evanston_dad

I know neither "Wicked" movie was meant to stand on its own, but the second half suffers more than the first from the decision to split the stage musical into two separate films. The first half had the advantage of introducing us to an admittedly amazing world brought to life by director John Chu, and the stage musical (which I've not seen) is apparently front loaded so that the most energetic and best songs come before the intermission. Part two has the unenviable task of somehow connecting everything introduced in the first half to "The Wizard of Oz," so it feels less like a reimagining of the Oz world and more like a duty-bound add on.

Though nothing in the second half matches the most thrilling moments from the first, there are some that I liked a lot, such as Elphaba's entrance and the song "Wonderful." And while nothing affected me emotionally as much as the scene at the dance or Cynthia Erivo's definitive "Defying Gravity," "For Good" did get me to tear up.

From what I hear, the problems with the second half of "Wicked" are inherent to the stage show and probably couldn't have been overcome by the movie without changing it so much that fans would have rebelled. So I think the "Wicked" we got is probably as good as any screen version of "Wicked" was ever going to be.

Grade: B+

I've discovered that there were a slew of "day in the life of..." movies made during WWII that showed American audiences what is was like to be in the war. "Destination Tokyo" is one of those, walking us through the details of living on a submarine that's been ordered to bomb Japan. We see it navigating a mine field, white knuckling it through a bombardment of depth charges, and we even see a soldier have an emergency and impromptu appendectomy performed by the ship's doctor while another crewmate reads the instructions to him out of a book. If only YouTube had existed then.....

Cary Grant anchors the film with his natural screen charisma while John Garfield overacts. The special effects are impressive but were bizarrely overlooked by the Academy Awards during a time when categories could have upwards of a dozen nominees. Instead, the film received a sole Oscar nomination, for its original story.

Grade: A-

For the second time this year, I sat down in the theater convinced that I was going to be emotionally devastated by a film everyone was talking about, and I ended up feeling....not much at all.

The first was "Sentimental Value." It, like "Hamnet," had all the ingredients that on paper was sure to reduce a cry baby like me to a puddle. But neither movie clicked with me.

I was an English major, so it embarrasses me to say that I don't care much for Shakespeare. Not caring for him is different than recognizing his genius and the fact that dramatic storytelling as we know it is due almost completely to his influence. I concede all of that. But it's rare that I ever actually enjoy watching his works, especially when captured on film. So right off that bat I'm not the best audience for this movie. I did appreciate the film's message about the healing nature of art and how it allows us to feel catharsis and process complicated emotions we might not otherwise have the vocabulary to articulate. And the ending sequence, where that message is most clearly brought home, is the part of the movie I liked the best and the one that came closest to moving me. The rest tested my patience with its repetitiveness, and more than once it felt like a slog. Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal, both actors who I've loved in other things (Buckley in "Wild Rose" and "Women Talking" and Mescal in "Aftersun") give BIG Oscar-baity performances here, so of course everyone thinks they're great. And I suppose they do what they're asked to do. But neither ever brought this story alive for me, or made me feel like they were ever doing anything other than playing period dress up. Mescal especially gets hammier as the movie goes on.

This is a huge disappointment for me, because Chloe Zhao has made two of my favorite films from the last decade, "The Rider" and "Nomadland." I love those movies for how natural and unscripted they feel, so it's a surprise to me how unnatural and overly controlled "Hamnet" feels. I also hated the cinematography, which is another aspect of the film people seem to be lauding. Yes, I get that it's meant to capture natural light and the way these locations would have looked at the time, but it makes for a murky and dingy viewing experience.

Every year there's at least one movie that seemingly everyone on the planet but me thinks is a masterpiece, and I guess "Hamnet" is that movie this year.

Grade: B.