Into the Spiderverse: Six Times the Spiders, Six Times the Fun

A sticky situation. 

My main thought heading into the theater was "Here's another Spider-Man movie." How many have we had in this century? Six mainstream flicks, not counting appearances in other MCU mash-ups like Infinity War. I was hoping for solid animation and some neat, little self-referential wisecracks to tide me through the overblown action sequences. Into the Spiderverse gave me that...and then some.

Sure, we have what appears to be a baseline origin story with Miles Morales stumbling into his powers and a crisis that threatens to destroy the world as he knows it. While the focus remains on Miles, he's joined by five other spider pals -- an older, downtrodden Spider-Man, Spiderwoman, Spider-Man Noir, Anime Spidergirl (?), and Spider-Pig (doing whatever a Spider-Pig does). The multiverse has been thrown out of whack, forcing them to work together to get themselves all back to where they belong.

Each character comes with their own animation style and color palette. Rather than create an odd mishmash that throws the entire scheme off-kilter, the styles complement one another. The anime style amplifies the CGI and vice-versa. I really have to complement the director and the animators on making that work.

When you bring in five characters who are all important, fitting them all in without bloating the storyline can be a problem. Progression and development can sometimes be at odds. This film does what Suicide Squad tried to do and failed: use the comic book concept to introduce the characters. It succeeds because it doesn't take itself too seriously. Yes, there are heavier, thought-provoking moments and they are made all the more effective by the pacing and the constant forward momentum. They are often related through simple moments of observation, not through overwrought dialogue.

Into the Spiderverse reinforced something I've become increasingly aware of: animation remains the superior medium for superhero stories. Both this film and the first Incredibles blow the MCU and the DCEU out of the water. The only live action superhero movie that exists in this rarefied air is The Dark Knight.

Into the Spiderverse is that good.

Whether or not I believe it should get the Oscar for Animated Feature is another matter. I'm torn between this and Mirai, which may not be as fun, but is much more real and heartistic. If either is chosen, I won't complain. If neither is chosen, the Academy will have hell unleashed upon them from this quiet expanse of the internet's wilderness.

P.S. This is the best movie Nicolas Cage has been a part of in forever.

First Man, A Trip to the Moon on Solid Wings

Damien Chazelle has a musical mind. He's directed two musicals, La La Land being the big one, and a movie about a drummer sacrificing it all to achieve his ambitions. Now, let's examine a rather poetic scene from First Man.

The Gemini 8, piloted by Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling), is in the process of docking with an unmanned vessel. The spacecraft float towards one another, making sure their motions are in tune. A symphony plays a waltz rivaling the theme from Super Mario Galaxy. It's a musical sequence, an extraterrestrial dance.

I couldn't help watching the scene with a huge grin on my face. I love stuff like this. I love the cinematic grandeur of the shots. Chazelle's directorial eye appears to be improving in every movie he makes. I love the music. Justin Hurwitz knows his way around a music sheet. What's more, I love the sentimentality of it all. For generations jaded on Star Trek and Star Wars, nothing is less romantic than ships docking, but there's romance here. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Throughout First Man, Chazelle's musical background shows up like this more than once, but he also steps away from the overstated nature of the musical genre to tell the story of a man who seems incapable of expressing emotions and inner feelings. Ryan Gosling plays Armstrong with intense understatement. The performance borderlines on doing nothing, yet Gosling is doing something. He does bring the audience into his inner world and I would consider it among his best.

Claire Foy is predictably excellent as Janet Armstrong, though this is very much a "man's film." That much is evident in the title. It's about a guy amidst a bunch of guys who understand the historical significance of their mission and are out to seek glory for their country (yes, this is also a patriotic film) and for themselves. Still, Foy manages to leave her mark.

Occasional oversentimentality, however, prevents a very good movie from being a great one. It doesn't commit all the way to the story's quiet, unassuming center.

Venom, or How Not to Make a Marvel Movie 101

 

Inconsistencies, one-dimensional villain, no character development...so many snacks - I mean problems - so little time. I'm not sure what I should pick apart first, so I'll start with the entire mess that is Venom.

Nothing makes sense, least of all the story. It wants to be an anti-hero story. That's all fine and dandy, except that Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) has no real flaw. There can be no anti-hero if the main character is already heroic. Eddie faces no personal obstacle that prevents him from saving the day. Venom, himself, is a simple guy with a simple flaw: he's an alien that enjoys eating people. This seems to be his entire reason for existing and for being on earth. Then, bam, just like that, he changes. He's actually a nice guy, a team player. No genuine motivation for the change exists.

While I'm slicing up the story, I might as well mention that it takes far too long for Venom and Eddie Brock to be conjoined. The film makes the classic error of starting too early in the story. While the world building is a necessary evil in sci-fi, too much (and somehow too little) hurts more than it helps.

The character development, as is already clear, is something the writers and directors didn't seem to care about. The villain is a rehash of Apocalypse and Zamasu. He thinks he is above humanity and uses the Bible on one occasion to get someone to do his bidding, so I suppose that makes him Luciferian as well. Take all the bad guyness from any superhero movie you can think of and strip it of any emotional weight and anything to make the audience care. That's Carlton Drake/Riot (Riz Ahmed).

Even the female lead, Anne Weying (Michelle Williams), isn't immune to all the development this movie doesn't have.

Can't you see how much fun I'm having with this?

On to the acting, shall we? Actually, let's move on. There isn't any acting involved, just a bunch of guys going through the motions. I don't see how they could do anything else. The script is a hodgepodge of mostly random sequences and basic origin story stuff.

Venom has no idea what tone it should keep. The moments of intense drama are undone by the film's disinterested attitude towards them. An important character gets murdered and it's like, okay, that happened. The romance angle doesn't work. The film fails to convey tension and heartbreak. Also, since it's Venom, there are elements taken from the horror genre and turned into a game of tag. Go figure.

Pretty much the only entertaining moments in the movie stem from Venom's voiceovers. On a handful of sequences, I genuinely laughed, and not from accidental humor caused by directorial shortcomings. Those few crumbs kept my interest piqued just enough to keep watching without feeling entirely brain-dead. They do not, unfortunately, make up for the rest of this mess.

If anyone expects me to compliment the chase scene and CGI action sequences, you've got another thing coming. I'm not Michael Bay. Recycling explosions and set pieces from superior films does not get me excited. Action that is both cool and helps character development does (think the last three Mission: Impossible movies and The Incredibles).

Whew! That was tasty.

Crazy Rich Asians Isn't So Crazy After All

Rich guy and not-so-rich girl fall in love and encounter obstacles including but not limited to: unwelcoming family members, elitism, classist assumptions, and that douchebag everyone hates. Let's be honest, we've all seen some iteration of that story. Some may say they liked it better when it was called Pride and Prejudice or Cinderella. The point is: Crazy Rich Asians is nowhere near crazy where the storytelling is concerned. 

Don't get me wrong, romantic comedies work partially because of the paradigm and because of the familiar situations the characters get put into. They're like coming home after an 8-hour shift at the office and seeing your cat mark the shoe-rack for the umpteenth time. You've grown accustomed to it. Memorable romcoms, however, have distinct characters that you remember long after the movie has ended.

Crazy Rich Asian doesn't even have that. 

Take Nicholas Young (Henry Golding), for example. He's an intelligent dude. He was born into a rich, elitist family, but he's nothing like his family. Rather than a snob, Nick has become an all-around good egg, a nice dude who is head over heels in love with his girlfriend and wants the relationship to go to the next level. His defining qualities are his billion dollar smile and a heart of gold. 

Those traits don't sound overly unique. 

Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) has a little more substance to work with, but even she is bogged down by certain genre tropes. When it's all said and done, she's the hardworking girl with the gumption and the fight to prove to her boyfriend's family that she is more than good enough for their son. 

Both characters' traits point to a common theme in romantic comedies -- the leads are usually the least interesting people. The entertainment comes from the surroundings, the situation, and the colorful supporting cast. That's what happens here. 

Jon Chu sets up lavish sequence after lavish sequence. He takes us from the night market to an upscale hotel to McMansions to a private island and to that douchebag shooting a bazooka off a ship into the ocean. The pacing is quick. The movie doesn't get bogged down by explaining the details behind everything in the family dynamic. 

Michelle Yeoh, primarily known for her work in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and other martial arts films, puts in the strongest performance as Nick's traditionalist mother. She provides a necessary counterbalance to the laid-back ease and open-mindedness of other members of her family and has just enough nuance to keep the character from falling into the hard-line generic Chinese mother role. Gemma Chan, as Nick's cousin and his and Rachel's confidant, also adds poise to the screen.

For the off-beat and quirky stuff, Awkwafina and Ken Jeong and the cousin who is always concerned with "optimal angles" have you covered. Like anything in that brand of humor, it can be an acquired taste and is often hit-and-miss. 

It's pretty clear that Crazy Rich Asians isn't pushing any storytelling envelopes. It's slick, it's efficient and adequate entertainment. 

Asian leads and Asian faces, however, make the movie an outlier. Seldom does Hollywood give Westernized Asian actors a chance to be the romantic heroes. The project is a major step forward for Asian representation in Hollywood. That is this movie's primary value. Its success will open doors for more movies, and most certainly, better ones. 

If this leads to Hotel On the Corner of Bitter and Sweet (do yourself a favor and read the book) finally getting the green light, an Asian-led live-action version of Your Name, and adaptations of Native Speaker, Chinglish, and other purely original projects (maybe one of mine lol), then Crazy Rich Asians will have done its job. 

(P.S The book is 300% better than the movie.) 

Solo: A Star Wars Story (We've Seen Before)

Han Solo takes his cues from the classics. He’s one-part John Wayne, two parts Captain Blood, and a drop of James Cagney. Rather than solve his problems in a calm, rational manner, he’d rather whip out his blaster or crack a (somewhat cornball) one-liner about not understanding Princess Leia. His heart of gold, however, refuses to leave a lost cause alone.

More than that, he likes to improvise. Han revels in breaking the rules, going outside the box, and manages to work things out despite not hitting all the checkboxes when they’re supposed to be hit. This freewheeling essence, in theory, should be at heart of Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Instead, Solo operates like a car (or spaceship) fresh off the assembly line. The engine runs smooth, the different mechanical parts work in the way they are supposed to, and there are no hiccups in the latest technology to ruin the experience. No problem, right? For a vehicle, sure. A movie, however, needs a little nuance and narrative invention.

That is nowhere to be found.

The Kasdans’ screenplay feels rote rather than robust. Ron Howard’s direction is distinctly uninspired. Given what appears to be his most well-remembered movie, A Beautiful Mind – which borrowed heavily from the film noir aesthetic and other Hollywood tropes – it should come as no surprise that he does the same with Solo and shamelessly.

The movie takes the worst quality of the Star Wars franchise – the strict adherence to the Joseph Campbell formula and the rehashing of plot points seen in old sci-fi films and westerns – and makes that the foundation. How many times have we seen the “destroy the Death Star” plot? At least four, perhaps more.

To be fair, Solo has its brighter moments. Almost all of them come from the cast. Alden Ehrenreich is not Harrison Ford, and it shows. He may not have the same charm, but he has enough to make him a passable Han Solo. Emilia Clarke, who plays Qi’ra, Solo’s love interest, puts in a solid performance. Woody Harrelson almost makes you forget that his character resembles every other on-screen bandit nearing their career’s end.

Donald Glover’s Lando Calrissian puts them both to shame. The man possesses a particular set of skills; skills that make him and his abundant charisma an enjoyable watch whenever he appears on the screen.

Following another common theme in the Star Wars universe, the most colorful and interesting character is not a human. It’s a robot. L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) commands every scene she is in. She provides much-needed humor, energy, and personality. She could also teach Korg a thing or two about starting a revolution. Without her, the movie would be flatter than a tabletop.

The cast makes the movie watchable.

At the end of the day, Solo is what the Old Hollywood studios would call “harmless entertainment.” No attempts to convey a deeper message beyond the tale. A one-dimensional good-guy, bad-guy plot.

Pure escapism. 

Follow @WinBribach on twitter. 

5 Japanese Animated Movies You May Have Missed (and Shouldn't Have)

Until recently, my knowledge of anime was limited to Dragonball (AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! Damn it, still not a Super Saiyan.) and the most high-profile films directed by Hayao Miyazaki. Then, Dragonball Super ended. The series left a bad taste in my mouth, especially the Goku Black/Infinite Zamasu saga, so I decided to see what else the Japanese canon had to offer.

I could make a list of the five best, but they would all be Miyazaki films and that's no fun, so I made this instead.

1. Whisper of the Heart (1995)

Animation often takes us on a magic carpet ride through a fantasy world. Minus a dream sequence or two, this film - written by Miyazaki and directed by Yoshifumi Kondo - has its feet firmly planted in reality. The attention to detail and observational representation is second to none, and the story of Shizuku Tsukishima, a 14-year-old girl trying to find her way as a writer, is carried out with remarkable competence. You might call it a fairy tale wrapped in reality. The urban world springs to life. Whisper of the Heart's strongest quality lies in the development of its characters. Every single one, from Shizuku to Seiji (her love interest) to her family members to her classmates and even to the cat riding on a subway car, is an individual with distinct traits. Each is on their own individual journey. Where those journeys overlap is the heart of the film.

I can't tell you highly I rate this film. There are not enough superlatives in the English language. I hadn't seen it until a month ago, and it is without a doubt my favorite animated movie. It may very well be my favorite movie...period. To quote The Sound of Music, this movie is "a drop of golden sun."

2. In This Corner of the World (2016)

Like their American counterparts, Japanese filmmakers often tell stories about World War II. Unlike Americans, the Japanese don't glorify themselves in the process. Their stories, for the most part, deal in defeat and tragedy. Grave of the Fireflies (1988) remains the prime example, though In This Corner of the World offers a different, and perhaps equally affecting, look at this period. To begin with, the art style is brilliant. All of it is hand-drawn, a rarity in today's CGI-dominated industry, and the result is stunning. The visuals provide an added depth to the story, which follows Suzu, a small-town girl with a talent for drawing. She is given in marriage to a young man and joins his family's household. The war and the constant threat of American bombers hang over her life. Everything comes from her perspective. As such, the movie begins and ends with the nuance and careful attention the filmmakers give to developing her character and the world she sees.

This one is the opposite of Whisper of the Heart. It's a heartbreaking tale, a character study of an individual who has much to offer the world, but not given the opportunity or allowed the agency to pursue her talents. Watching this (and Grave of the Fireflies) changed how I see war movies, though to define In This Corner of the World as simply a war movie would be to limit its scope.

3. Your Name (2016)

This might be stretching the "you may have missed" part a bit since it made a lot of money, but I'm including this instant classic anyway. The film's director, Makoto Shinkai, does not have a high profile distribution deal with an American studio, like Studio Ghibli and Disney, so his work may go largely unnoticed here in the United States. That needs to change, ASAP. Shinkai's talent and skill are off the charts. Your Name is exhibit A. The animation quality is unbelievable. Some scenes seem to be there just to show off how beautiful it is to look at. Also, the story of a rural girl and an urban boy who, for some odd reason, start switching bodies checks all the boxes where construction is concerned. It moves forward at a brisk pace and contains solid humor, welcome changes to Shinkai's usual brooding, melancholic meditations on the pains of modern Japanese life.

If Shinkai can delve deeper into his characters and truly bring them out as unique individuals, then he will be the one to pick up Miyazaki's mantle as the best filmmaker in Japanese animation once the old master retires for good. Everything else he does is damn near untouchable. Your Name is the best thing he has done so far and definitely deserves your time.

(Note: Your Name will be a household name in the near future. J.J. Abrams has a live-action adaptation in the works. Here's hoping the man behind many a sci-fi epic doesn't drop the ball.)

4. Summer Wars (2009)

Tell me if you've heard this story before. A teenage boy who seems unappreciated and doesn't know what he wants to do is forced into saving the virtual realm from falling into the hands of a nefarious enemy. Yes, I'm referring to Ready Player One - both the book and the movie. That story occupies a spot in the current pop culture consciousness, but Summer Wars predates the book. Mamoru Hosoda, another pretender to Miyazaki's throne, did it first (obviously, there are differences). The movie is a lot of fun and appears to have a sense of the ridiculous (the bad guy is called "Love Machine"). Its flaw, however, lies in the character development. There are too many characters who don't serve much of a purpose.

Action is cool. Stories about artificial intelligence and the future of the internet as the world's marketplace and a social sphere are in vogue. This should tickle that fancy. Also, watch it to see how it stacks up against Ready Player One. You might find out that it's that much better.

5. Only Yesterday (1991)

An animated film geared towards a serious adult sensibility, Only Yesterday plays like a product on the indie circuit. It tells the story of Taeko, a young woman who takes a trip to the countryside to pick safflowers the old-fashioned way. She also tackles the personal demons she's faced since the fifth grade, initiating flashbacks to key events from that period in her life. The film moves along at a slow pace, giving the audience time to breathe in Taeko's internal conflict and the scenic countryside that surrounds her. In a way, the movie serves as a love letter to agriculture and a world being left behind by a technologically oriented society, as it attempts to convince the audience that there will always be a place for farming despite the difficulties the industry faces.

In an alternate universe, this Studio Ghibli product would be as well known as the best of Miyazaki's work. Isao Takahata, a co-founder of Studio Ghibli, shows that animation isn't just for kids. It's flown under the radar and only recently received an English dub (featuring Daisy Ridley, no less), but few movies depict the "child is mother to the woman" (an inversion on a Wordsworth line) relationship so well.

---

Given that two of these are Studio Ghibli and one is from Makoto Shinkai, some people may find the list too mainstream, but films not made by Hayao Miyazaki and aren't Spirited Away often get overlooked, especially in America.

Feel free to leave a comment below and follow @WinBribach on Twitter.

Too Big To Fail - Avengers: Infinity War Review

Alfred Hitchcock defined suspense as involving dramatic irony, letting the audience in on the danger facing the heroes and building the tension from there. He considered this superior to surprise, where the audience knows nothing before the trap is sprung, but he did allow an exception: where the twist or shock is "the highlight of the story."

Avengers: Infinity Wars relies heavily on that exception.

The unfolding of the story revolves around surprise. Without it, there are no stakes, no emotional core, and no reason to make the movie besides adding another mega money maker to the Disney machine.

Before going further into the movie itself, the challenges must be mentioned. During the past 10 years, there have been 18 installments in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and 14 different directors. Of those directors, Ryan Coogler, Kenneth Branagh (old enough to make King Lear now), and Taika Waititi could be considered "Auteurs" - filmmakers who leave a distinct stamp on their work. Shane Black and James Gunn also possess a certain uniqueness. Fitting these visions into a single, cohesive movie is a difficult task, and the Russo brothers are mostly successful.

The movie operates like an episode of a TV show, with an A, B, C, and D story. Each plotline involves separate characters, giving them enough time to be relevant players in the grand scheme. That said, the movie would be overstuffed at half the characters. Age of Ultron proved that. There are too many players and too many stories, and not enough time. Some scenes feel thrown-in just to shed the spotlight on characters who might seem neglected had they kept moving the A-story forward without them.

Again, the Russo brothers manage to make it work despite the challenges and the shortcomings.

Their bag of surprises begins with Thanos (Josh Brolin). An all-powerful being who is hellbent on destruction could have easily resulted in another X-Men: Apocalypse or Justice League, where the villains receive no character development and destroy for the sake of destroying.

But Thanos is a genuine character. The writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, give him an arc that reveals who he is, why he does what he does, and what he cares about. Brolin's performance, easily the strongest in the entire film, brings the mad titan to life.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) provides another positive performance. Marvel appears to have learned its lessons after Waititi's successful Ragnarok. 

Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and the others do not receive enough time and space, and their development is mostly dependent upon the previous films in the MCU canon.

The biggest surprise comes at the end. This is the twist that makes the story work. Those who live and those who fade into dust will provide plenty to talk about in the year-long gap until Avengers 4 comes out.

The caveat? It's a cliffhanger meant to drive audiences to see the true conclusion to the saga that started with Iron Man. Look at the film like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. Evaluating it on its own is difficult, but if it turns out to be anything like The Deathly Hallows: Part 2, then audiences won't mind.

(P.S. For those needing assurances about their favorite characters, look at the movies already slated for production and to recent successes the studio wants to capitalize on. Disney knows better than to blow up the bread wagon.)

If interested, follow @WinBribach on Twitter.