AFTER THE HUNT Review

Luca Guadagnino has always seemed more interested in instigating than he has entertaining, whether that be via sexuality, cannibalism, or even peaches - the filmmaker is intentional about forcing audiences to not only engage with his work but consider it, question it, and debate it. After the Hunt might be his most pointedly provocative project thus far as it is a movie expressly made for the purposes of the conversations that will come afterward. The fact I'm spending enough time thinking about this movie to write a review aside, I’ve never felt so passionately about something that I would choose to die on any specific hill (spare me your own opinions). I say this (probably optimistically) because I like to imagine people come to their conclusions and form their points of view based on insight or experience that would garner them valid reason for feeling the way they do, so while it is easy to say I understand where everyone in After the Hunt is coming from the film more or less forces the viewer to pick a side, to draw their own conclusions and in light of the conclusions one draws, question what those positions say about you as a person. 

As the common enemy of the evolution revolution - a cis, straight, white male - I found this film to almost be designed as something of a trap for those who fall into any of the above categories and/or relate to or simply like Michael Stuhlbarg's character the most. Guadagnino and screenwriter Nora Garrett are fans of nuance, sure, giving multiple facets to everyone included in this elitist, privileged club but more importantly, relaying reason to simultaneously believe and doubt each person involved for different reasons. The core question of what did or did not happen and whether a line was crossed or if there were several comes in second to Garrett's thesis though, which she shares with Ayo Edebiri's character, this regarding virtue ethics. The majority of those in positions of such privilege and power who purport to hold the moral high ground only do so for the appearance of being virtuous and not because their actions would remain the same regardless of the circumstances; a truth that holds strong no matter how much one might pad it with philosophical babble.

ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER Review

There is a moment in Paul Thomas Anderson’s tenth feature film, One Battle After Another, where Leonardo DiCaprio’s retired revolutionary Bob Ferguson is on the run in search of his daughter, Chase Infiniti’s Willa Ferguson. Bob is having a difficult time finding an electrical outlet where he can charge his phone so that he might make a call allowing him to obtain the necessary information concerning a rendezvous point where he will hopefully be reunited with Willa. Thanks to Benicio del Toro’s Sensei Sergio, Bob finally finds a working outlet and proclaims multiple times, “I have power!” It’s a simple sentiment that in the context of the scene is celebratory and speaking specifically to Bob getting one step closer to finding his child, but because DiCaprio chooses to repeat the words more than once they inherently bear a significance that gives way to consideration of what these words sound like on their own, without the context in which they’re spoken. Without context, it is easy to assume that a statement such as “I have power” is more a proclamation than something meant to express happiness which is Anderson's point: the noise is a distraction from the intent. 

One Battle After Another, based loosely on Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 novel “Vineland”, is a movie all about how power works; about how much of civilization is built on the whims and desires of power-hungry men who both seek to shape the world in accordance with their own concepts of truth as well as eradicate any reminders of their own shame. This is true for characters on both sides of history in Anderson’s film and the writer/director, despite making it clear who he believes are the good guys and who are the villains, does not let any one character off the hook. One Battle After Another could just as easily be seen as a cynical takedown of those in power as it can a hopeful rallying cry for change in a world gone awry but whatever lens one chooses to view it through, there’s no denying the big, broad, bombastic, and most importantly - bizarrely beguiling - entertainment value Anderson is able to deliver alongside his countless ideas.

THE FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS Review

Shang-Chi and The Eternals didn’t need to be the next Iron Man. The Marvels nor Anthony Mackie’s Captain America never stood a chance at being such given the climate they were released into (not to mention their generally poor quality) whereas Thunderbolts* needed to do a lot of things but it didn’t necessarily need to turn over a new leaf or define the next generation of super hero films in the way 2008’s Iron Man did. This third iteration of "The Fantastic Four" in thirty years though…it did kind of need to be the next Iron Man; not necessarily in terms of look, feel, or execution but by doing what that film did for the genre upon its release: revitalizing it. The challenge facing The Fantastic Four: First Steps is that it both needs to feel fresh, be something of a departure from the MCU thus far signaling a changing of the tide while retaining audience investment in the future of the universe at large. Herein lies the issue as First Steps is essentially a self-contained, single issue comic book story that introduces, entices, and entertains - all good things on their own merits - yet it still feels uncertain how convincing the film is at persuading casual viewers that they should follow Marvel’s first family into the future.

The simplicity and practicality of Marvel’s approach to the introduction of this version of The Fantastic Four echoes through the story, the design of Earth 828 where the film takes place, as well as extending to the mentality of all of the characters; what is right and wrong not only seems evident to everyone but it is purposefully communicated the majority are on the same page -- tensions only arising once the nuance of Galactus’ ultimatum does and even then, humanity trusts The Fantastic Four enough to not question their methods. Director Matt Shakman began with Marvel on Wandavision, so his hiring for this retro futuristic take on the superhero family makes sense and to he, the editors, and the screenwriter’s credit the film efficiently conveys not only the context within which this team exists but the place they occupy in society and in the world.

SUPERMAN Review

Neither the character nor the symbol that is Superman (or Clark Kent, for that matter) has ever been considered cool, or edgy, or frankly all that interesting. Often referred to as the oldest living Boy Scout, Clark Kent and his alter ego have always meant to crystallize what was pure about humanity as imbued by those on the outside looking in. So, in a world where everyone is believed to have ulterior motives and no one’s intentions come purely from the goodness of their own heart where, and how, does Superman fit in? This seems to be the angle with which writer/director James Gunn - a man mostly known for telling saccharine stories about scumbags - has approached his Man of Steel movie for, while this is the first piece of Gunn’s larger, brand new DC cinematic universe, it is just as importantly a justification for why the character of Superman matters just as much as the Superman character does in today’s divided climate. Gunn didn’t seem a natural fit for a story anchored by a hero whose facets are limited if not a little one-dimensional but when viewed through the prism of questioning said character - and I mean Superman’s sincere mission of serving humanity in order to make the world a better place, just to be clear - when that character is called into question by those who once believed in him but have been turned mercilessly against him by the billionaires that control the narrative, the story automatically turns from one about fighting for truth, justice, and the American way to one asking and hopefully challenging audiences to investigate what those terms mean based on the source that is spouting them. 

It is no secret Gunn knows a thing or two about having ones past dug up in order to smear their name and reputation as Superman is subjected to very much the same treatment here. It is also no secret the current President and Lex Luthor would rather make detractors disappear than actually allow for said truth, justice, and the American way to be upheld, but it is somewhat surprising how overt this text is in the film and how it sustains itself throughout. A throughline involving Dinesh Thyagarajan’s Malik “Mali” Ali is the most visceral and brutal part of the film that now resonates in more ways than Gunn likely even intended when he initially wrote it. Is it a little funny for Gunn to equate his experiences to something on the scale Superman might experience? Sure, but in taking this approach to the character the writer/director finds his way to a hero who is both consistent with what the movies of the past have presented (I was just the right age to prefer Batman to Supes) while making the character, if not necessarily punk rock, at least a little more cool and edgy than we’re accustomed to. Further, Superman’s frustrations here fit the more modern aesthetic and world of the story as opposed to the retro ideals of Americana that seemed of the past even in the 1978 original. Superman, and Gunn’s version (and movie) specifically, still amounts to the belief that if we’re all a little kinder to one another the world will be a better place, but David Corenswet’s portrayal never for one moment makes us think we should mistake his kindness for softness; he is very much determined to do what it takes to keep basic human decency intact regardless of fabricated policies and political decorum.

F1: THE MOVIE Review

“So, what is it about?” A couple of different characters pose this question to Brad Pitt’s Sonny Hayes - a washed-up Formula One driver who lost his shot at greatness at a young age and never found his way back - to emphasize an absolutely crucial character trait necessary to justify why a 60 year-old might be afforded the biggest stage in racing, but if we apply it to the film itself the answer is pretty straightforward: F1: The Movie is a comeback story, an underdog tale, and a redemption arc that we’ve seen play out a thousand times before cloaked in a world myself and no one I personally know cares anything about. While this might not be true of most viewers around the globe, this lack of insight makes the goals of the film immediately striking to the uninitiated such as myself: immerse viewers in the world to the point they’re invested in the story it’s telling while successfully executing a fresh take on how that story is told. 

From a storytelling standpoint, this is as simple as old school versus new, an old pro coming back into the fold of a young man’s game to show the “soft” rookie how it is done. Director Joseph Kosinski (the king of legacy sequels featuring colons) gives us everything we could want in such a sports drama from flashbacks to the aforementioned turning point in our protagonists life in a hurried, intercut fashion forcing us to piece much of it together ourselves down to the inevitable third act twist that presents an unforeseen challenge to the core team just as they’ve learned to put aside their differences and come together for the greater good. While much of the plotting in F1 can be seen coming from a mile away, what’s most invigorating is that it doesn’t try to upend expectations but in fact, Ehren Kruger’s screenplay wholeheartedly embraces them with Kosinski crafting his film to excel through each and every one of them.