2023 is the year of good gaming movies, I guess
Titles Covered: Dungeons and Dragons, Thor Love and Thunder, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Whale, The Fabelmanns, 1492 Conquest of Paradise, The Adventures of Baron Munchaussen, and Fried Green Tomatoes.
Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (****)
Hey, we got a good Mario and a good Dungeons and Dragons movie in the same year! What a time to be alive!
(At this rate, maybe we’ll beat last year’s record of five good theatrically-released movies?)
Dungeons and Dragons is a clever movie in that it’s sort of a spoof, but also an affectionate example of the genre it's mocking. The silliness of the movie also has roots in the table-top game, with many funny plot turns meant to reflect a group of friends finding their own solutions while often subverting the path that the gamemaster intended. There’s several points at which NPCs seem to be the voice of the GM, essentially shouting “No, no! You were supposed to… Oh, nevermind. (rolls dice) Sigh… You hug the giant bird and fly out of the tower.” Now, if none of that makes sense to you, don’t worry. The film won’t waste your time by explaining the jokes and references. It works on its own.
In fact, Dungeons and Dragons manages to be surprisingly sincere about its own goofy story. The “friends playing a game” dynamic ties into the plot and themes, with lessons about found families, loyalty, and maximizing everyone's strengths so that they can live up to their potential.
Oh, and the surprise star of the show is Hugh Grant. Yes, the Brit previously known for being typecast in romantic comedies is now playing fantastic roles in movies like Paddington 2, Florence Foster Jenkins, and Dungeons and Dragons. He commits fully to playing the “rogue” in a silly D&D movie, and ends up showing up everyone else. Chris Pine also shines as a Bard with a tragic backstory. The only real weak link is Sophia Lillis, which is disappointing after her promising career start in the “It” movies.
It’s sad that this movie didn’t do better. Maybe it just wasn’t marketed correctly, or the writers shot themselves in the foot by making the movie seem political. In any case, here’s hoping Dungeons and Dragons finds an audience at home, because it’s very much worth seeing.
Thor: Love and Thunder (**)
Dang, are any of the Phase 4 MCU movies actually good?
Thor 4 starts off solid, with an interesting villain origin story, followed by a wild battle scene that pits Thor against an army of angry Muppets. He dresses like an 80’s rocker and fights to 80's music, setting up the idea that this movie is an homage to pulpy fantasy movies like Flash Gordan. “This is kind of stupid, but at least it's fun,” I thought. Maybe this one is much better than those other disappointing Phase 4 MCU movies. But… the movie can’t stick to the fun 80’s tone. Actually, it can’t really stick to anything.
The plot completely disintegrates when we catch up with Thor’s love interest Jane Foster, who’s been MIA from the franchise for about a decade. When we meet her, she’s dying of cancer. A few scenes later, she’s dressed as Thor, wielding his magic hammer with expertise, and fighting monsters as if monster-fighting has been her entire career. WHY? Well, apparently Thor asked the hammer to protect her, and it’s now suddenly sentient, does stuff that it never did before, and can reassemble itself despite not being able to respond to Thor. Oh, and it doesn’t actually give her anti-cancer powers, so the whole thing is pointless anyway.
(I was also trying to figure out when Thor and Jane had a long-term relationship. It’s hard to keep track of which parts of the MCU I just missed, and what they retconned.)
None of this makes any sense, and Natalie Portman seems completely lost and unsure how to act out her role. Her character and personality is all over the map. She’ll rapidly shift from trying to be nerdy and smart to being an idiot class clown, though honestly even her "smart" lines are pretty stupid. This might be a career low for Portman. It also occurs to me that Portman should really be much better at playing doctors and scientists, since she supposedly has undergrad-level experience in the field.
The film has the weird humor that Taika Watitti brought to Thor Ragnarock. Unfortunately, the humor is much more inconsistent and forced this time around. There’s a somewhat pointless detour in the middle during which Thor visits a world where all the old mythical gods live. It’s a funny idea, seeing all these figures from mythology who just hang out having orgies and celebrating themselves. But then they throw in a giant plastic anime bao who’s the god of bao or something, and it looks absolutely stupid. There’s a lot of stuff like that.
On the other hand, I was impressed with Christian Bale as the villain. He's the only one who fully commits to his role, and the only one who isn't made into a dumb joke. His make-up and facial expressions are wickedly scary, and the settings that the heroes fight him in are appropriately creative and bleak.
Thor Love and Thunder continues to chip away at my interest in the MCU. There’s some good stuff here, but also a lot of stupid stuff, and the movie as a whole is badly written and (oddly enough) badly edited. Several of my students have declared that the MCU “ended with Endgame,” and I’m inclined to believe them.
The Banshees of Inisherin (*** and a half)
“Banshees” is a film by acclaimed playwright Martin McDonough, who writes quirky and depressing stuff. The title of this movie is a bit confusing, since there are no banshees, and it’s set on a fictional island called “Inisherin,” which sounds like the real islands of “Inisheer” or “Inishmaan,” the later of which McDonough ALSO wrote a famous play about.
Anyway… Not-Inishmaan is a boring island with not much going on. Colin Ferrel hangs out with Brenden Gleeson every day at the pub for lack of other interests and activities. Then one day Gleeson has a mid-life crisis and decides he needs to avoid his old friend, who is mooring him to a mundane life of drinking and idiotic small talk.
It’s a strange premise, but one elevated by McDonoughs gift for dialogue, as well as the solid performances. The movie is strangely captivating despite not much going on, as you just sort of marvel at these odd simpletons trying to make sense of life.
As with most McDonough works, it’s hard to work out entirely how I feel about this one, but I think that’s sort of the point. It’s dark, it’s funny, and it’s very ambiguous. I’m glad I saw it.
The Whale (****)
Darren Aronofsky is an interesting director, whose movies oscillate from amazing (Black Swan, The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) to nearly unwatchable (Mother, The Fountain) with only Noah falling somewhere in between. The Whale is a return to form, and a comeback for both Aronofsky and 90’s superstar Brenden Frasier.
Donning prosthetics and a fatsuit, Frasier plays a morbidly obese man (Charlie) who never leaves home. He teaches college courses online (pre-COVID), can barely walk, and orders two pizzas every night for himself. It’s rather disgusting to watch Charlie wolf down crazy amounts of food, swallowing buckets of chicken meant to feed entire families and downing soda straight from a two-liter bottle. But his fatness is besides the point. The story could have functioned with another self-destructive behavior such as alcoholism or drug addiction. Or, as his daughter tells him “you’d be disgusting even if you weren’t fat.”
The dichotomy between Charlie and his daughter is interesting. Charlie is sympathetic and soft spoken, but carries a backstory that makes him the architect of his own downfall. The daughter is the opposite: her backstory makes her sympathetic, while her present form is an obnoxious terror embodying literally every negative gen Z stereotype. Her mother calls her “evil,” and frankly, I believed that. But this is the sort of script in which even evil is interesting, and even Charlie’s “good” friend is arguably a controlling enabler. Having spoken with various nurses about morbidly obese patients, the “enabler” mentality of Charlie’s caretaker rang very true.
The oddball of the cast is a missionary who randomly encounters Charlie having a heart attack, and this brings up the film’s complicated view of religion. The missionary takes a lot of abuse, and he turns out to be something of a fraud. On the other hand, he’s also validated with a happy ending that reveals the grace of his religious parents. Interestingly, the missionary was Mormon in the original play, but changed to a fictional apocalypse-focused denomination in the movie.
(It was fairly obvious to me that the script was a play, but Aronofsky’s film-making style covers for it to a degree)
You have to go into this movie knowing that it's sad. Don’t expect laughter and joy. But if you’re in the mood for something sad, the Whale is a very effective story. If nothing else, it’ll make you want to hug your kids and watch your weight.
The Fabelmans (** and a half)
I guess if anyone has earned the right to make a mediocre indulgent sorta-biopic of themselves, it’s Steven Spielburg.
Steven Spielburg has given us some of the greatest films of all time. Jaws, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, and E.T. will forever be classics. But I’m not sure he’s had a truly amazing film in the 21st century, with the possible exception of Minority Report. Even by that benchmark, The Fabelmanns is one of his worst films.
The overall focus feels misguided. The great director gets a chance to tell his story and he focuses on… his parents’ divorce? Um… OK… Unfortunately, the story just isn’t that interesting. Divorce dramas are interesting when the parents are on approximately equal moral ground. That’s not the case here: the mom is crazy, selfish, and just overall shitty. Michelle Williams’ performance doesn’t help things; she’s over the top and unbelievable. I guess she’s unhappy with her computer-nerd husband, so she falls for… his computer-nerd best friend who’s basically the same character? Maybe that’s what happened in real life, but it doesn’t make for much of a story. The only strong point here is Paul Dano, who overcomes his youthful appearance to be a convincing and sympathetic father figure (I was surprised to find out that Dano is actually 38 years old).
The more interesting part of the Fabelmanns shows the career of the budding director. It’s rather fascinating to watch him struggle with the limitations of 1960’s home video tech, and to see how he approaches storytelling without spoken dialogue, budgets, or trained actors. This is the story we want to see, but it ends as soon as he finds his first job and gets advice from “the greatest living director.” I won’t spoil who he meets at the end, but old-school film fans should get giddy as soon as we see the movie posters.
The Fabelmans has its moments, but it’s just not a good film.
1492 Conquest of Paradise (***)
I distinctly remember watching a movie about Columbus in 1992. Later, when learning about director Ridley Scott, I assumed I must have seen his movie. At some point I realized that my memory didn’t match the Ridley Scott film, so I guess I actually saw a different movie called “Columbus: the Discovery,” which was released around the same time.
As an entry into the Ridley Scott filmography, this one is decent, but not great. It tells an interesting story, has lush and vibrant cinematography, and features a great performance by Sigourney Weaver as the Queen. The 1492 voyage actually only occupies the first half of the movie. The second half depicts the early attempts at colonization, and makes Columbus out to be a short-term failure. He never delivers enough gold to impress his handlers, and the first colony on Hispaniola descends into chaos. It’s an interesting and ambiguous story.
For all that, the film didn’t quite grab me, in part due to its script and largely due to the lead actor. French actor Gérard Depardieu is badly miscast as Columbus. His muddled English readings are hard to understand, and his French-trying-to-sound-Italian accent is ridiculous. Ridley Scott has blamed the film’s failure on Americans not liking European accents, and frankly, he needed to pick a lane. Either cast people who can speak English clearly, or film the movie in Spanish and Italian and subtitle it. I would have preferred the latter.
I’m avoiding the elephant in the room, and that’s the issue of historical accuracy. I’m not enough of a historian to nitpick this movie. Most of the movie feels authentic, and gives you the feeling of exploring the unknown. That said, there are definitely a few scenes that seemed silly and hamfisted, and I was surprised to find that obvious-villain Adrian Moxica was actually a real guy.
Overall, this movie is fine. It’s pretty, it’s well-produced, and it might have been a minor classic if a few things were better.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (**** and a half)
Wow, this one is great!
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is a film by Monty Python alum Terry Gilliam, known for making a lot of weird movies. This movie got caught up in internal studio politics and was only released in a few theaters, leading to tremendous financial losses. Which is a damn shame because the movie itself is awesome.
Baron Munchausen is a figure out European tall tales, and the entire movie takes the form of a satirical fairy tale. The film starts in a besieged city ruled by an evil dictator played wonderfully by Jonathon Pryce. Pryce claims to be a man of “science” but he never actually presents any logical arguments or evidence. He just says the word “science” a lot (sound familiar?). Opposing him is the fantastical and idealistic Baron, who promises to end the siege by going on a journey to retrieve his servants with various supernatural powers (similar to “The Six Soldiers of Fortune” as told by the Brother’s Grimm). Thus, we have a quest, an adventure, wild settings, and a grounded “real world” conflict to elevate the stakes.
The settings are great, as is the ensemble cast. Gilliam is reunited with his Monty Python pal Eric Idle, a very young Sarah Polley makes her debut, Robin Williams appears in an extended cameo, and teenage Uma Thurman pops up in her sexiest role ever. Good stuff all around.
And damn… the ending is magnificent! It’s funny, clever, and very, very touching. The thesis of the film becomes an inspiring fable about the importance of myth and heroism. It portrays a world in which Evil uses cynicism as an opiate of the masses, and a hero (even a silly one) may provide the will to resist. The story asks us to question if the forces that keep us trapped are ultimately just as fictional and absurd as the Baron himself.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen might be the least-seen of the Gilliam movies, but it’s really one of his best.
Fried Green Tomatoes (**)
I’ve heard a lot about this movie, but was never clear on what it was about. Having seen it, I’m still not sure.
Anyway, the set-up is that Kathy Bates is an empty-nester in an unhappy marriage, who has a chance encounter with a much older woman. The old woman, Ninny, tells her a series of stories about her childhood, mostly revolving around a hellraising tomboy named Idgie. The performances are great, especially from Kathy Bates, and the film looks great.
The problem? The story is pretty lame.
First of all, let’s address the narrator, Ninny. She’s obviously supposed to be an older version of Idgie; there’s literally no one else in the flashbacks that she could be. In the book she was a separate person, so the script keeps major personal details that contradict the flashbacks, and then ends ambiguously, never clarifying what story we were listening to. Frankly, it’s just sloppy writing. The reveal of the murder mystery is even worse, being both underwhelming and hard to swallow. The end of the story just left me wondering what the point of Ninny’s memoirs was. Two ladies became friends and ran a cafe together. Not terribly exciting stuff.
Also, you know how male screenwriters are often criticized for writing bad female characters? This movie has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. The male characters are horribly written, especially the villain. He’s like some bad cartoon villain awkwardly juxtaposed into a serious historical drama: no motives, no backstory, no texture. And man, Big George could have been a great character if he’d had more than 3 lines. I’ve dropped out of plays that had writing this bad.
In short, Fried Green Tomatoes is a bad script salvaged by capable actors and cinematographers. I don’t recommend it, but it has its moments.