F1 is cliché... and exhilarating

F1, the new motorsport drama starring Brad Pitt, is undeniably entertaining. The race sequences are beautiful, heart-pounding works of art. Joseph Kosinski’s direction of the action is on point, as it was in Top Gun: Maverick. And Pitt’s charisma, mature but intact, gives the film’s shinny hardware a bit of heart. But the “F” for Formula in the title also describes the film’s formulaic story line. F1 is a spectacle to behold, but behind the mesmerizing speed is a well-worn tale and a very by-the-numbers telling.

 

The fact that F1’s plot is as mechanical as the film’s racing machines does not make it a bad viewing experience—I’m still strongly recommending it. I’m just saying that you’ve seen the narrative before… many times before: damaged and/or aging athlete is revived and presented with a chance (maybe a last chance) at victory, or redemption, or whatever the storyteller decides is the hero’s motivation. 

F1 has such a hero (of course) In Sunny Hayes, a once promising young Formula driver whose career has been derailed by a near fatal accident. After a string of bad decisions and relationships, Sunny has settled on a racer-for-hire existence, searching simply to continue to drive in whatever fast thing he can find. But when a friend and former Lotus teammate (played by Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men, Dune)) offers Sunny a slot on his floundering F1 APXGP racing team, the highest class of worldwide racing, he takes it, although he is not sure why. And… you can guess the rest. 

Pitt’s ah-shucks, it’s-all-good portrayal of the nomad (physically and emotionally) Hayes’ is comfortable if not compelling. Pitt can still command a scene with, what appears to be, minimal effort. Bardem is also excellent as the desperate racing team owner taking a flyer on his old teammate. The two generate a palpable chemistry with Bardem’s freneticism juxtaposed against Pitt’s what-the-heck vibe. The two eat up the screen as Hayes forges an unlikely and unconventional path toward an impossible checkered flag (maybe). They are each other’s last chances. 

But let’s not get too distracted with characters and plot and the like. Sure, the buddy thing is fun, and an obligatory love interest for Sunny gives us another thing to root for—but it’s all pretty shallow and even a little cheesy at times. No, you should see F1 for the thrill and the tension of the race, because this is the most authentic racing car movie ever made. 

It’s easy to want to compare F1 to other racing movies—the best-picture nominated Ford v Ferrari is the most obvious and highest quality comp. FvF is the better film… the better performance. But F1 is the better ride. 7.5 out of 10. 

A Quite Place - Day One

A Quiet Place-Day One is the third installment of the A Quiet Place film series and was created as a prequel to the first film. It is also the first of the three to not have John Krasinski (The Office) in the Director’s chair or as a principal script writer.  Whether it’s the change in direction (Michael Samoski (Pig) directed and wrote the script for Day One) or an intentional shift in the approach to telling this monster story, you can sense a difference in the feel of A Quiet Place-Day One right off the bat. And different doesn’t mean bad—there are good examples of action series that have changed pace or scope or purpose after their first installment and had great success—Aliens, Road Warrior, and Terminator Judgement Day come to mind. But in the case of Day One, different also doesn’t mean better. Day One is different than the first two films, but it’s not as good—it’s not as nifty, not has nuanced, not as gripping. 

Krasinski had the benefit in the first installment of having an original and cool diegesis with surprising antagonists. His monsters were sightless creatures overrunning the planet. Their origin was untold. They were simply there, and everywhere, and they were wiping out humanity. The aliens were blind but with an acute sense of hearing, creating a new-born human environment in which survival required silence. It was a good gimmick. And Krasinski used it well in the first two Quiet Place installments, playing with sight and sound and non-sound to create unnerving tension in exercises in noiseless endurance. 

Samoski, on the other hand, is challenged with spinning off a new story with a now familiar premise and players. The title of the new film portends a possible origin tale for the invaders and their prey. But Day One is not that. Day One is a race, a running of the gauntlet, with fresh-face participants simply trying to get from point A to point B under monstrous conditions.   

Samoski’s first gauntlet runner is Samira (Lupita Nyong’o, 12 Years a Slave, Black Panther), a terminally ill cancer patient living in a hospice in New York City with her cat Frodo. That’s right. You heard me. Sam’s got a cat. And we all know that gauntlet runners always go back for the cat. And yes, you’ll be whispering to yourself, as you do during all such films with cats… “just leave the damn cat you idiot!” Eric (Joseph Quinn, Stranger Things) is the second runner, a stunned and frightened British law student who stumbles onto Sam, thanks to the cat of course, in a burned-out Manhattan. Sam is terminal, she is going to die regardless of how she navigates this apocalypse. She’d like one more piece of Patsy’s pizza in Harlem before it all goes away… she just wants to go home.  Eric is just there, scared and desperately in need of another human to run with. 

For the action side of this race, Day One relies heavily, with some effect, on jump scares, chases, and closeups of the film’s killer beasts to shock and frighten. The character study side of the film is more compelling, however. Sam and Eric’s odd partnership and desired finish line seem a foolish contrivance at first but slowly become a believable and even obvious goal of humans laid raw by eminent doom. Indeed, my favorite moments of the film were completely monster-less: a pre-invasion marionette play with a magical floating boy puppet that suddenly collapses in a heap—and allegory of the coming apocalypse; Eric and Sam’s silent but sanguine magic show in a deserted Harlem jazz club.  

These two sides of the film never mesh completely, however, not in a meaningful way. The obstacles that our heroes face along the track could have been anything—zombies, plague, war—their story would be the same. The blind monsters become disconnected background; their newness worn away. 

Nyong’o and Quin are good in this film, they do their best. And Day One is enough of a spectacle and story to be worth a watch in the theater. But we’ve seen this before, even though the pace and the people are different; the shininess of the whole thing is gone. 6 out of 10. 

Wonka: Not as good as we’d hoped

A lot of hype around this movie. I was excited to see it on its opening night. I was hopeful, like the young Willy Wonka I was about to meet. I knew it would be difficult—the original having set such a venerated bar. I promised myself not to give into the temptation to compare. But the new Wonka seemed to want me to do just that, nudging me, as the film started, with those three notes—C, E-flat, B-flat… “Come with me… and you’ll be”—and I was back with Charlie in the chocolate factory. There were more ties to the classic 1971 film, sprinkled throughout. Unfortunately, those old sprinkles are the best parts of Wonka, the new treats underneath are much less memorable.

Notwithstanding the clear attempts to maintain a connection to the original film’s older Wonka, this origin story presents a very different chocolate maker than Gene Wilder’s recluse. Young Willy, played enthusiastically by Timothee Chalamet, has yet to create his great chocolate factory as this tale begins. He is outgoing, generous, hopeful, whimsical. He’s a dreamer and  buoyed in his dream by a lost mother’s promise to be with him when he shares his gifts as a great chocolatier. Missing from this youthful version is the jadedness of the older Wonka; the snarkiness, and the mistrust created by years of the covetous trying to steal his genius. He has yet to learn, as his new band of downtrodden friends will try to teach him, that “the greedy hurt the needy every time”. 

There’s nothing wrong with this take on Wonka’s origin, although numerous big-media critics dislike this more-sugary Willy. It’s not the idea of this story that misses, it’s the telling of it.

At first, the stage, the music, and the story’s many characters and strong cast seem well positioned to make things interesting. Young Wonka encounters a duo of swindlers and winds up in servitude along with a small group of other unfortunates. These members of Team Wonka, however, are duller than their first impression would indicate and are given little to work from the film’s script. Their evil counterparts in the “Chocolate Cartel” are equally flat; a trio of one-gag melodrama villains. Even the excellent effort from Chalamet, who plays Wonka with great verve, is not enough to move the needle much off the half-full mark. Chalamet seems to put everything he as into his new Wonka. This includes his execution of the film's song and dance which is delightful and endearing. But the dances are minor and the tunes unmemorable. His excellent performance makes the mediocrity that surrounds it that much more frustrating.

I should make clear here that Wonka is not an unpleasant film. I suspect most of the younger patrons will give the film a thumbs up—the bones are good as they say. And all will enjoy Hugh Grant’s Oompa-Loompa (we could have used more of Hugh Grant… and a lot more Oompa-Loompas). But that magic was missing. I was patient. I kept waiting for Wonka to kick in… but it never did. 5.5 out of 10. 

Fresh Flash is Better Than Most

So, why The Flash. Why did this movie drag me out of the basement to start writing these reviews again. I’ll tell you why! Because the man’s suit comes out of his ring. That’s why. I was a Marvel kid (and this was when comic books cost 12 cents so that’s a long time ago); I wasn’t into a lot of DC heroes. But the Flash intrigued me, and I bought the comics. I liked fast. I thought I was fast. My favorite athletes were fast, and the Flash was the fastest of them all. But, more importantly, yes, his suit came out of his freeking ring. Fortunately for me, and this review, DC’s depiction of The Flash keeps the suit-in-the-ring thing. If it hadn’t, I would have walked out. I would have. I’m glad it did and a I didn’t because The Flash is a good film. I know there’s a lot of negativity swirling around this movie. Notwithstanding, I found the film to be fun, funny, engaging and, overall, better than most of its ilk. 

I do give one caveat here right up front—The Flash is another multi-verse thing. And I understand you may feel completely alternative-universed out. But this time it’s not colliders, or worm holes, or magic… it’s speed. The dang Flash runs so fast (and we find out he’s still learning to run faster) that he can run through space-time creating some sort of ‘speed force”. And he has an idea. Barry Allen (The Flash played by Ezra Miller) lost his mother in his youth and his father was blamed for her death. Allen now believes that he can use his speed to travel back in time and change the one thing that resulted in his mother's death and his father incarceration. Allen’s universe’s Batman (Ben Affleck), a Flash Justice League colleague, warns against such an attempt, reminding Allen that any change he makes to the past may destroy his present and future. The possibility of bringing her back is too much for Allen, however, and he travels back to the day of his mother’s death and prevents it. But as he returns, he is pushed out of the Speed Force by an unknown being and into an alternative 1983 where he finds a younger version of himself and his mother alive. 

It is in this new place that Ezra Miller and the film find something special. Miller shines when portraying, simultaneously, the glitchy Flash alongside his goofball, 18-year-old self. The interaction of the two Flashes (the younger Barry obtains Flash superpowers also) is the best part of the show. Not only are there two Flashes because of Allen’s time-meddling, but there are also two Batmen--the Affleck Batman from Allen’s home universe and a Michael Keaton Batman from the 1983 alternative universe. Affleck is necessary, Keaton in memorable. Keaton plays, with gusto, an aging crimefighter with no more crime to fight, invigorated by the task of helping Allen fix the mess he has made—his obligatory revelation that “I’m Batman” gave me a quick nostalgia chill. He also gives a great explanation of the film’s multiverse using a pile of spaghetti which is a seriously needed primer as the film and its infinite alternatives get confusing near the end. 

Although The Flash does fall prey to the usual superhero movie motif of jamming just too much stuff in, it still is able to maintain a thread of uniqueness. Its story is sound, and it sticks with it to the end. There is a sort of Ground-Hog-Day moment in the final scenes of The Flash where our heroes must face the possibility that no matter how hard they try, bad things happen, or must happen. There is a lot of ties-that-bind stuff that comes out in this dilemma that is moving without being too corny or overly sentimental, and the cast was excellent, especially Miller, in projecting those feelings to the audience. 

Still, lots of criticism out there. The kids say the special effects were bad. The movies’ creators, in a recent interview, explained that the different feel of the special effects was intentional as they wanted to portray a slightly distorted imagery for the Flash’s speed world. Everything did look a little bit off to me--shinny. Whether that was their true intent of not, I was fine with the graphics–they were different… and in the world of superhero movies, different is good. 

The Flash felt fresh to me. And most of that came from Miller giving us a different type of hero. I am not familiar with the details of Ezra Miller’s significant struggles, including recent run-ins with the law. I can understand if people don’t want to see the show because of that. I hope he finds himself and can make the corrections he needs to be better and continue in a positive direction—as I have read he says he is doing. I’d like to see another Flash–and I can’t say that for most superhero films.  7.5 out of 10. 

Jurassic Park/World Mash Up Yields Only Average Results In World Dominion

 

Early on in Jurassic World Dominion, Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), returning to the team from the earlier generation of JP Universe characters, engages a baby dinosaur, gives it a rub on its horn, and exclaims with nostalgia “it never gets old”—well Dr. Sattler… it kind of does. It’s clear that World Dominion’s creators spent a lot of money and generated a large amount of CGI code to make the union of the Jurassic Park and the Jurassic World characters special and fresh. And I’ll give them credit for combining the old and new crews without invoking the multi-verse—bless them for this. But very little of the end product is fresh and the few pieces that are new and different are kind of silly. 

Dinosaurs of all shapes and number of teeth now run amok across the planet thanks to the disasters that occurred in the previous Jurassic films. And although these invasive species are now laying waste to the world’s ecosystems (including the human one), the story is the same—nasty humans in big corporations are still trying to exploit the animals for gain in numerous nefarious ways--shocking!  It is within these dire, yet usual, circumstances that our old and new Jurassic Park/World friends gather, like aged and dismissed superheroes, to, once again, rise up and try to save the planet. 

I’ll admit, it was fun to see the old crew—Dern’s Sattler, Sam Neil’s Dr. Alan Grant, and the always slightly askew Dr. Ian Malcolm played by Jeff Goldblum. They’ve gone their separate ways all these years but now unite to uncover a plot by the evil Biosyn Corporation that includes the release of giant prehistoric locusts (of all things) into the global ecosphere. Meanwhile the younger generation from Jurassic World (Chris Pratt’s Raptor training Owen Grady and Bryce Dallas Howard’s Claire Dearing) have hooked up and are attempting to preserve all dinosaurs one animal at a time in the most dangerous and inefficient fashions. Their dinosaur rescue efforts are kind of a side gig for them however, as they have a larger calling--keeping the clone of Charlotte Lockwood (daughter of Dr. Benjamin Lockwood, Dr. Hammonds former partner, see previous films) under cover as the evil corporations are after her too for convoluted reasons. 

Yes, there is a lot going on in World Dominion leading to some truly weak intrigue with our old heroes cloak and daggering their way into Biosyn while the more youthful heroes attempt to stifle the kidnapping of their ward, the young Lockwood. The result is a mash up that seems to aim toward a Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones vibe. Alas, the intrigue and ensuing action is not as clever or as tense as any of Tom Cruise’s MI cappers and Pratt is certainly not Harrison Ford. Soooo, we are left with the dinosaurs. And they are magnificently rendered… again. But how many times have we seen Velociraptors skid arounds turns and bump into walls as they chase elusive humans on slick surfaces. And how many times do we need to experience the “Apex Predator” throw down…? Six times is my guess, as there are six Jurassic Universe films. Steel yourself again for the same close calls. And prepare yourselves again to be relieved when the same escape maneuver is invoked… the magic extended hand. You know the trick, reach your hand out toward the dinosaur who is about to eat you and whisper “eeeeaaaasy Blue (or whatever name you’ve given your dinosaur)”—think Eleven from Stranger Things without the strained face and the nosebleed. It works every time. 

OK, OK… I know, I’m beating a dead T-Rex here, you got my drift long ago—I think World Dominion is significantly silly, in an average and reparative sort of way. It’s still a great looking ride even though you’ve seen most of the props before. Maybe a bigger view of the film’s prettiness would better counterbalance its mild staleness. Take in the film in on the IMAX, I didn’t but it might help. 5 out 10 for World Damion, and happy 4th. 

Older "Maverick" Soars in New Top Gun

How does the saying go… “some things get better with age”? Please add Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell and whatever airplane he is riding to the list of those things. It’s taken nearly 40 years, but Cruise’s “Maverick” is back in the big-screen cockpit, flying just as fast and just as hard as ever, but now carrying decades-more baggage. It is undeniable that TG:M’s action is faster and smarter than the first film; but what pushes this film from fun to fantastic is its depth, which its parent film had very little of. Director Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion… another Cruise film) and Cruise have injected the new Top Gun with a surprising amount of heart. Sure, there’s still some cheese ball in it, but the film’s creators have allowed an older, wiser, sadder Maverick to bring a new soul to the action, and the combo makes for the blockbuster of the summer and maybe next summer too; it’s really that good. 

The opening scene of the movie signals us that some things have not changed with “Maverick” in those 40 years as he pushes an experimental jet beyond its mach-10 speed limit to prove a point to the unimpressed brass. The less than glorious result of his stunt puts him in trouble with his commanding officers, a position, we discover, that Maverick has found himself in often since his Top Gun days. Maverick is still the super-skilled stick jockey, but his career seems to have run out of do-overs. In what might be his last chance, Maverick is assigned to return to Top Gun to train (and train only) a crack group of pilots (Top Gun winners themselves) for a near impossible mission to disarm a nuclear threat. 

Thus, the stage is set for our weathered but remarkably young-looking hero. He now must solve the puzzle of the mission; convince his commanding officers that his plan can work; and unify his trainees and select the best of them to execute the mission. Maverick’s solution to the combat Rubik’s Cube seems impossible and the training for and final execution of it yields the most incredible and tense flight combat scenes on film. Mingled with this joy ride are several surprisingly warmhearted and intense moments between Maverick and his team, including his old partner “Goose’s” orphaned son “Rooster”; and a genuinely touching dialog between Cruise’s “Maverick” and his old rival turned protector Val Kilmer’s “Iceman” 

Although certainly fresh, TG:M is not without flaw. Early scenes introducing us to the Top Gun trainees harken back to the silliness and sophmorism of the first film with the incredibly good-looking trainees posturing and strutting about like rutting bucks, calling each other by their very-cool flight names and snickering at each other through pretty faces with strong jaws and cleft chins. Worse, maybe, is a mid-movie, just-skins-no-shirts (except the one female Top Gun pilot) beach football game staged by Maverick to build teamwork, raising the question whether all top Navy pilots spend 40-hours a week in the weight room with their personal trainers, and several more hours in the tanning salons—none of them, by the way, looked like they really knew what to do with a football. These minor missteps are easily outweighed, however, by the rest of the film and the strength of the rest of the film is all about Tom Cruise. When Cruise is on the Top Gun screen the film cooks, when he is not, it doesn’t. Fortunately for us all, he is on the screen a lot. 

It’s a guarantee that the incredibly well-crafted combat acrobatics will thrill… but, in the end, it is this new, old Maverick and his time-informed perspective that gives TG:M the more powerful story that the first film lacked. Maverick once was the cocky daredevil that sacrificed the whole for the one—him. Now real-combat experience, pain, and loss have colored his view and his aim. Along with the thrills and spills, the film reaches to capture that new struggle and those emotions of the old warrior, the pain of leaving people behind to do a dangerous thing, the heartache of responsibility for others and the fear of making a mistake… the same mistake. And the result is good, very good.  It is rare that a sequel so clearly out does its predecessor. Top Gun: Maverick does it in spades. 8.5 out of 10. 

Postscript: Having been raised by a fighter pilot and combat veteran of two wars makes Top Gun and other such films especially intriguing to me… emotional for me. Although my father did not fly the generation fighters that we see in Top Gun, I still get some feeling of what he and others like him experienced (just a super small glimpse) in dangerous times. I also thought that maybe Col. Joe Lambert might look more like a Top Gun pilot than Tom Cruise… you be the judge… who’s the real Maverick? 

The latest shot at Death on the Nile

 

Pleasantly surprised, I believe, is a good description of my feeling after watching Kenneth Branagh’s (Henry V) latest take on Agatha Christie’s 1937 whodunit. The new Death on the Nile is a sequel to his 2017 Murder on the Orient Express with Branagh returning to both direct and again portray Christie’s supreme detective Hercule Poirot: this time he’s sleuthing on a boat instead of a train. Branagh’s Orient Express (2017) was a true yawner. Google “disappointingly dull” and you’ll get a link to a trailer for Murder on the Orient Express—go ahead, try it… it’ll be right at the top. So, maybe Branagh just got better with practice, or maybe it was the presence of Ridley Scott as a producer of this film, but Death on the Nile is much better, more attractive, better paced, sharper, snappier, crisper than its prequel; and the surprising result was a satisfying Tuesday afternoon at the theater. 

For all settings… including sailing vessels, the Agatha Christie murder-mystery formula is constant—assemble a diverse group with members connected by at least one of the seven cardinal sins, then kill somebody and let the fun begin. This time our potential murderers and victims are gathered to celebrate the marriage of the wealthy and beautiful Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot, aka Wonder Woman) to the handsome but jobless Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). Riches and beauty are usually surrounded by jealousy and greed and the Nile wedding party is chuck full of both—it’s not long after the group embarks on their river cruise that folks start to drop dead. Fortunately for all, Hercule Poirot is on board. Branagh sparkles in his portrayal of the eccentric Belgian super sleuth and his subtle deductions and ruthless examinations of those he suspects… which is everyone. The other pieces in this cloak-and-dagger are also well played with standout performances by a nigh-unrecognizable Annette Benning as a wealthy artist and family friend of the bride, and from newer-comer Emma Mackey (Netflix’ Sex Education) as the obligatory women scorned. Motives mount and suspicions shift and turn, but it’s never clear to you, until the bitter end, who is killing whom… unless you’ve read the book or have seen one the myriad previous screen depictions, or you overhear some yahoo in the seat in front of you who has done one or the other give the killer away to his wife while noshing popcorn… come on!

Poirot is possibly Christie's most famous character. He is certainly the longest running, appearing in more than 30 of her novels. But the fictitious detective himself has always been a bit of mystery—Christie did not spend much time on his origin. Gratefully, and with great benefit to the film, Michael Green’s screenplay gives a bit of a back story—a glimpse at a pivot point in Poirot’s life that has, in part, shaped him into the genius but emotionally dethatched crime solver that he is. The reveal is effectively leveraged throughout the film providing heart to Poirot’s cold path to solving the mystery of Death on the Nile and to Poirot himself. Such value add-on’s do not make Death on the Nile any sort of award winner—and I doubt that was what the film’s creators were shooting for here. But the film is nicely put together and entertaining. You may forget the experience quickly, but you’ll enjoy the few hours of mystery while you’re in it. Death on the Nile gets 6.5 out of 10.