far, and I feel that it has created some solid discourse around the show. In addition to its solid characters and story, the show’s production value has been high so far. Utilizing a combination of real locations and CGI like Jackson’s trilogies, the show looks and feels very much like a true return to Middle Earth. Being a television show, some of the CGI doesn’t look perfect, but revisiting The Hobbit trilogy, some of that wasn’t the best either. Additionally, the show also brought back Howard Shore to score the show, delivering new but familiar music to go along with this return to Middle Earth. Overall, The Rings of Power offers a refreshing return to Middle Earth, offering plenty of new stories and characters in a familiar setting to bring in both old fans and new. Check this one out, with new episodes streaming every Friday for the next few weeks.

Weekend Watch - House of the Dragon - Pilot Episode

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a new piece of film or television media, as voted by the followers on the blog’s Instagram, and give it a rating, review, and watch recommendation. This week’s subject is the pilot episode of HBO’s House of the Dragon, a prequel series to the wildly successful Game of Thrones, set 172 years before Robert’s Rebellion, the event that directly set up the events of Thrones. The pilot stars Matt Smith, Paddy Considine, Rhys Ifans, Steve Toussaint, Fabien Frankel, Milly Alcock, Emily Carey, and Graham McTavish, among others, as major players in this family drama set in the land of Westeros. The viewership numbers for the pilot episode were apparently the highest of any HBO premier in recent history, allowing the show’s second season to already receive the green light before its second episode has released. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+/A-; there’s a lot to love and a lot of potential in this pilot, but I want to wait before I’m fully sold on the show.

Should you Watch This Show? If you were a fan of Game of Thrones, absolutely. If you like Succession or other family dramas and also want something with a more medieval/fantasy bent, absolutely. If those things are not your cup of tea, you’re probably okay skipping this one.

Why?

                House of the Dragon comes out swinging with a pilot episode full of intrigue, dragons, violence, big characters, and difficult content. After a brief, possibly unnecessary, prologue, the show flashes to its present with a dragon front and center, flying over King’s Landing – a shot that might be slightly triggering to certain fans of Game of Thrones who were less than satisfied with that show’s final season. Immediately, the show’s production value (much higher than most comparable shows) becomes apparent, with some pretty good CGI work, excellent set pieces, and decent costume and makeup design (some of the wigs look a little more wig-ish than others). The characters, whose names might be a bit more difficult to pronounce/remember than Ned, Jon, or Jaime, still stand out as individuals, particularly Matt Smith’s villain(?) Daemon Targaryen, Fabien Frankel’s hot, young nobody Criston Cole, and Milly Alcock’s young heroine Rhaenyra Targaryen. Smith embodies a combination of characteristics reminiscent of some of Thrones’s most iconic villains – the creeping menace of Ramsay Bolton and the entitled violence of Joffrey Baratheon – I’m intrigued to see where they take his character as the show progresses. Frankel’s simple charm combined with his character’s skill on a battlefield make him a potentially great tragic hero, alongside Robb Stark or Jon Snow or Oberyn Martell from the original show. Alcock brings much of the charm of a young Arya Stark and combines it with the tact of Margaery Tyrell to become the show’s new protagonist (at least at this point), having to walk the complex minefield that is the political state of Westeros. If we’re being honest, my two biggest concerns going forward with the show are its inevitable time jump, which has already been teased, as both Rhaenyra and her friend Alicent Hightower are portrayed by different actresses later on in the season, and its lack of a fully likable character (a Tyrion Lannister). Time jumps in the middle of a show’s inaugural season make me considerably nervous, as audiences don’t always react super well to a change in actor, particularly in shows with character lists as lengthy as House of the Dragon’s. I also know that you shouldn’t compare two shows when doing a review, but it’s hard not to with Dragon and Thrones, especially with the knowledge of how the original ended. The surprise deaths and complex political games will only take a show so far if it doesn’t have an almost universally beloved secondary protagonist. Overall, House of the Dragon’s pilot episode does a great job of filling the shoes that its fans expected it to fill with a combination of high production value and memorable characters; we’ll see where it all ends up as the season progresses, but there’s a lot here to be optimistic about in HBO’s return to Westeros. The first episode is available on HBO Max if you missed its premier, and the second episode drops on Sunday night on HBO and HBO Max simultaneously.

Weekend Watch - The Sandman

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give you a review and recommendation for watching it. This week, the subject is Netflix’s latest horror series: The Sandman, based on the graphic novel by Neil Gaiman. It features Tom Sturridge as the titular “Sandman” or “Morpheus” or “Dream” and also Boyd Holbrook, Patton Oswalt’s voice, Vivienne Acheampong, Vanesu Samunyai, David Thewlis, and many others. It follows the story of the King of Dreams after he escapes one hundred years of imprisonment in the human world and seeks to set his realm and the things associated with it back to relative normalcy. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+, there’s a lot of potential here, but it still needs some work to be great

Should you Watch This Show? If you are at all a fan of the graphic novel, yes! If you are looking for a dark fantasy show with really good worldbuilding, then also yes. I don’t think this show is as universally watchable as some of Netflix’s other releases (read Stranger Things) though.

Why?

                Let’s start with some of what makes the show good. From what I can tell, fans of the graphic novel are highly pleased with most of what the show has done with the source material, which is always a good sign for adaptations (we’ll see how Amazon fares next month with their Rings of Power series). The aesthetic of the art comes through well in the visuals, which are mostly phenomenal to behold – some of the more intricate CGI leaves a little to be desired, but for a television show, the effects are pretty solid. The world of the novel also comes through well in the worldbuilding of the show. The many realms and mythical characters come into the story naturally and with adequate explanation, leaving very little confusion as to the role of each new character. The worldbuilding also leaves you wanting more by the end of the season – at least, it did for me, the sucker for good worldbuilding. Unfortunately, because of all of the characters and story arcs that are brought into the ten-episode season, the story sometimes gets left by the wayside and then caught up with later, rather quickly. The two main stories that feature in this season are deeply interesting in their own right, but because of the exposition that also has to occur, the stories both resolve rather quickly and conveniently with little payoff of things set up earlier in the show. At the same time, it feels like this show wants to set up for an adaptation of the entirety of The Sandman, the graphic novel, as many characters have now been introduced who have larger roles to play later on in the greater story, so that’s promising. (That does mean that we need even more watchers when season 2 drops in the future so that Netflix doesn't cancel it as they so often do. In addition to the solid worldbuilding and oddly paced storytelling, the shows acting is at times great and, at others, only so-so. Vanesu Samunyai, whose first credit is this show, puts forth a valiant effort as Rose Walker, the Dream Vortex and focus of the second half of this season, playing to the levels of the actors in her scene. When across from Tom Sturridge, Boyd Holbrook, and John Cameron Mitchell, she brings a very solid A-game, showcasing the emotional and emotive range of a far more experienced actress, holding her own and even upstaging these more seasoned actors. At the same time, in scenes with Razane Jammal’s Lyta or Eddie Karanja’s Jed, the show reverts to acting more on the level with a CW superhero show (still entertaining in a popcorn-y way, but definitely with more cheese). In addition to the performances of Sturridge, Holbrook, and Mitchell, the true highlights of the show come from David Thewlis as the villain of the first arc – the very creepily unhinged John Dee, whom he portrays with just the right amount of menace – and Kirby Howell-Baptiste and Vivienne Acheampong as the two positive mythical influences in Dream’s life – Death and Lucienne the librarian respectively. Death’s one episode in the middle of the season serves as a high point in both the acting and worldbuilding of the show, showcasing its potential, highlighted in Howell-Baptiste’s subtly emotional portrayal of the avatar of Death, who is apparently Dream’s favorite sibling and the one with the most influence over him. In similar fashion, Acheampong plays Lucienne, the librarian of the realm of Dream, and the closest thing Dream has to an advisor or a friend in his own realm. Her acting is consistent throughout the show, delivering a lot of exposition without ever feeling unnecessary and while having a legitimately involved character arc at the same time, developing alongside Dream. All told, the first season of The Sandman is a mixed bag of great worldbuilding, inconsistent storytelling, and acting that is all over the board. The show’s potential to get better makes it worth watching, along with its skillful adaptation of the original source material.