There are some people who just sell dumb action well. The Rock seems to hit that spot for a lot of people. Others love watching Liam Neeson’s old ass Taken the shit out of bad guys. My soft spot is for the rugged cockney manliness that manifests itself as Jason Statham. The man is exceedingly charming and sells a punch like a guy who seen enough real-life scraps to know what getting hit in the face looks like. Movies like the latter Fast and Furious films, Safe and even The Expendables 2 do a decent job at balancing minimal attention to interesting plot or character with balls to the wall action and Statham is one of the main reasons these films work at all. Watch the scene in Fate of the Furious where he fights a bunch of guys while carrying a baby and try to tell me you didn’t start gleefully giggling.
 
That’s why part of me thought The Meg might work. A modern, action-heavy take on Jaws with some charismatic actors might make waves on the big screen. But, unfortunately, the film falls into the standard traps of the summer blockbuster, offering the occasional quip or solid cinematography but not enough so to distract from the film’s overall lack of substance.
 
Statham plays Jonas Taylor, an ex-rescue diver who is forced back into action when his ex-wife and her diving crew are trapped in a submarine. The team work for billionaire Jack Morris (Rainn Wilson) and scientist Suyin (Li Bingbing), who are attempting to discover a biome underneath the previously recorded lowest point on Earth. But when the rescue attempt causes a megalodon, a supposedly extinct giant shark, to escape, Taylor and the team must stop it before it kills a shit ton of innocent people.
 
The Meg is exceedingly tropey. The characters are all stereotypes to a tee. And the plot is as predictable as one would expect from this kind of movie. I don’t even really feel the need to describe the nature of the character archetypes featured in the film, because I am certain you have already figured out what all the characters are like. Sure, they all have a few decent one-liners that break up the monotony of their dialogue. But the majority of the quips fall flat, especially when they create tonal whiplash. For example, characters make jokes in the same sentence that they talk about the friends they just watched die.
 
And like a lot of recent action fare, there is the occasional decent shot and the score is pretty good (it’s by the guy who scored Shrek, so of course its gold). But the standard conventions of PG-13 action still stand. The camera shakes all the fuck over the place, so you can’t really see what’s going on. There aren’t many opportunities for Statham to show off his action choreography chops, seeing as he isn’t fighting people but a big ass shark. The majority of the action involves watching either a big shark eating people without actually being able to really see it, or Statham flailing around in the water and piloting a submarine, both of which are exceedingly dull.
 
I just read that The Meg was originally going to be an over-the-top R-rated bloodbath film. Maybe then it could have at least been fun. But the appeal to a more massive audience robbed the film of most of its potential hyper-violent glee. What results is something generic and expected. It is the quintessential bland August release.
 
Grade: C-

​I didn't really grew up with Winnie-the-Pooh. I recognize all the characters, know some of the catchphrases and can even recite the majority of “The Wonderful Thing About Tiggers.” But I think that’s just because the characters are ingrained into the popular culture. I’ve never read the original stories by A.A. Milne, or any subsequent books. And if I ever saw any of the movies or TV specials, I certainly don't remember any details about them.
 
So it is fully possible that Christopher Robin will connect better with Pooh-heads (I know that’s not a thing, just let me have this pun) than it did with me. Perhaps the film’s charm is lost on someone who didn’t grow up with these characters. But, for me, Christopher Robin feels less like a nostalgic reinterpretation of the classic characters and more like the kind of slogging, poorly written movie that I’d expect to see on Lifetime.
 
The film follows a now adult Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor), who lives in London with his wife and daughter and works at a luggage company. His friends Winnie-the-Pooh (Jim Cummings), Eeyore (Brad Garrett) and more are waiting for him to return to the Hundred Acre Wood, but he has become too preoccupied with work to care about anything else. But when Pooh mysteriously ends up in London, they must journey to find the rest of the gang and rekindle Robin’s sense of adventure.
 
One of the chief problems is that the film’s interpretation of Robin is very hard to root for. The movie feels like it is trying to be like Hook, but McGregor doesn’t apply the same charm as Robin Williams. Adult Robin is unlikeable, and his complete lack of charm before he inevitably changes makes it very difficult for me to believe he is so reformed by the end of the film. The number of times he yells at Pooh about his VERY IMPORTANT IRREPLACEABLE PAPERS is exhausting.
 
The dialogue spoken by the human characters certainly doesn’t help. The screenplay dishes out trope after trope: missing a family vacation because of work, a character saying “where are my damn reinforcements” in the war scene, and an ending ripped straight out of Elf. Every human character is paper thin and exceedingly one dimensional. That being said, the Hundred Acre Woods characters are all as charming as ever. Cummings as Pooh is classic and Garrett’s Eeyore provided some of the only chuckle-worthy moments of the film.
 
And then there’s the visual style. The film is overwhelmingly grey. Occasionally, this works to the movie’s advantage at either building atmosphere or creating some pretty beautiful shots. But, for the most part, the visual style is a little too downtrodden. Combine that with some pretty poor editing and mediocre camerawork, and the film ends up feeling dreary and uninspired.
 
Besides the few genuinely heart-string tugging moments between Pooh and Robin at the end (carried by Cummings, might I add), the film didn’t make me feel much of anything. It was a mundane experience. The only real emotional response I ever had was annoyance at the lazy predictability of the screenplay. Christopher Robin is just a dull, uninteresting film.
 
Grade: C-

Heading into the press screening for The Equalizer 2, I had two thoughts: I have never seen a film with Denzel Washington in it where I felt Washington acted poorly, and I have never seen an Antione Fuqua movie that I liked. One of these two opinions changed while I was watching the sequel to Fuqua and Washington’s 2014 The Equalizer. The Equalizer 2 is the most bored and least-effort-giving I have ever seen Denzel Washington, and the film wastes his potential talent on a loosely tied together, tonally awkward, inconsistent, and formulaic plot.

The film continues the story of Robert McCall (Denzel Washington), a former member of a secret agency who now drives an Uber while secretly helping those in need with his badass skills. Things seem to be going decently well for McCall, who grooms a young man who lives in the same building as him to become a successful artist. But when McCall’s friend from the agency is killed on assignment, McCall is forced to dive into the fray. And this time, IT’S PERSONAL.

One of the only elements from the OG Equalizer film that I actually liked was the characterization of McCall. In that film, he was a likeable and kindhearted man who avoided violence at all costs, only getting involved when it helped an innocent person in danger. This made the badass nature of Washington when the shit hit the fan work, because it directly contradicted how his character was in day-to-day life.

The Equalizer 2 completely fails to do any of this. Washington and Fuqua seem to have either completely forgotten McCall from the first film or misunderstood what people liked about him. The McCall of Equalizer 2 is trapped in the badass mode, leaving the endearing moments feeling rigid. There is a scene where McCall saves his young friend from joining a street gang that feels insanely mishandled. Washington comes off more stand-offish and abusive compared to his fatherly personality in the original. Maybe this was intended as a character adapting, but that requires some level of effort to make me understand why he’s changing.

And then there’s the action. Equalizer 2 thinks it’s John Wick, but it’s missing two fundamental elements. One: McCall can’t get hurt. There are no scenes in which McCall seems to be in any kind of real danger, which negates any of the possible tension in the movie’s brutally violent action sequences. Two: the choreography and cinematography are both mediocre, blinding the audience to the majority of the action. These two elements combined defuse any enjoyment of the action by the time we’ve hit the 20 minute mark.

It also took a solid half an hour for me to realize what the plot of the movie was going to be. The film takes so long to get to the actual driving dramatic force. And not in a cool Marin Scorsese “we’re gonna get to know these characters and their world” kind of way. It’s more like a “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if Denzel did these things that we can’t fit into the narrative structure of the film so we’ll just shove it in at the beginning” kind of way. Once the plot finally actually starts to kick in, its utter predictability makes for a yawn-inducing experience at the movies.

Equalizer 2 puts all of its bets on two things: Denzel Washington’s performance and violent action. And usually, that’s not bad call. But neither of things actually work in the film. The action is sloppy and repetitive and Washington’s performance is radically off from his usual charm. What results is possibly my least favorite movie from a director I already didn’t like.

Grade: D

I don’t like calling movies rip-offs. I try to do it as little as possible. Calling movies “rip-offs” has become a short-hand for claiming that movies today are somehow more unoriginal overall than movies from (insert decade here). And that, for the most part, is bullshit. Major, classic, noteworthy films from every decade were either based on or heavily inspired by other movies or pieces of fiction. Inception is just American Paprika, The Departed is essentially Infernal Affairs and True Grit (2010), The Fly (1986), The Thing (1982) and Scarface (1983) are all remakes. Just because a film is based on another prior work or heavily influenced by a previous source material doesn’t automatically make it a rip-off.
​
That being said, Skyscraper is a rip-off. It’s an extremely blatant attempt to try and re-create Die Hard for a modern audience, but only modernizing through adding explosions and “scale” rather than actually bringing anything of worth to the table. And considering Die Hard’s 30th anniversary just happens to land at this film’s opening weekend, it seems more than clear that this movie’s intention is to capture some of that 1988 magic. And that would be honestly fine, or at least tolerable, if Skyscraper brought anything to the table. But it doesn’t. It is a mediocre retelling of the same basic story as the first Die Hard film, not wholly incompetent in any way, but not remotely noteworthy either.

Skyscraper follows Dywane Johnson as Will Sawyer, a former FBI Hostage Rescue Team leader forced to change career paths when a failed negotiation costs him a leg. Now a security consultant, Sawyer is hired by Chinese billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han) to assess the most technologically advanced and tallest building in the world. But when a terrorist group disables the security systems and sets the building on fire, Sawyer must save his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell) and children from the blaze, which Chinese authorities suspect him of having started.

Just from reading the description, the similarities to Die Hard are apparent. And there are several action set-pieces and character beats that also clearly emulate the action classic. The rigid adherence to the plot of the material upon which the movie is based not only contributes to the movie’s staleness, but also to its predictability. Nothing happens in Skyscraper that isn’t wholly expected, especially to fans of the original Die Hard film. The stale plot isn’t helped by the film’s cookie-cutter characters. Johnson is charming as always, but the rest of the cast play their characters with the same degree of “just going through the motions” that I felt while watching the film.

Very occasionally, the monotony is broken up by something relatively interesting. Some of the action manages to escape the dreaded “I can’t tell what the fuck is going on” shaky-cam of movies like The Hunger Games. And the times that the fight choreography syncs up with the movie’s better than decent cinematography make for a few sequences that are pleasing to the eye. The design of the building itself is actually really cool, even if the rooftop attraction called “The Pearl” is clearly just a set-up for the film’s final action sequence. Seriously, I’d love for someone to try and explain the practical applications of what is essentially a really good Funhouse mirror.

At the end of the day, Skyscraper is forgettable. Nothing about it is really worth diving into. It was a film experience that I’m sure I’ll have entirely dismissed by the time the end of the summer rolls around. Maybe if it had tried building upon the foundation if the original Die Hard, rather than just copying and pasting its script and changing a few things, it could have gotten somewhere. But instead, it’s harmless summer blockbuster monotony.

Grade: C

After Marvel’s recent string of massive epics (Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Avengers: Infinity War), director Peyton Reed and writers Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Paul Rudd, Andrew Barrer, and Gabriel Ferrari present the most intimate story thus far in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Ant-Man And The Wasp. The antagonists are barely villainous, the stakes are entirely personal rather than world-ending, and the action is almost entirely confined to San Francisco and the surrounding areas. It’s a nice change of pace, but it all ends up feeling a bit inessential.
 
The story begins with former Ant-Man Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) living under house arrest as punishment for assisting Captain America in Captain America: Civil War. He’s hung up the size-altering suit while the Wasp, Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lily) has spent the intervening time trying to find a way to rescue her mother, Janet, from the subatomic Quantum Realm that she’s been trapped in for decades. With only days left in his sentence, Hope and her father, Hank Pym (Michael Douglass), pull Scott back into the world of superheroics, since his experience in the Quantum Realm at the end of Ant-Man makes him invaluable for their mission. In their quest to reach the Quantum Realm, Ant-Man and the Wasp clash with the mysterious Ghost, played by Hannah John-Kamen, and black-market dealer Sonny Burch (Walton Goggins), who each want access to the Quantum Realm for their own reasons. In addition to being Ant-Man, Scott has to balance saving his cash-strapped security firm, maintaining a good relationship with his ex-wife and her husband, and hiding his illicit activities from the FBI.
 
The film constantly throws new problems and complications at its heroes, which keeps the movie’s pacing brisk. Unfortunately, the movie is resultantly light on character development, with Janet and Ghost suffering the most from a lack of depth. The ludicrous nature of the Quantum Realm and the technology derived from it also detract from the aspects of the movie that work. Despite the plot’s weaknesses, it provides plenty of opportunities for the things you really want in an Ant-Man movie: jokes, inventive action sequences, and psychedelic imagery. Thankfully, the movie makes the most of those opportunities. The ever-shifting scale of the battles and the frequent visual humor keep the combat fresh and entertaining, while the forays into the Quantum Realm deliver some of the trippiest imagery in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
 
As charming and funny as Ant-Man And The Wasp is, it never manages to transcend competence. The characters are likable, but not especially complex or compelling. The functional plotting mostly serves as a vehicle for jokes, which are consistently funny if unremarkable. The light tone and small scope are refreshing, but the film never escapes the shadows of its sibling franchises. The main elements of the movie have been explored it more entertaining fashion in previous Marvel films. Spider-Man: Homecoming tells a far more engaging street-level superhero story, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 does a better job exploring familial relationships, and the comedy of Thor: Ragnarok is zanier and funnier. As a result, Ant-Man And The Wasp fails to find a niche for itself in the greater MCU.

​Grade: B-

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is the best of the sequels to Jurassic Park so far. If that sounds like a backhanded compliment, that’s because it is. The mediocre script (courtesy of Jurassic World creative team Derek Connelly and Colin Trevorrow) hamstrings J.A. Bayona’s striking direction and the film’s talented cast.

Years after the closing of Jurassic World, the volcano on the island of Isla Nublar, the home of all surviving dinosaurs, threatens to erupt. Former Jurassic World operations manager Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) is tasked with relocating the remaining dinosaurs by the former business partner of Jurassic Park founder John Hammond, Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell). She assembles a team comprised of dinosaur trainer Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), paleoveterinarian Zia Rodriguez (Daniella Pineda), and IT technician Franklin Webb (Justice Smith), to carry out the rescue.
Of course, things start going wrong almost immediately, in exactly the ways you would expect it to. It’s a Jurassic Park movie, so you’ve got to have shady businessmen, monologues about the ethics of genetic experimentation, and dinosaurs killing people. The venerable T-Rex saving the protagonists by killing a threat, then triumphantly roaring is apparently so incredible that they felt the need to have it occur twice this time around. Engaging characters and clever jokes can make a flimsy plot compelling, but you won’t find either here. The characterizations are paper thin and most of the gags barely register as jokes. It’s actually impressive how badly Connelly and Trevorrow squander Chris Pratt’s comedic abilities. The script’s shortcomings extend to the villains as well. The antagonists are so incompetent, and their plans so poorly thought out, that I’m not sure how we’re supposed to believe that they survived into adulthood.

Unlike its predecessor, Fallen Kingdom has the visual style to make up for some of the deficits in the perfunctory screenplay. Óscar Faura’s cinematography is vibrant and foreboding, making great use of ash, fire, and shadows. The opening scene and the island escape, in particular, contain some truly memorable shots. The many sequences of dinosaurs stalking and attacking humans and other dinosaurs give Bayona plenty of opportunities to show off his talent for crafting suspense. The action scenes are remarkably tense, even if they do demonstrate a disregard for the laws of physics. The eruption sequence, in particular, massively downplays the heat of lava and the speed of volcanic ash. In the Jurassic Park universe, lava appears to only be about as hot as a seat belt buckle left out in the sun.
​
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a modest improvement for the franchise, but the jumbled storytelling does its damnedest to ruin whatever enjoyment you might derive from the viscerally entertaining action and the charismatic cast. The series has to stop being beholden to the formula established 25 years ago. Showing us the same things that happened in Jurassic Park in a mildly different context is not enough to recapture the magic of the original. All of the sequels are just permutations of the same ideas, recycled into increasingly incoherent remixes. The dinosaurs deserve better.

Grade: C+

After a decade and a half, the Incredibles have returned, picking up exactly where they left off. The considerably more detailed animation is the only indication that fourteen years have passed since we last saw the Parr family. Thankfully, Brad Bird’s writing and directing are every bit as strong as they were in The Incredibles, resulting in an immensely enjoyable superhero adventure.

After badly damaging their home city in their battle with the Underminer, the Incredibles (and their friend Frozone) are hired by tech moguls Winston and Evelyn Deaver, played by Bob Odenkirk and Catherine Keener, respectively, to rehabilitate the public image of superheroes by wearing body cameras while fighting crime. Being the most tactful fighter of the bunch, Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) is chosen to pilot test the program. In a series of battles, she attempts to thwart the plots of a mysterious new supervillain, known as the Screenslaver, who can control the minds of anyone who watches their broadcasts. The inventive use of superpowers, gorgeous animation, and propulsive energy in their confrontations make for some of some the most spectacular set pieces in recent memory.

Meanwhile, Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) battles a moody teenage daughter, an infant with dozens of uncontrollable superpowers, and algebra. The film covers a lot of ground. The film flirts with some trite clichés about men being incompetent buffoons when it comes to childcare, but wisely focuses most of its humor on the inherent difficulties of child raising, and how superpowers can exacerbate any problems. The storylines involving his elder children, Dash (Huck Milner) and Violet (Sarah Vowell), are unremarkable, but an increasingly exhausted Mr. Incredible trying to handle the baby Jack-Jack’s ever-expanding array of powers provides the funniest moments of the movie, with a lengthy slapstick sequence involving a raccoon being the standout.

The film’s script also briefly addresses a common criticism of Brad Bird’s previous films, particularly The Incredibles and Tomorrowland. They have been criticized for espousing the belief that special people are superior to the masses and deserve special treatment. Without spoiling any plot details, Incredibles 2 provides some nuance to this philosophy through the motivations of the Screenslaver. It doesn’t go so far as to completely refute the notion of exceptionalism, but it’s a more complex presentation of the ideology expressed in Bird’s films.

The animation in Incredibles 2 is simply sublime. The action is frenetic, with inventive and impressive use of superpowers, but never incoherent. The rest of the animation is up to the same quality as the awe-inspiring action sequences. The combination of art deco architecture and sleek technology is even more notable in Incredibles 2 than in The Incredibles. By setting most of the film in a vast cityscape, the retrofuturistic visual style is constantly on display, which enhances the feelings of nostalgia and old-fashioned optimism that permeate Bird’s script. Not to mention the facial animation, which is the most expressive of any Pixar film.

All in all, Incredibles 2 is a great animated children’s film and a great superhero film, but it falls just short of its classic predecessor. Poorly fleshed out villain motivations and the older children’s lackluster storylines prevent it from resonating as well as the original. The film’s shortcomings only highlight how strong the rest of the movie is. Elastigirl’s clashes with Screenslaver is both a dazzling display of superheroics and a charming expression of re-finding one’s professional passion while Mr. Incredible’s attempts to take care of Jack-Jack are constantly laugh inducing. So much of the film is wonderful that the flaws are only minor quibbles.
 
Grade: A-

I think it’s been well-established by now that 2017 has been one of the weirdest years in memory, and the year’s cinema has certainly contributed to that. If I had told myself a few years that I would get to see an R-rated X-Men movie, a sequel to Blade Runner, and a Lego version of a Batman movie (and that they would all be awesome!) I certainly wouldn’t have believed it. So now that the year’s almost done, what’s one more crazy concept to add to the list? Guillermo del Toro’s fantasy romance The Shape of Water is not only just the right amount of weird, but it is a phenomenally well-acted and all-around lovely film. 
​
In a small apartment above a decrepit movie theatre in early 1960s Baltimore lives a woman named Elisa Eposito (Sally Hawkins). A childhood left her without vocal chords, so she communicates exclusively in sign language. Every night like clockwork she takes the bus to a government research facility outside the city where she works as a member of the cleaning staff. One night she catches a glimpse of the facility’s newest research project being wheeled in: a bizarre fish-like humanoid referred to as “the Asset” (Doug Jones). What follows is quite probably one of the strangest love stories in the history of cinema. 

The Shape of Water is one of those movies where you have to accept the base concept or you can’t go anywhere with the movie; namely, a mute woman falling in love with a fish man. But while this easily could have fallen into the realm of camp, it doesn’t. The first reason for this is the screenplay, expertly written by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor. As bizarre as it sounds, this is one of the most touching romance films I’ve seen in quite some time, being built off the kinship Elisa feels with the Asset due to their shared status as outcasts. Interestingly, although the story is built around del Toro’s trademark whimsy and eccentricity, it is significantly less dark that most of his previous work. Though there are certainly some horrific moments in the film, most of them based around the horror that humans can inflict on those they perceive as different from them. It definitely channels elements of Pan’s Labyrinth in this regard, but in sum total it is second only to his giant robot movie Pacific Rim in terms of a light tone. 

But what really brings the story to life is the phenomenal acting. Sally Hawkins gives an amazing performance in which all her lines are delivered by subtitled sign language, along with expert physical acting such as facial expressions and other things that are generally overlooked in a normal acting role. I fully expect her to get a nomination for Best Actress at the Oscars this year. Doug Jones also showcases his amazing physical acting, delivering a great performance under huge amounts of practical special effects, although the characters general silence (both in terms of vocalization and sign language) prevents him from shining as bright as he could have. Michael Shannon delivers a great performance as the film’s antagonist Richard Strickland, who personifies the more unfortunate aspects this era of American history including sexism, racism, and just general fear of anyone different from ourselves, though the well-written script prevents him from ever falling into strawman or card-carrying villain territory. The supporting cast is rounded out by a great performance by Richard Jenkins as Elisa’s closeted artist neighbor Giles, Michael Stuhlbarg as the chief scientist investigating the Asset with a big secret he keeps from his employers and Octavia Spencer as Elisa’s coworker Zelda, although I think she was a bit underutilized in the film. 

Finally, the film is absolutely gorgeous and extremely evocative of the 1960s in which it is set. The sets are wonderfully constructed and manage to summon up both a warm art-deco feel and a cold sterility in the case of the research facility. The film effortlessly blends his retro aesthetic with del Toro’s trademark magic in a similar manner that Pan’s Labyrinth and Crimson Peak adapted to their eras. And like the former of those films, The Shape of Water does not shy away from the uglier aspects of its history, prominently showing how sexism, racism, and homophobia shaped the lives of countless people, not even to mention the oppressive weight of the Cold War looming over everything. It’s a wonderful, if unconventional, period piece and a fascinating look at a more fantastical version of a well-visited era in cinema. 

The Shape of Water is a beautiful film in every sense of the world. Visual splendor combines with stellar acting, a tight script, and del Toro’s unique magic to craft a romance film wholly unlike what anyone expects to see in their local theatres in the 21st century. Whether you’re a fan of del Toro himself, romance, fantasy, period pieces, or simply unique storytelling, you can’t go wrong with this movie. Give it a shot, you won’t be disappointed.

Grade: A

Lady Bird is a nearly perfect coming-of-age story.  While it’s not quite a reinvention of the genre, it’s one of the best examples of how to do it right.  Writer and director Greta Gerwig has crafted one of the most genuine and insightful examinations of teenage life in recent memory.  She deftly weaves sharp dialogue, deeply empathetic characters, and a moving narrative together to create a film that surpasses others of its ilk.
​
Spanning the senior year of high school, the film depicts Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson’s (Saoirse Ronan) fraught relationships with family members, friends, boyfriends, and her hometown of Sacramento.  Deeply frustrated with nearly aspect of her life, she consistently rebels against reality.  She applies to colleges she lacks the grades for, pretends to live in houses her family couldn’t possibly afford, and rejects her given name in favor of her invented nickname.  All she wants is to leave everything she knows behind and get very far away from Sacramento, or as she disdainfully calls it, “the Midwest of California.”

Lady Bird’s mother serves as the main target of her war on reality.  The harsh, demanding matriarch of the McPherson family (a wonderful performance by Laurie Metcalf) is the polar opposite of the vibrant, impetuous Lady Bird.  Each of the women desperately wants the other to respect and understand them, but is completely unable to empathize with the opposing viewpoint.  Alternately funny, uplifting, and heartbreaking, the tumultuous relationship between the two provides the emotional and narrative core of the film.

The rest of the movie’s 93-minute runtime is packed to the brim with snippets of life at a Catholic high school.  The film’s wit and perceptiveness help the familiar narrative beats come off as genuine rather than clichéd.  Lady Bird navigates the traditional hazards of leaving adolescence: drama club, prom, disappointing romantic partners, experimenting with drugs and alcohol, etc.  However, the script smartly emphasizes the surprisingly complex inner lives of the well-worn archetypes (the straight-laced best friend, the shallow rich girl, the brooding rebel, etc.) that inhabit its version of 2002 Sacramento.  As a result, the film always feels true to the characters and the time and place they exist in, regardless of the retread territory of the stories.  

Lady Bird herself perfectly embodies the contradictory nature of being a teenager.  She’s both significantly wiser and more foolish than anyone gives her credit for and she bounces between charmingly awkward and frustratingly obstinate at the drop of the hat.  This complexity is captured endearingly by Saoirse Ronan’s winning, expressive performance, which is the best in her impressive career.

In the film’s most powerful moments, Gerwig uses Lady Bird’s characterization to explore the poignant consequences of the emotional upheaval that accompany growing up.  The impatience and anxiety of waiting to go out into the world can hide the true value of people and places until it’s too late.  Lady Bird obsesses over the flaws of her family and home, and, as a result, blinds herself to their beauty.

Grade: A

Well, the Wonder Woman era was nice while it lasted. Justice League is a return to awful form for the DC cinematic universe. It might be a leaner, more light-hearted movie than its predecessors, but it’s only a marginally better one. At least the plot’s coherent: when New God Steppenwolf invades Earth with his army of demonic insect people, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit superpowered allies to defend the planet. Apparently just aping the tone of Marvel’s The Avengers wasn’t enough- they had to borrow the narrative as well, even down to the magical, power-generating box the villain’s plan revolves around.
​
Chris Terrio and Joss Whedon’s script is most egregious in the first act. The film lurches from scene to scene with practically no connective tissue between them. Awkward exposition plagues many scenes, particular those involving Amazonians or Atlanteans. A steady stream of genuinely funny quips and banter just barely keeps the first forty minutes from being painful to watch. Thankfully, once the plot setup is finished and the disparate narratives connect, the quality of the writing improves. However, lackluster resolutions to character arcs and clumsy franchise planning continue to disrupt the movie.

The rote story at least introduces the movie’s best quality: the members of the Justice League. DC finally seems to have realized that their heroes shouldn’t be dour assholes. Charming character interactions, both funny and heartfelt, make for the most effective scenes in the film. Notably, an observation Batman makes about Superman’s humanity provides a more compelling examination of the two characters than the entirety of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) endear themselves immediately, while Gal Gadot is once again effortlessly charming as Wonder Woman. Even Ben Affleck’s Batman and Henry Cavill’s Superman manage to display a modicum of warmth and humor. The Flash’s neuroticism and inexperience and Aquaman’s gruff machismo contrast perfectly with the unflappable Wonder Woman and world-weary cynic Batman. The supporting cast of Amy Adams, JK Simmons, Amber Heard, Connie Nielsen and Diane Lane fare more poorly, though through no fault of their own. They each appear for couple of scenes and deliver some plot-relevant information before being shuffled off.

Justice League manages to stumble in areas where director Zack Snyder’s films generally excel, with a surprisingly bland visual style. A surprisingly large portion of the movie takes place in dull, cramped building interiors or in front of green screens. Noticeably poor CGI rears its head as well. The not-quite-right upper lip resulting from the digital removal of Henry Cavill’s mustache is particularly distracting. Even when the movie does break out the spectacle, the striking imagery of Snyder’s previous work is nowhere to be found. Diminished too, are his trademark visceral, epic action sequences. Arbitrarily placed slow motion and indifferent cinematography hamper enjoyment of the fight choreography. Danny Elfman’s score is similarly lackluster, and the music is largely forgettable.  The only memorable moments are taken directly from Elfman’s prior work on Batman Returns and Hans Zimmer’s Man of Steel soundtrack.  

Justice League effectively addresses many of the shortcomings of the DCEU, but fails in so many other areas, even franchise strengths. They’ve finally got the characters right, but creating an engaging narrative remains elusive. Hopefully there will eventually be a movie worthy of the Justice League’s superheroes, but this isn’t it.

Grade: C