sirgoodmovie-blog

[sirgoodmovie-blog]

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs: Be the Cowboy

The Coen brothers' weird little collection of western shorts make for a solid Netflix original.

Aside from To All the Boys I've Loved Before, Netflix's original films have had a spotty track record recently. The Cloverfield Paradox was a brilliant marketing stunt but a dud of a film. Bright was a neat idea on the surface but it was tanked by bad writing and a poorly considered race allegory. Death Note? Hahahahaha.

So they brought in the Coen brothers to help them course-correct with The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, a collection of six quirky old west vignettes. Written and directed by the brothers, the shorts are mostly unrelated to each other and vary wildly in tone, but they do share some common themes. Sort of. It's also funny that the first standout Netflix film in quite a while essentially watches like a Showtime miniseries. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that your mileage may vary on which shorts work for you and which ones don't.

An aside before I start talking about the movie in earnest: westerns are inherently problematic. It's pretty common knowledge at this point, but it's still worth mentioning. Even for the stories that aren't overtly about The Glory of Colonialism™, it's still an omnipresent undertone in the genre. Modern westerns have tried to sidestep this by doing away with old tropes and depicting life in the old west more realistically. The Coens already did this with True Grit, more or less.

Unfortunately, Buster Scruggs is uninterested in that modern style of western and leans fully into those old genre tropes. This mostly works in the film's favor, but it also means that Native folks in the film are nothing more than "bad guys" - just monsters to be feared. Obviously, that sucks! I still think the movie is worth watching, but if that turns you off I completely get it.

But okay, let's get into it. The first vignette is the eponymous Ballad of Buster Scruggs. Tim Blake Nelson plays Buster, the friendliest outlaw you're ever likely to meet. He talks directly to the camera, sings old country tunes, and kills people without a second thought.

He's rootin', he's tootin', and by God he's shootin'! Yeehaw!

The Ballad short is absurd and charming in that very specific Coen brothers way, and it does a great job of getting you into the film. It might be a bit too strong of a start though. None of the other shorts hit Ballad's manic energy. They're good, but they're definitely never this wacky again.

In Near Algodones, James Franco plays a highwayman with tremendously, monumentally terrible luck. It's darkly comedic and witty without overstaying its welcome, and it gradually brings down the energy so we can get to the truly tragic stuff. I really liked this one. Plus! The makeup team got James Franco real dirty. So that's cool.

Meal Ticket features Liam Neeson and Harry Melling (who played Dudley in the Harry Potter films) as the two purveyors of a traveling show. Harry plays an armless and legless actor, giving nightly dramatic readings in shanty towns, and Liam plays his impresario/caretaker. There's a lot to like in this one! The relationship between the two leads is communicated to the audience almost exclusively in body language and non-verbal cues. Most of the actual dialogue is in Harry's nightly performances. It's also nice to see Liam Neeson playing someone who isn't a grizzled tough guy assassin (for once). But despite all the good acting happening here, I'll admit I got a bit bored. If Meal Ticket was any longer than it is, it would be plodding. But thankfully it ends at a pretty good spot.

Next up is All Gold Canyon. Tom Waits plays an old prospector panning for gold in a verdant river valley. He believes he's on the trail of a big vein, but of course, things don't quite go according to plan. Tom Waits pretty much carries this entire vignette by himself, and he knocks it right out of the park. No surprises there! Alongside his performance are some of the most beautiful vistas the brothers have ever put to film. They were clearly enamored with the scenery, and the valley itself almost has as much character as the prospector. This short is definitely one of the strongest in the bunch.

And here's the weakest! In The Gal Who Got Rattled, Zoe Kazan plays Alice Longabaugh, a young woman traveling on a wagon train to Oregon with her brother. This is the longest vignette by far, and not enough really happens to justify that length. The Gal is going for a more grounded and realistic approach, and I get that! I understand that the Coens are going for a John Ford thing! But this short is too far removed from the rest of the film, tone-wise. It meanders for most of the runtime, and when things finally start to pick up, it turns out to be the longest sequence of "evil natives" nonsense in the whole movie. You can skip this one and not miss much, to be honest.

We do end on a good note though! The final vignette, The Mortal Remains, takes place almost entirely in a cramped stagecoach headed to Fort Morgan. A group of five people (including characters played by Brendan Gleeson and Chelcie Ross), all from different walks of life and all uncomfortably close to one another, talk amongst themselves and antagonize each other as the sun sets in the background. Not only is it a fun way to end the experience, but The Mortal Remains also calls direct attention to the main theme connecting all these unrelated stories:

Death, and how random and unfair it can be. Death permeates every short, and when people die in Buster Scruggs it's almost always tragic, or cruel, or ironic, or easily avoided. This definitely isn't new territory for westerns. But it's still interesting to see how the Coen's weave that theme through six different narratives. There's also a Frenchman in almost every short. So uh. There's that too.

Anyway! Netflix did alright with this one! The Ballad of Buster Scruggs definitely isn't perfect, but it's far better than most of their recent big-ticket offerings. If you're a fan of westerns or the Coens this is absolutely worth checking out. If not, just dip your toes in and see how you like it. The good thing about this movie is that you don't have to commit to a whole film or a whole TV show to enjoy it. At the risk of sounding cliche, there's probably something for everyone in there.

"I HAVEN'T SEEN THE CHRISTMAS CHRONICLES YET BUT I HEAR IT'S ALSO PRETTY GOOD! MY DECEMBER IS STACKED THOUGH, SO NO REVIEW." - Sir Goodmovie

[sirgoodmovie-blog]

Creed II: The Formula Still Works

While not quite hitting the highs of its 2015 predecessor, this film understands exactly why you're here, and it delivers.

Nerd alert! I grew up watching shonen anime. Dragonball Z, Naruto, that kinda thing. As of right now, I'm really into My Hero Academia (which I think is a cut above its contemporaries, if that means anything to you). To this day I still resonate with the common themes in shonen shows. They're almost always about being an underdog, you know? Even if all the odds are stacked against you, victory is still possible with the power of determination and the support of your closest friends!

Recently, a friend of mine pointed out that this particular genre of anime and the Rocky films share a lot of DNA, and that realization hit me really hard. It makes sense. It's probably why these movies still work on me, even though we are eight films and four decades into the series. Creed II is no exception.

It's been some time since Adonis Johnson (Michael B. Jordan), son of the late Apollo Creed, had his thrilling bout with 'Pretty' Ricky Conlan. After a few years and several wins in a row, he is now the light-heavyweight champion of the world. With his trainer, legendary former boxer Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), and his girlfriend Bianca (Tessa Thompson) both at his side, he stands at the top of the boxing world and his momentum seems unstoppable. There's only one problem: Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren), the man who killed Apollo in the ring, has come out of obscurity. He's been training his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) to be the #1 contender. They've come to challenge Adonis to a match, directly. Now Adonis has to grapple with revenge, his father's legacy, and figuring out what he's actually fighting for.

Absolutely nothing in Creed II caught me off guard, but I wasn't really asking to be surprised. I wanted to watch Adonis have some low points and go through some trials and tribulations. I wanted to see him recover and get Rocky and the band back together for The Big Training Montage. And at the end of it all, I wanted to root for him in the climactic match. Really feel some feelings! I'm pleased to say that director Steven Caple Jr. gets it all right, and is a worthy successor to Ryan Coogler. Even if it is predictable, it's still really nice when a movie delivers on the promise it makes.

The boxing is as snappy and visceral as it ought to be, and the sound mixing is top-notch. In a theater, you can really feel every punch. Caple Jr. and DP Maryse Alberti aren't quite as liberal with the camera as Coogler likes to be (Adonis' first professional match in Creed comes to mind), but their camerawork is still engaging and consistent. Alberti worked cinematography on The Wrestler (2008), and her experience with this kind of in-ring action really shows.

The script, penned by Juel Taylor and Sylvester Stallone himself, is where the cracks in this movie start showing. It isn't bad by any means! But it does occasionally edge into melodrama and the middle of the film drags a bit. There's also a b-plot where Rocky struggles to get back in touch with his estranged son, and a grandson who he's never met. It doesn't work quite as well as Adonis' story. But none of these minor issues bring the rest of the movie down and almost all of the emotional beats land where they're supposed to. You're here for the big fight anyway, right?

Creed felt like the perfect reboot for 2015, with just the right amount of old and new. Creed II continues that legacy. It isn't breaking any new ground, and it doesn't feel quite as fresh as its predecessor. But it'll still give you the cathartic thrill you're looking for. You'd have to be soulless to watch Adonis Creed reach for victory, and not root for him with your whole heart.

"THIS MOVIE MADE ME CRY! ALL THE ROCKY MOVIES HAVE MADE ME CRY! THE GOOD ONES ANYWAY. ALSO HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!" - Sir Goodmovie

[sirgoodmovie-blog]

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald: Watch as this Franchise Implodes in Real Time

An incomprehensible slog that jettisons any goodwill the first film managed to win.

I feel like I was just led by the hand through a series of loosely related plot events and then abandoned on a street corner. I literally just saw this film, and I would have trouble telling you what happened in it, let alone WHY any of it happened. The first film managed to get by on its charm and levity, but Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald makes a strong case for J.K. Rowling to hire an actual screenwriter to write the rest of these dang movies. I'll now attempt to summarize the events of the film:

Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is at it again! After making his daring escape from the American Ministry of Magic while being transported on a flying coach, he gathers up his followers and begins to enact his plans to subjugate all non-wizards. Some months later, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is barred from international travel and seeks to lift his ban so he can get back to studying magical creatures. The British Ministry says they'll let him travel abroad, on one condition: he must become an auror (a wizard cop) and work alongside his brother Theseus (Callum Turner). He refuses, but Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) also has plans for Newt to act as his secret agent in Paris, a job he also refuses. Newt then returns home to find that new couple Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol) have paid him an unexpected visit.

However, after the couple has a fight over Queenie literally using magic to manipulate Jacob into marrying her, Queenie decides to leave for Paris and find her sister Tina (Katherine Waterston), who just so happens to be Newt's love interest. After finding out that the two will be in France, Newt seemingly abandons any worries about being arrested - or doing exactly what Dumbledore wants - and he and Jacob leave to begin the adventure in earnest. I guess. Also, Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) is still alive from the first movie and he's still kind of a human MacGuffin and now everyone wants to know who his real parents are. I guess.

If that seems confusing, please note that this is all just stage dressing. The movie has barely started at this point. I'm a longtime fan of Harry Potter, and even with that background knowledge the plot never got less convoluted.

Anyway, if the Fantastic Beasts movies have a single overarching problem, it's the lack of compelling characters. The original books/movies had a laundry list of memorable characters (even aside from the main Harry-Ron-Hermione trio) that remain in our cultural consciousness. Remus Lupin, Sirius Black, Minerva McGonagall, Severus Snape, and Bellatrix Lestrange are all names I will probably remember for the rest of my life. The magic, the whimsy, and the incredible setting have always been a part of the series' appeal. But the characters are what made Harry Potter a lasting phenomenon.

In contrast, I completely forgot the names of most of the Fantastic Beasts cast until tonight. The first film was a light-hearted adventure flick that I genuinely had fun watching, but none of the personalities are ever given any room to grow. We never really find out anything substantial about them. Newt Scamander is the friggin protagonist, and all I know about him is that he's extremely shy and he likes magical beasts. And he knows where to find them. Crimes even has the nerve to add several new characters without bothering to tell us even the barest details of who they are. I had learn most of their names from the IMDB page.

Compounding this problem is J.K. Rowling's mess of a script. There is a big difference between writing a novel and writing a screenplay. If things are getting serious in your novel, you can simply write more stuff and make it longer to match your vision. The same is not true for a movie. Very few people are willing to sit in a theater for three hours even if what they're watching is good. To compensate for this, Rowling has made her script denser, more complicated, and takes plenty of narrative shortcuts along the way. The result is that events happen with little to no pretense, characters do things with little to no motivation, and the arcane concepts of "set up" and "payoff" seem to be beyond the film's reach. It's telling that a full hour into the runtime, I was still asking myself what exactly was happening.

And no surprises here, this movie is problematic as hell! In a scene I previously mentioned, magical manipulation and abuse of a romantic partner, including implied rape, is played for cheap laughs. Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and Nagini (Claudia Kim) are given Tragic Backstories™ and are set up to be super important, but ultimately do nothing for the whole movie. And of course, the elephant in the room: there is no earthly reason why Johnny Depp should still be involved with this franchise. He should've been fired and Grindelwald recast. His nasty abuser stink hangs over the whole film.

The single joyous light in Crimes is Dan Fogler's performance as the muggle/no-maj Jacob. He is a shining beacon in the chaos. Jacob was great in the first film and continues to be great here. He has more personality in his left pinky-toe than the rest of the cast combined and gave me several genuine laughs in an otherwise miserable watch. I could honestly watch an entire movie just about Jacob Kowalski and his fish-out-of-water antics. Nobody else. Get out of here Dumbledore! Just Jacob for me thanks.

As someone who sincerely loves Harry Potter, and who has read every book and seen every movie, Crimes was exhausting. I can't imagine the course-correction necessary to make the remaining three (!) films worthwhile. Even so, if the next one is even a little bit more coherent, a smidge more focused, it'll be an improvement. It's just disappointing to see a film series that has so much potential flounder so quickly. Whatever magic remains in this franchise isn't enough to save this movie from being the first genuinely bad work it has produced.

"CURSED CHILD DOESN'T COUNT, OBVIOUSLY!" - Sir Goodmovie

[sirgoodmovie-blog]

Film Castle Retrospective: War of the Worlds (2005)

A largely forgotten sci-fi gem.

I'm going to talk about this film's plot in detail! If you've never seen it, I would highly recommend giving it a watch and coming back!

I always felt like War of the Worlds just came and went. You hear folks talking about great science fiction films of the last 15 years and this movie rarely comes up. After rewatching it recently, I think I understand why. It's still as affecting and brilliantly paced as I remember it being but it's not exactly what I would call timeless. In fact, this film is so firmly planted in its era that watching it today feels uncanny.

Steven Spielberg did this one! Well, he directed it. It was written by David Koepp (known for Jurassic Park and Mission: Impossible) and Josh Friedman (writer on... Avatar 2, currently in post-production :/ ).

The plot very loosely follows the 1897 novel written by H.G. Wells. Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a dock worker living in New Jersey. His two kids, Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and Rachel (Dakota Fanning), live with their mother and view him as a deadbeat. On a weekend visit, an unnatural lightning storm leads to an enormous three-legged machine emerging from the ground and disintegrating crowds of people with laser beams. These are the beginnings of a global alien invasion, and we follow Ray and his kids as they travel north towards Boston in an attempt to seek refuge from the tripods with their extended family.

Most folks know this story from the 1938 radio drama by Orson Welles, remembered in infamy for causing some people to actually believe Martians were invading Earth. Spielberg's adaptation doesn't have much of anything to do with Welles', at least on the surface. But let's think about the time periods at play. In the late 30's, America was on the cusp of WWII, with the constant threat of German invasion looming in the national consciousness. The radio play was thoroughly tapped into these fears and was able to exploit them, accidentally creating a horror so palpable that people actually called the police to ask about the broadcast.

Turns out, history repeats in predictable but fascinating ways! The 2005 film is baked in post 9/11 anxiety. It's deep in the DNA of the thing, and there's even a point in the movie where this fear is stated outright (the kids ask their father if the invading aliens are "terrorists"). It's all here folks! Robbie spends almost all of his screen-time trying to join the military to "get back at them", Ray comes home from the initial attack covered in dust and ash, lots of shots of Heroic American Soldiers. There's even a fucking plane crash early in the invasion. I found it amazing how little of this stuff I remember and how it all seems so obvious now, but it's also telling. American culture was steeped in this iconography at the time. It just seemed normal when I was a kid. Every single house on Ray's street having an American flag out front was normal.

but watever!!! Let's talk about robots! Let's talk about what works in this movie!

The tripods are fairly interesting and menacing on their own. The way their little metal tendrils move around is distressingly organic, and that's before they start leaking fluids and sucking people up into their... orifices (sigh). They do this big foghorn yell that's still really frightening! I still remember it shaking the theater. If you have a good sound system you'll probably get a bit of that effect. Their lasers turn people to dust but leave the clothes, leading to a brilliant shot late in the movie where articles of clothing start falling from the sky.

On top of all that, their design takes on a new significance when the pilots are revealed: the aliens are a three-legged species. They are piloting mechs created in their own image, mimicking all giant-robot media ever created ever in the history of intelligent life. Goofs aside, this kind of internal design consistency is what I live for in sci-fi films. I'm even willing to look past the fact that they're triangle-headed, which is the most cliche head shape for an alien to have.

The pacing and moment-to-moment plotting in this film is excellent. The tension and desperation are constantly rising, and it all comes to head in a fantastic penultimate act wherein Ray and Rachel are forced to hide in a basement with Harlan (Tim Robbins), a prepper with a dubious grasp of reality.

Oh sorry, you thought this was a sci-fi thriller? nice try idiot it's a sci-fi horror now.

It starts off with a genuinely touching scene of Ray attempting to comfort his daughter before she sleeps. After tearfully admitting that he doesn't know any lullabies, he starts quietly singing The Beach Boy's "Little Deuce Coupe". It's the only song he knows by heart, or at least the only one he can recall. This is the moment where the emotional core of the movie really comes together.

And just in time, because a spooky alien mechanical eyeball tentacle comes down to investigate the basement, followed closely by the aliens themselves! These scenes are incredibly tense. Not only is Ray trying desperately to hide and protect his daughter from robots, Harlan's delusions of grandeur and desire to attack the invaders almost gives away their position several times, forcing Ray to fight him as well. You find yourself holding your breath as the two men silently struggle for control of a loaded shotgun, with the strange tripedal creatures mere steps away.

These events culminate in the reveal that the aliens are using human blood as the main ingredient in a strange plant/fungus, with the purpose of terraforming the Earth to their liking. Harlan panics. He starts yelling and refuses to stop, and Ray is forced to kill him while Rachel waits in the other room, blindfolded and singing to herself. It's haunting. It's tragic. It works, and Tim Robbins steals every scene he's in.

But uh, not everything in the film hits those highs. I know I've been giving this movie a lot of sugar so far, but it has some big problems.

For one thing: Steven Spielberg Kid Shit™. Ray's children are supremely unlikable for most of the runtime. It's difficult to care about Rachel before the aforementioned basement act, and Robbie's arc never really makes any sense at all. He's a shitty teenager who immediately wants to join the army upon seeing one (1) robot. His insistence that Ray has to just "let him go" runs counter to his attitude in the early parts of the film, where he feels Ray doesn't care enough about him or his sister. It felt like the writers didn't quite know what they were trying to say with Robbie. Figures, since they kinda just shoo him away before the best scenes in the movie, only to unceremoniously bring him back at the end.

Speaking of, the ending is bad. Very bad actually!

It sticks with the "aliens killed by Earth microbes" ending of the original story. This has always been kind of a hard sell. It's difficult to believe that a spacefaring race wouldn't take precautions against that sort of thing, but maybe they evolved to be really resistant to diseases on their planet or something. However, in one of the changes the film makes to the original story, the tripods were buried on Earth a million years ago and were lying in wait for their pilots to arrive and begin the invasion. This just makes the aliens seem even stupider. It's hard to suspend my disbelief when I'm thinking about how during dozens of millennia of planning, catching an Earth cold was seemingly never a concern.

The ending is also too damn happy. Ray and Rachel make it to Boston, and not only is all of their family alive and completely safe, but Robbie is also alive and completely safe and he beat them there! I know it seemed like he exploded and caught fire and was directly in the path of a killer blood robot, but don't worry he's fine! Yeah I know, it feels ridiculous and unearned. But it makes sense in retrospect given that post 9/11 trauma. Nobody at that time would've responded to the bittersweet ending that this film deserves.

Closing thoughts, this film isn't gonna work for everyone. I saw it as a kid so I admit some bias. I can easily see someone watching this thinking it's cheesy and heavy-handed. But I think if you're a fan of science fiction, it's at least worth it to see this classic story loaded up with all of 2005's baggage. For old times sake.

"THEY EVEN GOT A MORGAN FREEMAN NARRATION IN THERE BEFORE THAT BECAME A CLICHE!" - Sir Goodmovie

Related links! Here's a recent episode of Radiolab about the history of the radio play, and here's a stellar video by Lindsay Ellis on post 9/11 media.

[sirgoodmovie-blog]

Bohemian Rhapsody: Another Music Biopic Falls Flat (Get it?)

Unless you're a Queen superfan, you're better off skipping this one.

I'd like to open with two disclaimers: the first is that the last film of this genre I saw in theaters was Jersey Boys (yikes). Music biopics leave a bad taste in my mouth in general, but it's also very possible that these movies just aren't for me. The second is that while I am a fan of Queen and know all of their more popular songs, I am by no means a scholar of the band or their history. I'm going to avoid talking in depth about the dramatization of Freddie's life. To be honest, I don't think knowing those details are necessary to critique Bohemian Rhapsody as a standalone film. With that said, let's move on.

We follow the trajectory of Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek). Originally born in Zanzibar as Farrokh Bulsara, Freddie takes a fifteen-year journey from watching bands in local pubs to becoming the lead singer of one of the most influential music acts of all time. In the beginning, he meets Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), who are conveniently in need of a frontman. John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello) joins soon after. As we watch the newly dubbed Queen on their climb to absolute stardom, we also look into the intimate moments of Freddie's personal life. These include his complicated relationships with his lover-turned-best-friend Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton) and his cartoonishly jealous and catty manager-turned-lover Paul Prenter (Allen Leech).

I was hoping that Bohemian Rhapsody was going to bring something interesting to the table, given Freddie Mercury and Queen's legacy. This is a rich vein, and if director Bryan Singer and screenwriter Anthony McCarten had bothered to mine it, this movie might've had something interesting to say.

But no.

The film stumbles headlong into the same pitfall that fell so many biopics in the past: it's unfocused. By choosing to chart a fifteen-year history of the band with most of the minutiae intact, the narrative is forced to speed along at a breakneck pace. There's no time to get truly invested in Freddie's personal struggles, but the movie still wants you to Feel Things™, so it has to resort to melodrama and bargain-bin tropes. Every emotional beat here is unearned.

The other kind of scene is the "how we recorded this iconic song". I rolled my eyes a lot during these parts. The film makes it seem as if the central ideas behind songs like "We Will Rock You" and "Another One Bites the Dust" were developed in twenty seconds flat, all while it obnoxiously winks and nods to the audience about how record execs and critics at the time didn't get how awesome Queen was, amirite??? The screenplay drags this entire movie down and is easily its most disappointing aspect.

Otherwise, there are a few noteworthy things to like in Bohemian Rhapsody. Rami Malek put on a solid performance and does a lot with what he's given. There were several times where I forgot I was watching Rami Malek, which is usually pretty difficult for me. The casting and costuming are very good across the board. See if you can spot Mike Myers in this movie, because I totally missed him! As far as cinematography goes, there are maybe two or three interesting shots, but the film never gets all that experimental with the camera.

So yeah! I really didn't like this one, but I don't think I'm part of the target audience. Most of the crowd at the screening I attended seemed to be older fans of the band, and the movie played very well with them. If you happen to fall in that demographic, or if you're a true Freddie Mercury acolyte, this might be worth seeing in theaters. Otherwise just stream it if you're curious. Though the only feeling you're likely to get is the desire to listen to some Queen songs.

"I WANTED TO SEE PROSPECT INSTEAD OF THIS, BUT THERE WERE NO SHOWINGS NEAR ME! OH WELL!" - Sir Goodmovie

EDIT 11/12: At the time I wrote this piece, I didn't really address how the movie handles Freddie's sexuality. I was trying to get the review out on release night, and I hadn't fully formed my thoughts yet. So I decided to cut it from the review and focus more on the film's weak writing as the main problem. But it's been almost two weeks now, and I think it's worth talking about.

I think they handle Freddie's queerness extremely poorly. Disastrously, even. It's wild to think that the version of this movie where the writers didn't touch the subject at all, what we were all initially afraid of, might've been less harmful than the movie we got.

But I'm not gonna bloviate about it in this footnote anymore! Read this fantastic article by Peter Knegt. He sums up all my feelings about this and deserves the recognition!

[sirgoodmovie-blog]

mid90s: Jonah Hill Paints a Strikingly Real Picture of Juvenile Delinquency

This movie will hit close to home for those in a certain age bracket, and probably not in the way you're expecting.

I went into this movie more or less blind, and given writer-director Jonah Hill's previous body of work, I was expecting a raunchy teen comedy. Something slightly more Apatow-adjacent. But no, Hill has made an honest and occasionally harrowing coming-of-age drama. This is an impressive first outing for him.

Stevie (Sunny Suljic) is a 13-year-old kid in Los Angeles with a pretty gnarly home life. His older brother Ian (Lucas Hedges) is an abusive bully, and the very first shot establishes that Stevie is usually the one on the receiving end of his violence. Stevie's young mother Dabney (Katherine Waterston) is struggling just to keep the household together as a single parent.

However, Stevie's home life quickly drifts out of focus when he meets some older kids outside of a skate shop (they work there? hang out there? some of them have a job? whatever it's not important) There's Ray (Na-kel Smith), the de-facto leader of the group with ambitions to go pro as a skater. Fuckshit (Olan Prenatt) is Ray's lackadaisical best friend whose only concern is where the next party's at. Fourth Grade (Ryder McLaughlin) is the group's cameraman and frequent target of their ribbing. Finally, Ruben (Gio Galicia) is another younger kid who inducts Stevie into the group but is quickly supplanted by him in their hierarchy. In an LA summer with nothing to do, the group quickly rushes Stevie through several rites of passage he isn't ready for, with some realistic and unfortunate consequences.

Allow me to take an aside to talk about nostalgia. As a viewer, it isn't something I generally value in uh, anything. I would rather see something new than relive halcyon days that never really existed for me. I was worried coming into this film that it would bank on me being nostalgic for this time period (I was a young child in the mid 90's) and use that to try and manufacture a reaction from me. And I'm glad to report that mid90s largely avoids this! Aside from Stevie wearing t-shirts featuring Street Fighter, Ren & Stimpy, and Beavis & Butthead (in that order) in the first fifteen minutes, the movie doesn't have much interest in beating you over the head with it. The choice in music and the general vibe roots the film in its time period more than cheap 90's artifice ever would.

What really got a reaction from me though, was Hill's script. mid90s is decidedly honest, both about teenagers and the time period it takes place in. Of course, that means homophobic and ableist slurs abound, and normally straight-white-dude Jonah Hill writing a script like this would give me pause. But here it feels natural to the people we're seeing and the places we're in. The dialogue comes across as real conversation rather than offensiveness for its own sake. I will say though, if Hill's next script is full of f-slurs we've got problems.

Everything else in the film is as it should be. The performances are delivered with heart-wrenching sincerity, especially when we see Stevie's tendency to self-harm. DP Christopher Blauvelt is doing great work here. The movie is filmed in grainy 16mm 4:3, and at a distance one could easily mistake it for something made two decades ago.

The plot is admittedly kinda thin, but let's be real. If you're a teenage skater during summer in LA circa 1996, how much do you really have going on? Additionally, the movie ends on an unrealistic note. But after 1 hour and 24 minutes of real-life consequences, that might not be such a bad thing.

I can see mid90s not resonating with a lot of people. Maybe even most people. It feels like a movie made for folks with a lot of memories of that decade, folks who were teenagers in recent memory, or ideally both. Everybody else might have some trouble relating to these characters, their immature antics, and the very specific ways that they are vulnerable. But if you're looking for a compelling coming-of-age drama that might stoke a few wistful feelings, you could certainly do worse.

"JUST BE READY TO CRINGE A FEW TIMES!" - Sir Goodmovie