Poor Things (2023)

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos

Cast: Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe, Ramy Youssef

Have I Seen It Before: Never. Probably won’t share why precisely, but it was a screening with a pretty strange context.

Did I Like It: Context be damned, this is one of the stranger movies in recent memory. And that is mostly (although not entirely) tied just to that weird belch thing Dafoe does a handful of times throughout the movie. What was that all about? Aside from maybe being some kind of symptom of his looming mortality, but even then it feels like a weird flex of CGI for the sake of CGI.

Aside from that, the film is fine, providing a modern (in theme if not setting) riff on not just the Frankenstein myth generally, but Bride of Frankenstein (1935). I’ve been struck by that earlier film in recent years that for all of its predecessor’s concern about the procurement of viable human brains to animate their patchwork corpses, the sequel (which I still love, regardless of what I’m about to say about it) seemed more obsessed with a woman’s heart, and her brain was an afterthought. It’s only after seeing this film that I realize there was (as much as the Hays Code might allow) not just an omission of personhood for both the Bride there and Bella here, but a savage—even from those who might think of themselves and society would view as benign—hostility and need for possession at play here.

That fundamental oddness and the underlying message are ultimately subservient to the film’s central performance. Stone once again proves that she is willing to strip away most of the glamour normally associated with a movie star in order to display as unflinchingly and cogently as possible, far stranger characters than her early career might have shoved her towards.

Easy A (2010)

Director: Will Gluck

Cast: Emma Stone, Penn Badgley, Amanda Bynes, Thomas Haden Church

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: She might just be a little bit beyond it now—especially as she’s already done her near-obligatory superhero film tour of duty with The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)—but Emma Stone would have made a great Barbara Gordon. Ah, well. Given the once and future Batgirl’s struggles to find her way to the big screen, it was never meant to be. I promised myself this review would devote fewer than 100 words to Barbara Gordon, and I am in imminent danger of breaking that limit.

That is all to say that had this film only had Stone’s up-until-that-point-undiscovered star power to fuel it. More than enough teen movies and romantic comedies are content to hinge their success or failure on chemistry or star power, and plenty of them get the job done well enough. Thankfully, there’s a big vibe of being delightfully smarter than everyone else in the room* throughout the film. Even reaching for such a quality immediately puts this film ahead of the average film in either genre. Far more valuably, though to the quest of being a memorable comedy, is an insistent vein of absurdism throughout. Some might claim the non sequitur is a weaker form of humor, but those people are wrong, and even they are going to enjoy the film. That’s the real strength: there’s something here for everyone, and no one has to feel like they’re slumming it. 

*In case you were wondering, that’s where the big Barbara Gordon energy comes into the proceedings for me. It should for you, too. I *really* shouldn’t have dived right into the writing of this review right after reading a lot of Batgirl movie news.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Cast: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifanakis, Edward Norton, Emma Stone

Have I Seen it Before: I mean, with the Keaton Quotient (tm) alone, you knew I was going to be there as soon as it came to the local art house theater.

Did I Like It: There’s something stealthy about the appeal of this film. A film is about the state of the current state of the American stage and celebrity. It weaves in a pointedly honest depiction of mental illness with the fiction of Raymond Carver. How would such heady material be able to not only zero in on a wide audience, but end up with the Academy Award?

Well, it certainly helps that it has the cultural oddity of Keaton starring as a role only he could, that of an aging movie star whose biggest claim to fame was being walking away from a major superhero franchise in the 1990s.

It sure worked on me. The film makes fun of the people that adore Thomson for his past glories, and, well... It me. And a bunch of those types of people (again, read: me) don’t have a sense of humor about themselves. They should. We’re ridiculous.

And if the film weren’t as successful as it were, then it might feel like a bait and switch. Equal parts audacious and clever, the mere fact that the film is able to simulate the entire affair taking place in one shot would be enough to recommend it. But if it were more traditionally shot, and didn’t feature one of my favorite film actors goofing on himself, then the film would still be worth a watch. Maybe purveyors of pop culture shouldn’t reach for artistic excellence, as some of the characters in the film suggest. I just like that I can go see something that advertises itself as a superhero film, and get a little bit extra for my ticket/blu ray purchase.

Plus, I have a working theory that owing to the cathartic experience of this film, Keaton warmed up to the idea of returning to superhero films, thus the delight of Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and the coming wonder that is his return as the Caped Crusader, which if you’ve been reading this space over the last several years, that has been my raison d’ete du cinema.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Director: Marc Webb

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan

Have I Seen It Before?: Yeah… But it was in one of those perfunctory, watch-on-demand viewings long after the obituaries on this series had already been written. I think Tom Holland may have already been cast as Garfield’s replacement at this point.

Did I like it?: In my review of The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) I ended up landing on the significantly positive side of the film, extolling three virtues:

1)      Spider-Man (Garfield) is an active participant in his own origin story.

2)      The James Horner score absolutely slaps, and we aren’t going to get any more of those.

3)      I’m of a certain type who will be more impacted by encouraging words of decency from Jed Bartlet than I would be from Charly.

It’s sad that I have to report that this film continues none of what worked about its predecessor. Uncle Ben is mentioned, but he gets no flashbacks or voiceovers, whereas Captain Stacy and Peter’s parents do. It’s a weird omission, but the movie is already far too overstuffed with characters who have very little to do, why bring back Sheen?

On that note, Spider-Man as portrayed here has surprisingly little to do with the proceedings. He has no intention, other than being positive Danish in his level of indecision regarding his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Stone). Even the hero has little to do. It is as if the entire film is forged by the studio in their flailing attempts to keep the right for the character to revert back to Marvel. One wonders how there was such a shift from the first film, but there are Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, getting primary credit for the screenplay. It’s probably for the best—in so far as big-budget spectacle movies are concerned—Orci can’t seem to get work anymore, and Kurtzman is relegated to a Rick Berman-esque role over the Star Trek franchise*.

Then there’s the music. James Horner is nowhere to be found here, and the score in its place is… Well, it’s bad. It inspires no feeling but is augmented with enough pop pablum to really make you want to stay as far away from the soundtrack as possible.

Some movie series die young and it feels like something has been stolen from us, and while there can certainly be arguments for the needlessness of rebooting the series for the first time, it is pretty clear another reboot was needed from here.

Although, to be fair, and I didn’t mention this in my review of the last movie, it is interesting that Andrew Garfield is the only wall-crawler of film who actually sounds like he might be from Queens. If only actors like Jamie Foxx and Paul Giamatti didn’t feel so out of place in the film.

*Don’t get me wrong, I like the new Star Trek, but my good will is ultimately an exhaustible resource.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Director: Marc Webb

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary

Have I Seen It Before?: Yes. I eventually came around to it, but I didn’t see it in the theater. As my mind tends to wanders in these reviews this year, that statement tends to make me feel wistful, as its entirely possible I may never see another movie in the theaters again. Back then, though, I was put off by the disappearance of Sam Raimi, et. al. and struck by how it would have definitely been an also ran in the summer which brought us The Avengers (2012).

Did I like it?: A few things that can happen to a big tentpole movie like this that are unfair, but pretty lethal. A star that owned the central role and the creative team can leave the franchise. Think On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) or Batman Forever (1995). It can be especially unfortunate when the viewer can’t help but wonder what the franchise would have been like if the studio left it alone. One imagines what Sean Connery or Michael Keaton would have done with those films (in either order, really…) and so as this film projects you can’t help but think about what Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire would have done had they had the chance to rebound after the admittedly wobbly Spider-Man 3 (2007). The Lizard could even come to play, except played by Dylan Baker. Throw in a Mysterio courtesy of Bruce Campbell for good measure.

Does this film completely surpass those limitations? No, we are still subjected to another scene of a young Peter Parker looking with full Spielberg-face as a spider descends from mysterious cluster of scientific wonder, followed by an extended montage where our friend Parker slowly comes to the realization that something changes. Ben Parker will die too. Great power; great responsibility. That whole routine. It was truly refreshing when the MCU dispensed with all of that when it began its lease on the franchise with Captain America: Civil War (2016).

Still, there are things to recommend this film. For one, Martin Sheen is in it. Not to put down the late Cliff Robertson, but if a film wants to make me not want to disappoint someone, they could do a lot worse than Jed Bartlet. The film also sports a score by the late, great James Horner which—even if we weren’t going to be getting any more of those—is right at home with some of his best scores. It doesn’t have the same ring-in-your-head quality as Danny Elfman’s work in the prior series, but I’m not going to knock it.

Those elements are merely cosmetic. I can’t help but applaud the film for rolling with its inherent limitations and offering us a story where Peter Parker’s transformation into the friendly, neighborhood wall-crawler is tied to a very clear search for his identity, weaving in Parkers lost—and seldom mentioned—parents into the origin so that Parker is not simply a victim of his transformation being a million-to-one shot, but a byproduct of his search for that destiny.

Now if only the studio had kept their head on straight for the sequel…

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I missed in the theaters. I was even scheduled to watch it for an episode of Beyond the Cabin in the Woods, but was too enmeshed in the post-production for The Fourth Wall to make time for a screening. C’es la vie.

Did I like it?: As I mentioned in my review of the original <Zombieland (2009)> that zombies and I have never gotten along. Given both my feelings, and the fact that the zombie comedy had been perfected with Shaun of the Dead (2004), it’s pretty impressive that the original could be entertaining at all.

Did it need a sequel? Is a sequel even welcome? What more could they explore that was somehow omitted from the original? As it turns out not much, as the characters have stayed in almost complete stasis in the ten years since the original film. Suspiciously so. Has there been any series with ten years between installments where the characters are more entrenched in the types of people they were in the earlier entry?

That stasis notwithstanding, given that the four leads are likable enough, spending another two hours with them doesn’t feel like a chore. Adding a series of characters that are pointedly similar to the originals to throw a wrench into things feels varying degrees of awkward, but the film could have been far more embarrassing, as many protracted gap sequels often are.

But couldn’t we have had more with Bill Murray (once again, Bill Murray)? I once again was not expecting him to be in the film, but his adventures in the first day of Zombieland over the end credits are once again the highlight of the film. Murray probably wouldn’t have been game for such an endeavor, but we couldn’t have done a prequel of his entire adventures leading up to the first movie?

I probably just want fewer zombie movies, and far more Bill Murray movies. Thus, this film series (should it continue) will likely continue to flummox me.

Zombieland (2009)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I was an extremely skeptical viewer on opening weekend. What could possibly be added to the arena of Zombie comedies after Shaun of the Dead (2004)?

Did I like it?: I think it’s important to admit that I have such little regard for the Zombie genre that this film could have been very good, indeed, and completely missed my interest. Most of the Romero films have failed to make anything resembling an impression with me. Like any good consumer of popular culture, I watched The Walking Dead for as long as I could, but checked out far earlier than most, and can’t say I enjoyed the depressing odyssey for which I did remain. Some people dream of living through the Zombie apocalypse, and for the life of me I can’t understand those people. Were armies of the undead to rise and crave the brains of the living, I would easily happily check out when CDC facility explodes, if it is all the same to you.

All of the above being said, I’ve definitely enjoyed Zombieland the handful of times I’ve watched. The zombies themselves are completely incidental to that enjoyment, naturally, as it is all basic fair. The other visual flourishes regarding the rules Columbus (Eisenberg) devises for surviving the Zombie apocalypse, and the chemistry between the actors and their performances make the whole affair far more watchable than it has any right to be.

And then, there’s Bill Murray (Bill Murray). What a wonderful treat to be surprised by Murray having fun in a film and with his own screen personae. Before seeing this film, the idea of playing Ghostbusters with Murray (wherein you get to be Pete Venkman, naturally) wouldn’t have occurred to me as bucket list item. Now, it’s the one thing I keep thinking about any time I watch the movie.

If that’s the kind of thing one can expect from the Zombie apocalypse, maybe I won’t check out at the earliest opportunity.