The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

Director: Wes Anderson

A fun Wes Anderson flick, though one that still feels more bloated than his others.

As part of our little, incomplete return to the films of Wes Anderson, my wife and I decided to give The Life Aquatic our first watch in well over a decade. It follows the title character, Steve Zissou (Bill Murray), who has hit a fairly nasty late-in-life rut. Zissou is a Jacque Cousteau-like marine biologist/adventurer who was once highly renowned and respected. In recent years, though, his star has fallen in the eyes of the public. His vices and arrogance have caught up with him, and nearly every personal bridge has been burned, leaving Steve in a haze of self-pity and existential crisis. A sense of purpose is sparked, however, when Steve's longtime partner is killed by what he claims is an exotic, previously-unknown species of shark. This sets Steve on an Ahab-like quest to find and kill the beast. Joining him and his normal crew is newcomer Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), a straightforward, earnest, Midwestern pilot who believes Steve to be his illegitimate father.

The Life Aquatic was fun to watch again, though the weaknesses that I observed when it came out are mostly still evident. There are plenty of hilarious moments, often little gags in the dialog or facial expressions, as one would expect from a movie featuring Bill Murray and other great actors like Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe, and Angelica Huston, among others. Having Murray play a weary, arrogant, dry narcissist on the high seas was bound to be funny, one way or another, and it is. Casting the greater tale within the notion of being a funny, quirky take on Moby Dick with a dysfunctional ship crew sets up a good deal of humor, too.

So what isn't it quite as memorable or funny as Anderson's other films? My feeling is that it simply tried to introduce a few too many character clashes and dynamics. There's the mystery of Steve's relationship with Ned. And Steve trying to maintain or repair his relationship with his wife. And Steve trying to impress and seduce a journalist who has joined his voyage. And Steve's rivalry with fellow celebrity marine biologist Alistair Hennessey. Then Steve has an entire side foray to save an "insurance bond stooge." And there's even a few other personal dramas thrown in here and there with members of his ship crew. It all just adds up to too much, resulting in a movie that feels too long, despite the film being a little under two hours. There were at least two moments in the third act that felt like good places to wrap up the movie, but it somehow kept going, resulting in a film that probably could have been a good 15 minutes shorter.

I think this image - widely used the promotional materials for the film - is a
perfect illustration of its main weakness. Too many characters stuffed into
a small space. Even with so much great acting talent, the movie would
have been better off leaving some of them back onshore.

A curious observation I made on this viewing was how this movie hinted at Anderson's interest in using stop-motion animation, which he playfully sprinkled into The Life Aquatic, usually in the underwater sequences. It's an early tease of his control of the form, which he would bring fully to bear in his later full-length animated films The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Isle of Dogs.

The Life Aquatic is still a funny movie, and my wife and I did enjoy it. But I still consider it Anderson's weakest movie, mostly because it was overstuffed with too great a variety of interpersonal tensions. This is an error in judgment that Anderson seemed to correct with his next film, the shorter, more focused The Darjeeling Limited, and all subsequent live-action films, none of which has been more than 99 minutes long. Still, it says something when the worst of a director's seven full-length, live-action films is still a pretty good one. 

New, Spoiler-Free Release! Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

No Plot Spoilers! Have no Fear!!

In one of many entertaining twists, the god of thunder must
learn to cope without his legendary hammer, Mjolnir, as he
fights as a gladiator against a very formidable opponent.

Director: Taika Waititi

Far and away the best Thor movie, which may not be saying much. But I'll also say that this is now among my favorite Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies.

Those of us who follow the MCU last saw Thor (Chris Hemsworth) as he helped save earth from the destructive machinations of Ultron in 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron. While the other Avengers regrouped and formed a new team, Thor and the Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) disappeared without a trace. Thor: Ragnarok brings us up to speed fairly quickly, with Thor having been searching various realms around the universe for information about the cosmically powerful Infinity Stones. This search eventually puts him on the trail of his missing father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins). When he and his ever-treacherous brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the god of mischief, eventually find Odin, the events that follow unleash Hela (Cate Blanchett), an immensely powerful force of destruction. Thor and Loki are inadvertently hurtled across the universe and land on a remote planet ruled by a barely sane overlord, Grandmaster, who runs a massive gladiator competition. Thor and Loki must figure out a way off the planet and get back to Asgard, which Hela means to take over as a first step towards dominating the universe.

Even more than the nearly uncut entertainment that is the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Thor: Ragnarok is unadulterated fun. Purists and fans of more intense superhero movies like the Dark Knight trilogy or even Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Civil War (all of which I love, by the way) may take some umbrage to the generally silly, even campy, tone of this latest MCU offering, but I loved it. Admittedly, I am a fan of New Zealand director Taika Waititi's goofy sensibilities. Even when I could see the gags coming, they were executed so well that I always got a chuckle out of them. And anyone who's enjoyed the odd, deadpan humor of Flight of the Conchords (several episodes of which Waititi either wrote and/or directed) or the vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows will catch on and laugh heartily at the banter and comedy in Ragnarok.

My main concern going in was whether or not Waititi would be able to offer some worthy action sequences, given that he'd yet to tackle any sort of big-budget project of this sort. I was glad that he eased these worried by giving us several highly entertaining, well-executed fight and battle scenes. I won't put them on par with the best of what we saw in The Avengers or the Russo brothers' two Captain America movies, but there are more than a few spectacular displays of mythical might in the film. Many of us viewers in the theater were ooh-ing, ah-ing, and basically having fun with many of these sequences.

Cate Blanchett cuts a menacing enough figure as the blood-
thirsty Hela, even if the villain is yet another mostly one-
dimensional adversary in an MCU replete with them.

I can't say that the movie fully delivers in terms of any touching or emotional beats. Yes, there is a bit more exploration of the love/hate relationship between Thor and Loki, and the theme of vengeance and maintaining bonds with one's people. But these always take a rather distant backseat to the action and humor. Another aspect where I would say the movie falls a bit short is one that has been a blind spot for most MCU movies - not being able to conjure up a completely well-rounded, thoroughly compelling villain. Cate Blanchett plays the role of Hela just fine, and the character is certainly powerful. And her backstory does offer more than many other MCU villains, making her out to be a bit more than simply a massive force of inexplicable rage. The rage is there, but there is some explanation for it this time around. Still, she is ultimately just a baddie who wants to kill everything and everyone in her path who won't bow to her will. Far physically weaker villains like Adrian Toomes in Spider-Man: Homecoming or Helmut Zemo in Captain America: Civil War were better developed and more compelling.

A final note to those who may be wondering just how inundated with the MCU one has to be in order to enjoy this movie: you don't need to know a ton. Even if you haven't seen earlier MCU films, the key points are summarized within the movie fairly well, if briskly. While I can't call Ragnarok a complete stand-alone movie, it does quite well on its own merits. Of course, if one wants to do all of their homework, I would recommend watching the first two Thor movies, The first two Avengers movies, and maybe even Doctor Strange, which does have a minor connection here. If you've the time and inclination to take in those five films, you'll completely understand all of the main references and connections in the film.

So this one is plenty of fun. It might not be the tightest movie we'll ever get in the MCU, but it has a cheeky, high-spirited, and playful attitude that makes it a joy to watch. I already have my tickets to see it again in a few days. What other endorsement need I make?

Before I Die #598: The Aviator (2004)

This is the 598th movie I've watched out of the 1,187 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working through. 

Director: Martin Scorsese

Despite being a major fan of Scorsese, I had somehow never watched this movie from start to finish. Now that I've put in the required two hours and forty-five minutes, I can say that it's a really solid film that I enjoyed, even if I don't count it among his very best. Bear in mind that this is no slight, given that Scorsese has several all-time great movies to his credit.

Based on a spotty biography, The Aviator tracks the key twenty-year period in the life of Howard Hughes, the infamously eccentric and undeniably talented businessman and American aviator. The movie starts with Hughes at age 21, just as he inherits the sizable tool business his parents created and ran in Texas. Hughes brings the company to near collapse as he funds a massive war picture independent of any major movie studio. Although he burns through nearly all of his considerable fortune, Hughes manages to release the movie to great success, launching him into the spotlight and on a run of tremendous business successes over the next few decades. He designs and test flies planes, buys and runs an airline company, and takes on the aviation giant of the day, Pan Am, and the powerful senator who supports it. In these two decades, Hughes essentially grows his wealth enough to poise himself to become the richest man in the country. The problem is that his own mental problems grow worse and worse, hinting at the infamously reclusive and bizarre behavior that would mark the succeeding decades of his life.

The Aviator is, like virtually all of Scorsese's films, highly watchable. The legendary director has such a keen sense of pacing, dialogue, and scene construction, that his take on such a dynamic figure as Howard Hughes was bound to be engaging, and it is. As he has shown in his most well-known films like Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street, and Casino, Scorsese can take highly energetic and volatile characters and make them sing on screen. With The Aviator, Scorsese was dealing with the largest group of notable celebrities that he's ever dealt with, starting with Hughes but also including the likes of Jean Harlow, Katharine Hepburn, Ava Gardner, and plenty of other screen legends who were noted for their strong personalities. The story sets them up to have plenty of engaging interactions, mostly revolving around Hughes's increasingly erratic and paranoid behavior. Many of the scenes are played for drama, but almost as many are played for humor, nearly all to excellent effect.

As a personal aside, I have to confess that the only element of the movie that annoyed me was Katharine Hepburn. This has nothing to do with Cate Blanchett's portrayal of the film legend, which is nearly spot-on, but rather my general annoyance at the real Hepburn's affect. I've watched a good number of Hepburn's classic movies, and I've always found her "Mid-Atlantic" accent highly grating (that bizarre, made up accent has its own odd little story, too). In The Aviator, Blanchett fully embraces the character, as she stomps around, going toe-to-toe with the equally head-strong Hughes. I actually admire Hepburn's progressive attitudes and general take on life. But that accent? I can't get over it.

One of the many scenes to display the lavish places, costumes,
and powerful entertainers seen throughout the movie. Nearly
every scene is fun to watch, even if there isn't exactly a
compelling narrative thread to tie them all together.

Back to the movie as a whole. While nearly all of the individual scenes and sequences are outstanding, there is a lack of a completely cohesive story. The nearly 3-hour film strongly hints at a few themes and clear points about Hughes, but it never completely resolves any of them or creates a single compelling arc. The only theme or trait that seems to be present throughout the movie is Hughes's increasingly severe mental disorder. However, there are still many questions left unanswered by the movie's end, as he is still functional enough to oversee much of his aviation business. When one reads a bit more about Hughes, one realizes that his truly severe mental fragmentation continued for another two decades after the timeline covered in this film. The movie thus feels incomplete, which is certainly odd for such a lengthy story. It almost seems as if a TV miniseries of 8 or 10 episodes would have done such a biopic more justice.

Like many of Scorsese's best movies, this is one in which the individual scenes are so masterfully crafted and entertaining, that you could channel surf your way into any part of it, settle in, and just ride it all out by enjoying each sequence. I've read some original reviews that weren't terribly impressed with DiCaprio's performance, but I found him to be excellent, right along with the rest of the supporting cast. Such acting, along with a tight script and under the guidance of an all-time great director, make for a highly enjoyable film, if not exactly a historically brilliant one.

That's 598 movies down. Only 589 to go before I can die. 

New(ish) Release: Carol (2015)

Carol (2015)

Director: Todd Haynes

Extremely well-done drama that subtly looks at the quieter ways in which social misfits can anguish.

Based on the novel by Patricia Highsmith, far better known for her "Ripley" crime novels, Carol was one of her few works of almost pure drama. It tells the tale of a romance between the title character Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett) and a 20-something store clerk, Therese (pronounced "Ter-rez" and played by Rooney Mara). The time period is the U.S. in the 1950s, and Carol is a woman with a husband and daughter. The couple, however, are in the process of divorcing due to a homosexual love affair which Carol had with a family friend several years earlier. This is where Carol's life is when the main story begins, and it is then that Carol meets Therese at the department store at which she works. Therese is an aspiring photographer with real talent, and she becomes rather taken by the mature, sophisticated, and beautiful Carol.

What follows is a slow, thoughtful, and subtly heartbreaking romance made virtually impossible by a close-minded society. While the story of repression of homosexuality is hardly a new idea in drama, Carol presents it as well as nearly any film could. The characters are extremely well-rounded. Both Therese and Carol, while generally likable and sometimes even admirable, are hardly without their faults. Therese exhibits plenty of the inarticulate angst that nearly all of us exhibited when we were her age. Carol can be more than a little haughty at times, and she shows poor judgement more than once in the tale. But these faults, rather than make the characters unappealing, merely lend an authenticity to them. They are neither heroes nor villains, but they are clearly human beings with desires and feelings which get battered by the small-mindedness of others.

The film is stunningly shot. Nearly any serious review you read will mention how visually impressive it is, and I am in no position to refute that. The warm colors, brilliant costumes, and set pieces all help to create many shots which could be hung on a museum wall. It put me in mind of another film drama, also released in 2015 and also set in the 1950s, Brooklyn. While Carol is more tragic than Brooklyn, they are two films that could not be any easier on the eyes.

I won't ever feel the need to see this movie again, but its praise and Oscar Best Picture nomination were well-earned. I recommend it to those who are in the mood for an extremely well-crafted drama with more than a touch of despair.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

(This movie is the 513th out of the 1,149 complete list of 'Films to See Before You Die,' which I am working my way through)

Director: David Fincher

Rapid, Spoiler-Free Summary

In New Orleans in 1919, just as the First World War ends, a young boy named Benjamin is born with a puzzling malady. Though a newborn infant, he has the physical decrepitude of a person well into his eighties. Over the ensuing eight-plus decades, Benjamin not only survives, but ages in reverse.

While undergoing his lifelong age reversal, Benjamin has travels and experiences many of the joys and sorrows of human life. He eventually goes off to faraway lands, becomes involved in World War II, discovers pleasures of the flesh, and falls in love. Though few of these experiences is especially unique, Benjamin's odd condition results in a very singular perspective for both him and those who are closest to him.

What Did I Think?

It's not a bad movie, but I'm not altogether sure what the point of it was. And this isn't what you want viewers of your movie to feel when you offer them two hours and forty-five minutes of story.

The idea of a protagonist who ages in reverse is certainly interesting enough. The mere concept begins to raise certain questions about how such a fantastic person would function and interact with others, and how such a condition would affect the perceptions of the inflicted and those who come to know him for long periods of time. We do, indeed get this in the movie right away, as the grotesquely aged newborn Benjamin is immediately abandoned by his father. As Benjamin advances into and through his childhood years, living at a retirement home under the care of the matronly young African American caretaker, the only people who seem to offer him any understanding are the extremely aged with whom he lives.

The 20-something year old Benjamin. The movie flirts
with some interesting themes as we see how people act
towards him, but it never plumbs the depths as much as
it could.

There's certainly a notion here to chew over - how one's physical appearance has much more influence over how others treat us than our words or even actions. Though Benjamin has the size, mental maturity, and behavior of a very young child, none outside of the home looks at him with anything but disgust. The end of the film offers and interesting counter-point to this, when the elderly-yet-childish-looking Benjamin returns to the very same retirement home. When taken together, these bookends of the film may offer the most profound statement that the story has to offer.

And yet, I felt that such poignant themes were lacking. After all, what is the point of having a character like Benjamin is you're not going to use his most distinguishing feature to do some social exploration? And make no mistake - his singular physical condition is his most distinguishing feature, and this is perhaps the biggest weakness of the movie. There's really not much personality to him. Once you get beyond what makes him "curious," you're just left with a plain old nice guy. Hardly anything to spend nearly three hours watching. Which brings me back to the question: if you're not going to imbue him with any outstanding personality traits, then you'd better use him as a foil to examine some more engaging topics. The movie doesn't either one with much imagination or depth.

Another, lesser, issue that I have with the movie stems from the nerdier part of my personality: the physiological aspect of Benjamin's condition. Many viewers probably wouldn't bother to spend energy on this, but I couldn't help question why, at the end of his life, he would shrink down to child-size. He wasn't born the size of a full-grown adult, so why would the reverse happen? Yes, I know that it's all pure fantasy, but I'm just looking for a little logical consistency.

On a much larger scale, is there any possible way that Benjamin would not have been taken away by military scientists to become a lab rat? He never makes much effort to hide his condition, and it's hard to imagine him just coasting through life without at least a visit from parties interested in a walking miracle who may hold the key to the fountain of youth. This is also never so much as mentioned or explored. Would it have killed someone to at least try and insert a touch of consideration for it?

It all comes out as very mediocre. The cinematography is highly polished, so the film is a pleasure to look at. The acting is solid, and the human emotions are sincere and exhibited well. These help carry along a lengthy movie that resulted in, to me, a subtle shoulder shrug.

(513 films down, 636 to go before I die.)