Review: Highest 2 Lowest

Image courtesy of Apple Films.

Spike Lee's winning streak continues with "Highest 2 Lowest," an engrossing remake of Akira Kurosawa's "High and Low" that marks the director's fifth collaboration with Denzel Washington. Strangely enough, a recent film to which I might draw some slight comparisons is "Weapons" in that the film switches tones successfully and ends up becoming a lot more than from where it originally set out.

At the film's beginning, Washington plays David King, a record executive whose visage has graced the front of every major magazine and who, in the early 2000s, was known to have the "best ears in the business" due to his ability to find talent. When we first meet him, he's still a big player in the industry, but his best days are, perhaps, behind him and he's in the middle of selling his company, Stackin' Records, to a corporate entity that he fears will dismantle all that he's built.

Adding to his troubles is the sudden kidnapping of his basketball star son, Trey (Aubrey Joseph), by a menacing individual who threatens to kill the young man during phone calls for ransom money. The police are brought in and, at first, they spend a lot of time harassing Paul Christopher (Jeffrey Wright), David's right-hand man and chauffeur, because of his past criminal associations and time served.

But, much like Kurosawa's film, there's a twist - and I wouldn't read any further if you don't want to hear more: The kidnappers accidentally took the wrong person. Trey is returned, while Paul Christopher's son, Kyle (Elijah Wright), is the one being held. David must then grapple with whether he should pay the $17.5 million to the kidnappers to save Kyle, knowing full well that he needs the money to buy out his company to prevent its sale as well as to not breach a contract that could lead to legal troubles for him.

The first half of the film contains a fair amount of long shots, distancing us somewhat from the characters. The filmmaking is sleek as the camera glides around David's expensive New York penthouse, and there is more than a little melodrama - David and his wife, Pam (Ilfenesh Hadera) being upset about their son seemingly being kidnapped, the drama between Paul Christopher and the cops, and the fraught moments between David, his family, and his chauffeur about whether to spring for Kyle's release.

But the film switches into a different gear about halfway through the picture as David and the cops set up a money drop with the kidnappers. Perhaps Martin Scorsese is the only other director who can show as much love visually to New York City as Spike Lee, and there's an incredible series of moments as David goes on foot through the city's Puerto Rican Day festival - where Rosie Perez, Anthony Ramos, and various Puerto Rican musicians portray themselves as a massive crowd full of people dance in the streets - carrying the bag of money and boards a train for the drop.

The film becomes more of a thriller after another great twist later in the film having to do with David's reputation as having the "best ears in the business." This leads him to the recording studio of an aspiring rapper, Yung Felon (A$AP Rocky), who might have something to do with the kidnapping. There's a great tete a tete between Yung Felon and David in a recording studio that might come across as a rap battle, though it's not as simplistic as it sounds.

Lee has been on a roll in recent years. His "BlacKKKlansman" was my favorite film of 2018, while "Da 5 Bloods" was in my top five two years later. His David Byrne concert film, "American Utopia," was energetic and his latest is also solid. The film marks his third remake - following an "Oldboy" reimagining and "Da Sweet Blood of Jesus," which was a riff on the 1970s blaxploitation picture "Ganja & Hess" - and it's easily his best of the bunch.

Washington and Lee's collaborations rank up there with some of the best modern filmmaking duos - Scorsese and Robert De Niro and Ethan Hawke and Richard Linklater. "Highest 2 Lowest" marks the best role for Washington in a Lee film since the 1992 masterpiece "Malcolm X." This is a solid film that features terrific cinematography, is a wonderful attempt at capturing New York City's vibe, is a well-made thriller, and is an interesting take on the value of art - in this picture, particularly Black art.

There's a compelling sequence late in the film in which A$AP Rocky's rapper and Washington's producer get into a debate about good money vs. bad money as well as fads vs. art that lasts. A$AP's character notes how he has become popular due to his notoriety and that we are currently living in an attention economy, meaning he who gets the most attention gets the most money. This certainly also applies to our politics. Lee does a masterful job of slipping a profound debate on the value of art into a film that's essentially a thriller and a remake. I'm glad to see him on such a roll as of late and look forward to whatever he does next.

Review: Freakier Friday

Image courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures.

There are some sequels or reboots that aren't necessary and others that are more inspired. The new version of "The Naked Gun" is an example of the latter, while "Freakier Friday" is one of the former. This is not to say that the film doesn't have its moments, but the picture believes that providing more is a raison d'etre.

And by more I mean that, in this sequel, four characters trade places, rather than two. Other than that, the film pretty much follows the exact same formula - at times, to a tee - as the 2003 remake, which of course was a remake of a 1976 film with Jodie Foster.

It has been argued - probably correctly - that the 2003 version with Jaime Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan is the best of these films, mostly due to the adept comic timing of its two stars. Lohan has been somewhat off the scene of mainstream filmmaking for a while, but I can report that she does just fine here and that her comedic abilities remain intact - in fact, the film's best comedic sequence relies solely on her ability to pull off a ridiculous gag.

In this film, Anna (Lohan) and Tess (Curtis) have kept the peace in the 20-plus years since we last saw them, but Anna now has a surly teen of her own, surfer Harper (Julia Butters), with whom to contend. Anna's biggest quibble with her psychiatrist mother is that she occasionally steps on her feet as a grandmother who occasionally outshines her mothering skills.

Anna meets and falls in love with Eric (Manny Jacinto), a Brit whose snobby daughter, Lily (Sophia Hammons), is Harper's sworn enemy. Bringing the two families together seems an impossible task, so of course it takes a trip to a kooky fortune teller (Vanessa Bayer) to suddenly ensure that a body-switching with lessons attached occurs.

But this time, Anna switches with her daughter, while Lily and Tess end up in each other's bodies. Many of the same jokes reoccur - Curtis and Lohan play adults dressing and acting like teens, while their younger counterparts come off as stiff and serious - and the formula in which characters must see the good in others and act selflessly is rehashed.

It's not a bad movie, but it's material we've seen before - and in better form. That's not to say there aren't some delights to be had here. Curtis and Lohan are clearly having fun yukking it up portraying young women. The aforementioned scene in which Lohan shines involves a hilariously failed attempt at seduction that had me laughing almost as much as at some of last week's "Naked Gun" gags. But all in all, this is just an OK attempt to reboot a popular movie of yesteryear - or, as one of the youths in the film would call it: mid.

Review: Weapons

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

The past few years have seen an increase in critically acclaimed horror movies that have become known as elevated entries in the genre. This year alone has seen a handful of well-received horror movies that have drawn large audiences - including "Sinners," "Final Destination: Bloodlines," and "28 Years Later."

But Zach Cregger's "Weapons" is by far the best of the lot - in fact, it's probably the best horror movie I've seen since "It Follows" and "Get Out" and ranks highly among the 21st century's entries in the genre. Cregger's first film, "Barbarian," was a sleeper that was full of surprises, but his sophomore film takes a gigantic leap forward in terms of ambition. Considering everything he throws at us, it shouldn't work.

But there are many reasons why the film manages to work so well: its unique narrative structure within the genre, its stronger-than-usual character development, its compelling camerawork and, possibly most of all, its ability to deftly balance various tones - understated spookiness bleeds into outright terror in the early sections, transitioning to the story's more dramatic elements in the middle passages, and finally ending on a note of hilarity and violence that could best be described as bonkers.

The film's early scenes feature a dash of David Lynch, while its structure and tendency to loop back on itself as well as its outbursts of shocking violence bring to mind Tarantino. But it's Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia" that has, apparently, been somewhat of a starting point, Cregger has noted in interviews, and not just because of the mustache worn by Alden Ehrenreich's cop character. 

The film is divided into chapters in which each member of its ensemble of characters gets a starring role and then, much like Anderson's film, comes to a head in a sequence that involves most of them, although it doesn't rain frogs and no one sings along to Aimee Mann. The film takes a slow burn approach until it suddenly explodes into madness.

This is a film that, much like last week's "The Naked Gun" reboot, should be watched with the largest possible audience. And part of the joy derived from the film is its ability to surprise. So, I won't delve too deeply into what happens in it.

Suffice it to say, it opens on a haunting note when a group of 17 children leave their homes at 2:17 a.m. and run down the street in the same direction into the darkness, with their arms spread out as if they were flying as George Harrison's "Beware of Darkness" plays on the soundtrack. Like all great mysteries, this film plays its cards close to its chest for two-thirds of its running time.

The film's first chapter follows Justine (Julia Garner), the children's teacher who comes under suspicion by the town's residents. They assume she knows something about the whereabouts of the children - all but one disappeared - and some of her past actions that are signs of caring too much about the students make people trust her even less. Justine's personal life is a mess. She drinks too much and is having an on-again-off-again affair with Ehrenreich's cop.

The second section concerns Archer (Josh Brolin), one of the town's angry parents whose son was among those who ran out into the night. Having little faith in the town's police - and for good reason - he decides to investigate on his own. Then comes Ehrenreich's Paul, who is married to the sheriff's daughter and gets himself into a pickle when he acts violently toward town druggie James (Austin Abrams), whose story is observed in the fourth chapter.

Then, it's on to the school's principal (Benedict Wong), who seemingly wants to keep the peace more than anything else, placing Justine on leave, although she did nothing wrong, and discouraging her from approaching Alex (Cary Christopher), the only child who didn't disappear. Alex's story, which is the most troubling, comprises the final section. Amy Madigan pops up in this section in a memorable role as the peculiar aunt who is visiting the boy's parents.

I've seen some reviews that have highly praised "Weapons" for its craft, performances, and ability to frighten and provide laughter in equal measure, but have argued that it doesn't have much to say otherwise, thereby not quite qualifying as an elevated horror movie. To which I say: huh?

While it might not wield its concepts with as blunt of force as some other recent horror movies, "Weapons" is a film that is rich with subtext. The scenes involving the class' disappearance uses imagery and responses from its fictional community that some could argue reference such communal tragedies as the COVID-19 epidemic or, more directly, school shootings. There's even a sequence in which a character sees a massive automatic weapon in the sky, which occurs in a dream and is left to the imagination as to why it's there.

But more than anything else, "Weapons" observes our modern era of wanting to push on through tragedies and abruptly forget them (COVID-19, Jan. 6, you name it) as well as a societal decay that results in a lack of interest in others' well-being. Brolin's character isn't exaggerating when he accuses the police of having little interest in keeping the case alive. In another scene, Garner flees for her life in a convenience store and the clerk is more concerned with her exiting the building than he is lending a helping hand. Some characters treat others with a blatant sense of disregard - Wong's shunting Garner's teacher aside to appease the angry mob and Ehrenreich's cop being abusive toward Abrams' junkie, for example.

If this all sounds like heavy stuff - well, it is - and the film's eerie tone during its first half and some genuinely affective shock scares early on might leave viewers feeling tense. Suffice it to say, Cregger's ability to transition from this vibe to where it ends up in the finale - a cathartic sequence of events that is among the best endings of recent memory - is an example of chutzpah backed up by major talent. This is one of the year's best films and the best horror movie of this decade so far.

Review: The Naked Gun

Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures.

It feels like it's been a while since I laughed heartily in the company of strangers in a darkened movie theater. Sure, there have been some great movies of recent years that also happened to be very funny in spurts - including work from Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach and last year's often hilarious "A Real Pain."

But there's a difference between a dramedy made for adults and a studio comedy that has no purpose other than to make you laugh. Granted, in past decades when studios still funded big budget comedies and dumped them constantly in theaters, a fair share of them weren't very good. 

But every once in a while, a movie would come along that left you in stitches - such as "My Cousin Vinny" or "There's Something About Mary." I tried to think of the last time a movie left me rolling with laughter in the theater. Was it "Bridesmaids"? Maybe "Borat"? In other words, it's been a while.

This is a long prelude to me telling you that the new "The Naked Gun" film is pretty damn funny. Jokes fly at the audience in furious fashion and while not all of them work, a bit of inspired hilarity often follows shortly thereafter.

The film's premise is that Frank Drebin Jr. (Liam Neeson) is a cop that makes trouble for the force. While his father (Leslie Nielsen) was often an incompetent boob, Neeson plays the son in the same steely vein that he portrays characters in the action films in which he's taken part in recent years - "Taken," especially. The fact that Neeson's character never breaks out of character and winks at the audience makes the film even funnier.

The plot revolves around an evil mastermind (Danny Huston) with Elon Musk-like tendencies who has a gadget that can make any smart phone users suddenly lose their minds and become violent. His evil plan has to do with ensuring that the upper crust of society - namely, old white men - become even more powerful, while the rest of the world loses its mind.

The film opens with Drebin investigating an accident that's probably a murder and he soon becomes involved with the sister of the deceased - a true crime writer named Beth (Pamela Anderson). Drebin also has a partner named Ed Hocken (Paul Walter Hauser), who's the son of the character played by George Kennedy in the original.

While the plot is somewhat generic, the film is often screamingly funny. The best jokes in the film left the audience with whom I experienced it howling - these include a discussion of the word "manslaughter," a conversation with a bartender that ends up being a pointed commentary on police violence, the Janet Jackson Super Bowl joke you've probably heard in the commercial, continuous play on words, and a sex scene viewed through a pair of binoculars.

There are some jokes that don't land as well - perhaps, Anderson's scat musical performance sounded better on paper, and an extended fantasy sequence involving a snowman could have probably been scrapped - but like I said before: For every joke that doesn't hit the mark, it's often followed by two more that do.

While the original "Naked Gun" film remains the best of the bunch, this reboot is easily the most fun I've had at a movie this summer and without a doubt the hardest I've laughed in a movie theater in a long time. My recommendation is to see it with the biggest audience you can find, although the peril there is that you might miss out on a few jokes that are being drowned out by laughter.

Review: Happy Gilmore 2

Image courtesy of Netflix.

As an actor in what some might deem "serious movies," Adam Sandler often makes good choices and provides solid performances. Just look at his work in Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful "Punch Drunk Love," Noah Baumbach's "The Meyerowitz Stories," the Safdies' gritty "Uncut Gems," and the sports drama "Hustle." This fall, he's starring in a new Baumbach film that's getting good buzz.

Early on in his movie career, Sandler annually cranked out irreverent comedies that displayed his wacky sense of humor and has continued to do so to this day, mostly thanks to a deal with Netflix. His first two comedies - "Billy Madison" and "Happy Gilmore" - weren't exactly embraced by critics, but they grew a devoted cult following, most likely because they were funny. His next film, "The Wedding Singer," was a funny and sweet romantic comedy, a mode that he tried out several other times ("50 First Dates" and "Crank") with some success.

But the goofy comedies for which he first became known became increasingly lower in quality. While "Mr. Deeds," "Big Daddy," "Little Nicky," and "The Waterboy" might have seemed like lesser versions of his first two films, they weren't as bad as what was to come - the two "Grown Ups" films, "Jack and Jill," "Pixels" and "That's My Boy."

I haven't seen many (or maybe any) of Sandler's Netflix movies - but I've heard things. Not good things. So, it came as a pleasant surprise to find that "Happy Gilmore 2," a film that I thought would be a lazy attempt to resurrect one of his most popular characters, is pretty good. In fact, it's probably his most watchable comedy since his original trio.

This is not to say it's not without its flaws. As is the case in any American comedy, not all of the jokes work. There are probably more product tie-ins than I can count. And while there has been a significant increase in recent years in mining nostalgia (sequels to "Top Gun," "Ghostbusters," and other popular 1980s films), this film has it cranked up to 11. Not only are there numerous callbacks to the first film, but there are enough flashbacks here to qualify as a short film, if you combined them all.

And yet, the film works. It starts out on a note so bleak that you might suspect that it's directed by Lars Von Trier. Happy's wife was killed in a freak accident involving a golf ball hit by her own husband. As a result, Happy's career takes a nose dive and he drinks like a character in a Bukowski novel. He has converted every object in his house - a clock, the TV remote, etc. - into a mini-flask.

His four grown sons are a rambunctious lot, but his daughter (Sunny Sandler, Adam's daughter) is a talented ballerina. Her teacher tells Happy that she has a shot at a career in the field and that she should attend the Paris Opera Ballet School. It's that bit of inspiration that inspires Happy to pick up the golf clubs again and attempt to earn enough money to help his daughter's dream come true.

There are plenty of amusing moments as he attempts to revive his career, starting with a drunken game with some amateurs (featuring a game Margaret Qualley). Bad Bunny (also known as Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio) is one of the best additions to the cast as Happy's clueless caddy, Oscar.

There's also a subplot about Shooter McGavin (Christopher McDonald, having a lot of fun here) getting released from the mental hospital, which leads to a surprising denouement, and another in which Happy goes to rehab, where he's tormented once again by former nurse Hal (Ben Stiller).

The main villains of the picture are Benny Safdie (who directed Sandler in "Uncut Gems") as energy drink mogul Frank Manatee, who is starting a league called Maxi Golf that includes some illegal enhancements to players, and Haley Joel Osment as Manatee's smarmy top recruit. The film's plot revolves around Happy and a group of pro-golfers (some of whom are playing themselves) facing off against Maxi Golf.

All in all, I enjoyed "Happy Gilmore 2." Yes, it's ridiculous and not all of the jokes land completely (I could have done without the son of the "jackass" comment guy), and some of the nostalgia is laid on a little thick. But it's mostly pretty funny and, at times, surprisingly fixated on death, providing constant reminders of the original cast members who are no longer with us. 

Also, combined with the upcoming "The Naked Gun" reboot, it possibly marks the return of the type of silly comedy movies that have been mostly missing in recent years. This is not to say that those types of movies are a high watermark in the cinematic landscape - but in our current moment in history, they provide some much-needed catharsis. 

Review: The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

I've never been too shy about making it known that comic book movies aren't exactly my cup of tea, despite having given decent enough reviews to a reasonable number of them over the years. I can point out something that's done well, even if I don't exactly love it. When it comes to these types of movie, it's not that I don't like them, but rather that they rarely excite me in the way other great movies of varying types can.

It's also been accepted, both critically and seemingly by audiences too, that Marvel movies have been on the decline in recent years. I missed this summer's "Thunderbolts," but have seen some of the lesser entries on streaming over the past few years.

There have been a handful of Marvel movies over the decades that I thought stood out - namely, Sam Raimi's first two "Spider-man" movies, the first "Iron Man," and, of course, "Black Panther" - but whenever a new Marvel movie was on the horizon, it wasn't necessarily a cause for celebration for me.

That being said, "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" is an overall good time and, in all likelihood, the best Marvel movie since "Black Panther." It doesn't deviate from the formula in any noticeable way - a group of heroes must rise to the challenge to defend the Earth from a sinister being from beyond that plans to destroy it - but the execution is more effective.

This is, in part, due to its visual and storytelling choices. The story is set on Earth 828 (don't ask because I couldn't explain even if I wanted to), not ours, so that gives the filmmakers free reign to present a society that seemingly has elements from the 1940s through the 1970s going on at any minute - there are newspaper clippings that seem straight out of the World War II era, a talk show host that gives off a '50s vibe and some needle drops ("The Oogum Boogum Song") from the 1960s.

"First Steps," which is the third attempt at a big-budget Fantastic Four movie and the only good one of the bunch, finds the four - Mister Fantastic (Pedro Pascal), Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby), Human Torch (Joseph Quinn), and Ben Grimm (Ebon-Moss Bachrach) - at a crossroads after Sue becomes pregnant with Mister Fantastic's child.

Shortly thereafter, the Earth is visited by a celestial being known as the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) who arrives to tell everyone that the planet will be destroyed by Galactus (Ralph Ineson), who eats planets to satiate his "relentless eternal hunger." Much of the rest of what takes place you can probably figure out on your own.

But while "First Steps" doesn't do much differently from any number of comic book movies of the past few decades, it has a vibe and style that makes it engrossing and watchable as well as a cast of likable actors who overcome the cliches of the genre. 

Much like the recent "Superman," this new "Fantastic Four" movie doesn't forget that movies of this type are meant to be silly and fun, and not necessarily the self-serious chores that some other entries in the genre have been in recent years. All in all, it's pretty decent.

Review: Eddington

Image courtesy of A24.

Director Ari Aster has gone from one of cinema's most acclaimed new horror maestros to oddball provocateur. While the latter description tends to result in the type of films that I find intriguing, Aster's earlier work remains - to me, at least - the most effective.

"Hereditary" was a nightmarish horror movie that announced the arrival of a real talent while "Midsommar," if not quite as memorable, boasted a great lead performance and was mostly gripping from start to finish. I admired his odd "Beau is Afraid," even if I didn't quite love it, but his latest film, "Eddington," somewhat misses the mark, despite some solid performances and memorable moments.

The film, a social satire-turned western, is seemingly loaded with potential. It is set in 2020 in a small New Mexico town amid the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the summer Black Lives Matter marches following the murder-by-police of George Floyd. The film aims to examine why and how society collapsed during this moment and neighbor turned against neighbor, rather than having the empathy that was required of the moment.

The film's lead is Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix, who's solid here), the small town of Eddington's sheriff who doesn't believe he should have to go along with the new rules about masking in public. He defends an elderly man in a grocery store who refuses to wear a mask as a crowd of masked onlookers criticizes him and captures the moment on their iPhones.

Cross's primary antagonist is Mayor Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal), who scolds Cross during the scenario. Their animosity goes further back, however, due to Cross's wife (Emma Stone) allegedly being impregnated by Garcia when she was 16 years old. Garcia - and Cross's wife - deny that this is what happened, but the sheriff's mother-in-law, an avid conspiracy theorist, fans the flames of the rumor.

Following the grocery store masking incident, Cross decides to run for mayor, challenging Garcia, which inflames tensions in the town. At the same time, a group of primarily white youths starts holding Black Lives Matter protests after Floyd's death. Garcia's son (Matt Gomez Hidaka) and a young woman (Amelie Hoeferle) seem sincere about the protests, though the film takes a somewhat jaded portrayal of their characters, while another youth (Cameron Mann) has other intentions.

Meanwhile, Stone's Louise Cross has gotten mixed up with a shady cult-like figure (Austin Butler) who appears to be obsessed with pedophiles in places of power. All of this makes Cross, who starts the film as world weary but becomes increasingly unhinged, begin to lose his grip.

There are some interesting moments in "Eddington," primarily in the film's first half as it examines the mostly bad behavior of Americans as they react to one of the most perilous moments in our recent history. Phoenix and Pascal make for good nemeses and there's some decent tension in their escalating feud.

But as the film nears its halfway mark, it starts to spin out of control and, at times, comes off as an empty provocation. One of its main problems is its satirical marks. There's plenty of satire to be had at the expense of people whose absurd conspiracy theories fueled the drama during the COVID-19 pandemic and there are brief references to things like Ivermectin and the Pizzagate conspiracy (though it's not called that here).

But the film makes the same mistake as our lost-in-the-woods national media by thinking it must somehow even the scales between the two sides it's parodying. It wants to make all sides look crazy, but it is a ridiculous comparison when trying to show how everyone lost their minds during this era by making Black Lives Matter protesters and the vaccine deniers who refused to wear masks appear as one and the same.

It's also telling that the ultimate shootout in the film doesn't come from gun-toting Trump supporters - you know, the types who have actually shot up synagogues and grocery stores - but rather right-wing media's favorite imaginary boogeyman, Antifa. The film gets bloody during its denouement, and its end is cynical enough to ring true in our current moment, which is somehow even more awful than the one depicted here. 

But while Aster elicited some genuine shocks in his two early horror movies - and even to an extent in the peculiar "Beau is Afraid" - he's not on as firm of footing this time around. There are some interesting elements in "Eddington" and most of the performance are good, but it's a social satire that only partially captures the craziness of the moment that we had the misfortune to live through five years ago.