Weekend Screen Scene: Superman

Over the last couple decades I've been pondering why it seems to be so difficult to make a truly great Superman movie, and I have yet to come up with any real answers. It seems like it would be easy! He's the first real comic book superhero! The OG indestructible man! The ultimate good guy fighting for truth, justice, and the American way!

I didn't like how Christ-like he was in 2006's Superman Returns, and the Zack Snyder directed incarnations were just too gloomy and...Zack Synder-ey. And while I do adore 1978's Superman, I really can't say how much my love for that movie is fueled by pure childhood nostalgia, or genuine appreciation, because I have to admit parts of it are extremely hokey.

All of this is to say I enjoyed director James Gunn's Superman more than any Superman movie since 1978's, but that very well may be damning it with faint praise.

Gunn forgoes any real backstory, instead literally dropping Superman into the middle of the story. Superman has just prevented a war, saving the small and poor country of Jarhanpur from an invasion by the larger and richer Boravia, but this has resulted in some controversy, fueled in large part by billionaire Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), who has a vested interest in Boravia taking over Jarhanpur.

Superman this time around is played by David Corenswet, best known - at least to me - for his role as the seductive movie projectionist in 2022's Pearl, and his Superman is much closer to the earnestness of Christopher Reeve's Superman than to the more emo interpretations of Brandon Routh or Henry Cavill. Which is not to say he's milquetoast. But he's no cynic either. He's just a genuinely nice guy who wants to protect his adopted planet.

James Gunn is responsible for Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy movies, which have, for the most part, masterfully blended humor and action, making those films some of the funnest in the MCU. But I can't say Gunn's brand of humor works quite as well here. Yes, seeing Superman go out of his way to save a squirrel is delightful, and his foster dog Krypto, is a very, very good boy. But other things, such as Nathan Fillion's turn as the Green Lantern, and almost every scene at the Daily Planet, fall flat.

But there's so much more going on that it's easy to overlook the clunkiness. Rachel Brosnahan makes a great Lois Lane, one so dedicated to her job as a reporter that she doesn't stop working even when the city of Metropolis is crumbling around her (as toppling skyscrapers seem to be a common occurrence in almost all superhero movies, perhaps she's just used to it). Gene Hackman will always be the best Lex Luthor, but Hoult is a vast improvement over Jesse Eisenberg's twitchy version, a billionaire who has the ear of the government and literal typing monkeys controlling the Internet's narrative about Superman. 

I'm not going to say much about the stupid accusations being made by some that this Superman is too "woke," because anyone who says that obviously knows nothing about the history of the character, and is really nothing but another typing monkey on the Internet. But I will say that I appreciated that this Superman tells a story that mixes the fantastic (superheros; giant monsters) with the relatable (billionaires playing with the fates of nations; America turning against a good guy because of something they see on online).

So, no, Superman is not the great Superman movie I've been waiting for. But it's close. And to paraphrase Lois Lane herself: a good director doesn't get great movie scripts, a good director makes them great. Maybe James Gunn will get there.

Weekend Screen Scene: Sorry, Baby

After a screening of Sorry, Baby, writer, director, and star Eva Victor admitted they probably didn't think hard enough about the poster image for the movie, which features Victor, with a look of concern on their face, holding up a kitten. Kittens!? Cute! But that title? And the look of concern? Should the audience be concerned about that kitten?

I'm happy to report that no cats die in the course of the film (though one creature does meet its ultimate fate via said cat). But a bad thing does happen to Agnes, and it's the magic of this movie that it manages to be truthful to the pain of that experience, without being exploitative, or triggering. 

Sorry, Baby is also also very, very funny, in both expected and unexpected moments, thanks to the immense chemistry between Victor and her co-star Naomi Ackie (who is really becoming a secret weapon in every movie she appears in). They play Agnes and Lydie, best friends reuniting for a long weekend at the house they once shared as graduate students at a small New England college. Agnes still lives there, and now teaches at the same school. 

Over the course of this visit, Agnes and Lydie hang out and joke around, are annoyed by the presence of strangers (them both reacting with disgust to a neighbor hollering "Ahoy!" at them is hilarious), and sit through a tense dinner with former classmates from the college. By the end of the visit it becomes clear that Agnes is still dealing with a past trauma, though it isn't until the film's second chapter, and its time shift, that we learn what happened to her.

Aaaand, unfortunately, I'm going to need to cut this review short because I had carpal tunnel surgery and was only able to finish the above before said surgery, and now I can't really type for very long. So let me just say this: Sorry, Baby is one of the best screenwriting and directorial debuts I've ever seen, I absolutely loved it, and I am really looking forward to what Eva Victor comes up with next. Do yourself a favor and seek this one out.

Weekend Screen Scene: F1 the Movie

Do not go into F1 the Movie expecting surprises. Director Joseph Kosinski and screenwriter Ehren Kruger have essentially recreated their previous hit Top Gun Maverick, replacing the fighter jets with Formula One race cars, and Tom Cruise with Brad Pitt. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing! It just depends on how much you like fast cars and Brad Pitt, because it's those things and not the story that are going to do the heavy lifting when it comes to entertainment.

Pitt is aging race-car driver Sonny Hayes. While racing for Lotus's Formula 1 team back in the 1990's he crashed and almost died, so stepped away from Formula One, though never left racing behind completely. After winning a race at Daytona, he's approached by his former Lotus teammate Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem) with an offer to join his now struggling F1 team, APXGP. Though they have the talented but brash rookie Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris), they have yet to win a race that year, and with nine ahead of them, and their second driver out for the season, Cervantes hopes Hayes will get them a win.

If you're suspecting the aging racer will Break the Rules, and Teach the Rookie a Thing Or Two About Racing and Life, you'd be right. Just about every cliche you'd find in an underdog sports story can be found in F1 the Movie, and every expected story beat is there. In fact, the only time it veers away from the predictable is in its ending, which is all wrong, and the one time it should have stuck to cliches.

Filmed for IMAX, the racing scenes are undeniably thrilling. And loud. I don't know enough about Formula 1 to know if what happens in these races is in any way plausible, but I suspect they are not. But they're what are required to make a sometimes monotonous sport a tad more thrilling to watch in a movie. If actual races feature as many POV shots, and camera whip pans as seen in F1 the Movie, I could actually see getting into the sport, which, thanks in large part to the Netflix series, Formula 1: Drive to Survive, has picked up a lot of new fans in the past few years. I'm not sure F1 the Movie will satisfy those fans. I suspect the implausibility of some of the races may irk more than thrill. But it could create even more followers of the sport, which I suspect is exactly the point.

Weekend Screen Scene: The Life of Chuck, The Phoenician Scheme

The Life of Chuck is like a Frank Capra movie bookended by a Stephen King movie. It's a King and Capra sandwich, if you will. 

Told in three parts, it starts with part three and ends with part one. Part three introduces several characters in an unnamed town who are facing what may be the end of the world, while also being bombarded by some inexplicable advertisements on billboards, TV, and sky writing, all thanking someone named Chuck for "39 great years." Part two centers on one moment in the life of Chuck, and part one tells the story of Chuck's youth.

And that's about all I'll say about the plot, because how all of this ties together is the film's central mystery, and message. And I'll admit, it's a message that had me crying more than once. Mike Flanagan is not new to the Stephen King world. Even when he is not overtly adapting his work, as he has done in the past with Gerald's Game and Doctor Sleep, the influence King has on his work is often clearly evident. (For instance, Midnight Mass could easily be viewed as an unofficial Salem's Lot sequel.) It's a match that works quite well because Flanagan, whose work is almost exclusively in the horror genre, understands the importance of sympathetic characters when you're telling a horrific story. 

Chuck is not a horror movie, but those bookends definitely have elements of the genre. I will offer a tiny spoiler and say that if you are going to see this movie because you are a huge Tom Hiddleston fan, you may be disappointed, as he is not in the movie as much as the advertising may suggest. But his Chuck is figuratively and literally the center of the movie, and he's quite good in a film full of excellent performances. (Chiwetel Ejiofor as a teacher, Mark Hamill as Chuck's grandfather, and Benjamin Pajak, especially, as the middle school aged Chuck, are all standouts.)

The Life of Chuck could have easily veered off into the realm of maudlin sentimentality, but I think it's those small nods to the horror genre that both King and Flanagan know so well that keep it grounded, and ultimately make the movie so effective. Perhaps it's my age, where there are more years behind me than there are ahead of me, that make stories like this hit differently, or just the general state of the world right now. But I came away from the movie with a profound feeling of both sadness, and hope.

I've grown less tolerant of Wes Anderson's patented brand of twee ever since The Grand Budapest Hotel, the last film of his I can say I truly enjoyed. And while I would not put The Phoenician Scheme on par with Anderson's greatest, I did find it it to be more fun than annoying, which is at least an improvement.

All the things that make a Wes Anderson movie a Wes Anderson movie are here: A muted color palette. Symmetrically composed shots. An overall vintage aesthetic. And characters that deliver their deadpan dialogue in a story centered in some daddy issues.

Benicio del Toro is Zsa-Zsa Korda, the central daddy this time around, a mysterious and corrupt industrialist hoping to complete his latest "scheme" which involves taking over the infrastructure of Phoenicia. But because he is under constant threat of assassination, he decides to get his things in order and make his estranged daughter Liesl (Mia Threapleton) his sole heir. Liesl, who is a nun, is reluctant. Along on this journey is Bjørn (Michael Cera), an entomologist who has been hired as a tutor because...well because this is a Wes Anderson movie.

For me, it's safe to say that Michael Cera's performance is what makes this movie so fun, and I'm as shocked as anyone that this is his first Anderson film; he was basically built in a lab for this sort of thing. At one time, Wes Anderson movies were a complete package: aesthetically pleasing movies that made me laugh and cry. For the last two movies, I was only able to get one those three things. This time, thanks to Michael Cera, The Phoenician Scheme offers two of the three.

Weekend Screen Scene: Bring Her Back, Bad Shabbos

Danny and Michael Philippou, the twin brother directing team behind 2022's Talk to Me, have returned to the genre with Bring Her Back, another very dark horror film centered on people dealing with debilitating grief. You know. Fun stuff!

After losing their only parent, 17-year old Andy (Billy Barratt) and his blind, younger step-sister Piper (Sora Wong) are placed into foster care with Laura (Sally Perkins) a former children's counselor. At first she seems kooky but kind. But soon, Andy begins to suspect something sinister is at play.

Both Talk to Me and Bring Her Back deal with loss, and the urgent longing for connection beyond the grave. Talk to Me's ventures into the world of the supernatural had some moments of levity, turning ghostly possession into a kind of party game which resulted in some exhilarating and often funny moments. But Bring Her Back is a movie you endure more than you enjoy, and there's not one moment in it the entire film that I could describe as fun.

The Philippous do a great job of establishing Andy and Piper as very sympathetic characters from the get go, and Barratt and Wong are so good in their roles, that you really don't want to see anything bad happen to them. And when bad things do, it hurts. It's literally horrifying.

But the film takes way too long to establish just what is going on with the Laura character, and despite Sally Perkins also giving a stand-out performance, any sympathy we are supposed to have for her comes too late, resulting in an ending that doesn't hit the way I suspect it's supposed to.

So, yes, the film is filled with terrific performances, is beautifully shot, and is absolutely effective; at times so horrifying I had to cover my eyes. (If you have any phobias surrounding dental trauma, you may want to skip this.) And yes, I know horror movies are supposed to affect and horrify you. Absolutely. But it is up to every horror fan to decide the level of horror they can endure. And turns out, watching vulnerable children subjected to multiple traumas is not the kind of horror I can endure. Bring Her Back is a good horror movie; perhaps even a great one. But I can safely say I had a miserable time watching it, and absolutely never want to see it again.

While watching the dark comedy Bad Shabbos, I kept finding myself pondering what the prison sentence for accidentally causing the death of someone via a practical joke may be. Obviously, involuntary manslaughter would be the charge. But would someone really face a long prison sentence? Especially a white kid from a well to-do family in New York? 

The Gelfands, the family at the center of Bad Shabbos, do not think with such rationality, so when a guest at their Friday night shabbos dies as a result of a prank, they go to extreme lengths to try and cover up the crime, and a dinner that was supposed to bring the parents of newly engaged David (Jon Bass) and Meg (Meghan Leathers) together for the first time turns into a comedy of errors.

Bad Shabbos is not the most original comedy, and I'd say only about half of its jokes land. But if the movie is worth seeing at all, it is for Cliff "Method Man" Smith's hilarious performance as Jordan the doorman, who ends up being the exact kind of guest one may need at a murderous shabbat dinner. He can charm parents, quote the Talmud, and knows when and when not to use a luggage cart to get rid of a dead body.