Our Take: 5 Stars

In the latest film by writer-director Lee Isaac Chung (“Lucky Life”), Chung crafts a deeply personal and profoundly moving portrait of immigrant life in America, one that is perfect for this day and age.

The film, “Minari” follows the Korean-American Yi family as they relocate from California to a farm in Arkansas to chase the “American Dream.”

The film follows a family of four — Jason, Monica, and their children Anne and David — as they struggle to adapt to their new life in Arkansas, and are soon joined by Monica’s mother, Soon-ja.

The film is superbly acted. Anchored by the performances of Steven Yuen (“The Walking Dead”) and Han Yi-ri (“As One”) as Jason and Monica, respectively, the audience is transported into this family’s home and into their lives. Yuen and Yi-ri have a powerful level of chemistry that makes their interactions mesmerizing.

Even the film’s two young leads, Noel Kate Cho as Anne and Alan Kim as David, flourish and provide a genuine depth to their characters that is almost unheard-of in actors that young.

However, even in her somewhat smaller role, Youn Yuh-jung (“Woman of Fire”) steals the show as the sweet yet irreverent grandma that curses and gambles and, to young David, represents Korea.

The cinematography and direction in this film are incredible. Chung utilizes simplicity to create a more moving experience for the audience.

In a film so rooted in its story, characters and dialogue, complex editing and cinematographic techniques would have detracted from the cinematic experience rather than adding to it.

The simplicity of Chung’s techniques elevates the film, adding a layer of complexity beyond more difficult techniques.

The simplicity of the filmmaking evoke the idea of a window where the audience looks into the reality of the character’s lives, unobstructed by cinema trickery or embellishment.

Simplicity, here, becomes more complex than complexity. Because of this, the few instances where Chung chose to have visible editing or a shift in camera focus are so much more noticeable and striking. The most lasting part of the film is its relatability. It is a story of America and a story of any American family.

Every bit of the film resonates deeply for the audience, from the jovial humor to the heartbreaking struggles and every bit in between. This film plays like watching life happen before the viewer’s very eyes. That comes from the story, the autobiographical inspiration and the writing. Lee Isaac Chung wrote the screenplay for “Minari” in 2018, believing that it would be the last thing he made, as he was planning on retiring. To create this film he reached so deeply into play for “Minari” in 2018, believing that it would be the last thing he made, as he was planning on retiring. To create this film, Chung reached so deeply into himself that he touched what it means to not only be American, but to be human as well.

When it was announced that “Minari” would compete in the “Best Foreign Language Film” category at the 2021 Golden Globes, which are presented by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, there was immediate backlash and calls to change the rules regarding foreign language films at the awards.

Unlike many other award ceremonies, at the Golden Globes, when a film has less than 50 percent of its dialogue in English and is chosen to compete for the Best Foreign Language award, it is ineligible for either of the two most prestigious awards: Best Picture – Drama or Best Picture – Musical or Comedy.

“Minari” was then declared ineligible for the top awards, despite it being an American production by an American filmmaker.

This past Sunday, “Minari” won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film. This is not the first time the Golden Globes has snubbed an incredible American film based on its language.

Lulu Wang’s critically acclaimed 2019 film, “The Farewell,” was likewise declared ineligible for the top awards, whereas other films, like Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film “Inglourious Basterds,” which is around 30 percent English, was not considered a Foreign Language film.

This has caused some controvery in the HFPA.

Despite its unfair designation as a “Foreign Language Film”, “Minari” tells a profoundly American story, one that looks deeply at what it means to be American and highlights the beauty of America’s diversity.

Our Take: 4 Stars

During an unprecedented year, many films have suffered from delayed releases and closed theaters, making it easy to overlook the films that remain. Many of the “biggest and most anticipated films of 2020” have not come out yet, two months into 2021. As a result, many people are expecting this year’s Academy Awards to be weak in comparison to previous years.

This expectation is false. The current frontrunner, Chloé Zhao’s (“The Rider”) “Nomadland,” based on a book of the same title by Jessica Bruder, is a uniquely pensive film that can hold its own against any competition.

And hold its own it has. The film has already won over 85 awards this season, including 50+ for writer-director Chloé Zhao. Zhao is by far the winningest person this award season, and critics are predicting a successful Oscars night for Nomadland.

All this awards season hype is not for nothing, either; “Nomadland” deserves every award it has received.

Technically “Nomadland” is flawless. The cinematography is beautiful, the direction masterful and the editing exemplary. But there is more to it than impeccable execution. Every aspect of the film is intentional.

Every shot and every moment of the film is planned out in minute detail and executed with a precise purpose. With this kind of purposefulness and attention to detail, the film becomes an immersive experience to the point that the viewer cannot separate the events occurring on screen from the viewing experience.

Apart from the technical aspects of filmmaking, “Nomadland” is harder to analyze. It is a very different kind of movie from any of this year’s other releases and in addition, it is very different from the typical films made for general release in the United States.

Chloé Zhao takes a great deal of influence from her Chinese heritage and the style of other Eastern Asian auteurs, and crafts a film that, like its subject matter, is not fully rooted in one place. Blending influences from multiple sources helps Zhao to craft a stronger, more complex story, and the blended filmmaking styles mirrors the blended culture of America.

“Nomadland” is a film seemingly without a plot that is by design very slow and pensive. It is not a story, but rather an intimate and startlingly accurate portrait of the people who society has left behind and who have, in turn,
left society.

In keeping with Zhao’s previous work, many of the film’s characters are portrayed by non-professional actors — in this case real life nomads. Far from detracting from the film, this provides a sense of reality to “Nomadland” that in many ways gives it the feel of a documentary.

Central in the portrait is Fern, a woman who began living out of her van, named “Vanguard,” after the death of her husband and the loss of her job. Frances McDormand steps into the role and provides a true masterclass in dramatic poetry.

The two-time Best Actress Academy Award winner (“Fargo” and “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) gives a performance that rivals her best, and creates a delicately intricate and moving performance.

The film spends so much time on the positive aspects of van dwelling, that in moments it neglects some of the grim realities of the film.

The viewer is shown so many people that have chosen this life that the harsh reality that so many people are forced into it is almost neglected.

There are hints of desperation, but Zhao never truly explores it. The only highlights of this grimmer side come from Fern herself. If Fern is taken out of this film, the entire tone of the film shifts to a much more positive light.

But Chloé Zhao crafts the character of Fern to remind us in subtle ways the painful and dark realities facing so many people living the #vanlife. Fern is a ghost, living without a place to belong and unable to become close with other people. She cannot move on from her own life and truly exist apart from life.

This “Nomadland” deserves all the accolades that have come its way. While it might not be a film for everyone, it offers a pensive look into society that is well worth the watch. The experience will be truly mesmerizing and will have a lasting impact even after the credits roll.

Many single people see ValentinWarner Bros. Pictures new film, “Judas and the Black Messiah,” directed by Shaka King (“Newlyweeds”) and starring Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out”), LaKeith Stanfield (“Knives Out”) and Dominique Fishback (“Project Power”), is deeply American and profoundly timely.

The film tells the story of Fred Hampton, Chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party and the events leading up to his assassination by the FBI and Chicago Police. Since his untimely death, his legacy, along with the legacy of the Black Panther Party, has been tainted with lies and misinformation. With this film, the first production given the blessing of Fred Hampton’s family, the filmmakers hope to repair this tarnished legacy, and to normalize the revolutionary love that Chairman Fred, and the Black Panthers, stood for.

Speaking at a Warner Bros. Summit event last week, writer and director Shaka King spoke about the purpose of the film. King said “Essentially, you’re taking about the correction of propaganda.”

The United States has normalized police brutality and even framed it is a heroic light. In movies and television, the detective or officer who gets results by coloring outside the lines and doing what has to be done regardless of the cost has framed unlawful actions by police in such a positive, sympathetic or even heroic light.

“You only get to [this] place after hundreds and hundreds of years of a certain narrative,” King said. Through this film, King hopes to normalize the “revolutionary love” that Chairman Fred stood for, the same way society has normalized police violence.

Also at the summit were members of the cast and crew, who spoke about the process of stepping into such a powerful story, especially in today’s day and age.

Kaluyaa said “I felt really honored that I’m in this space and that I’m aligned in this way where I could let Chairman Fred come though me;” Kaluuya is the star of films such as “Get Out,” “Black Panther” and “Queen & Slim,” who steps into the lead role of Chairman Fred Hampton.

The entire cast and crew, Kaluuya says, “approached the film with humility and reverence,” and in order to bring truth to the narrative and to step into the role fully, meeting the family of Chairman Fred, was absolutely necessary. Mother Akua, formerly Deborah Johnson, and her son, Chairman Fred Hampton Jr., along with numerous former members of the Black Panther Party and current members of the Black Panther Party Cubs, were constantly around the production, and contributed to both the authenticity of the story, and to the understanding and growth of the cast and crew.

Kaluuya and Dominique Fishback, who portrays Deborah Johnson in the film, sat down with Mother Akua and her son in what became an almost eight-hour meeting at Chairman Fred’s childhood home in Chicago. After the meeting, the group went out into the Chicago streets, which Fred Hampton Jr. describes as the real office of the Panthers.

There they visited a site of a recent killing, and witnessed firsthand the reality of what’s at stake in the United States, not only the killing, but the spread of misinformation, for when they got there, they saw that the memorial had been destroyed and the messages from loved ones had been changed and erased.

Kaluuya remarks that they “went to the valley, where they people are and felt the energy of true revolutionaries.”

It was a transformative experience for the entire cast and crew, an experience rooted in truth and a real desire to understand and honor the legacy of Chairman Fred and the Black Panther Party. During production, which took place in Cleveland in late 2019, several members of the cast and crew took a journey to watch Fred Hampton Jr. speak at an anniversary service of the murder of Tamir Rice.

Hampton Jr. said “None of it was forced. It wasn’t just part of a contract.” That receptivity and openness became the soul of the film, and the reason why the film is such a moving one.

Everyone involved was anxious in approaching such a monumental and important film. The cast were anxious to bring a truth and reverence to the story, and the family members were anxious to have their truth told.

Mother Akua and her son had rejected several proposed films telling this story before giving King’s production their blessing. During the meeting at the Hampton House, Mother Akua admits she was hard on Dominique. She was looking for certain things in the actress, but Fishback delivered. Akua said Fishback “even got her side-eye right.” Mother Akua goes on to explain how even she learned things from the actors in return.

“When I saw Daniel and Dominique in that movie,” she said, “I hadn’t realized how much I missed the love and comradery.”

LaKeith Stanfield also had a difficult role to step into — that of William (Bill) O’Neal, an FBI informant within the Black Panther Party, who betrays Hampton, and in instrumental in his assassination.

Stanfield said “it was terrible.” Initially under the impression that he would be playing the role of Chairman Fred, Stanfield admits it was a difficult transition, saying that upon finding out he did not want to do the film. He told Shaka King “I’ll be an extra, I’ll play someone’s hat. I don’t want to play this guy.”

But Stanfield, through studying the role found a sense of regret and insecurity that he latched on to, “I went into the character thinking ‘I’m going to take that sliver of insecurity and try to magnify that to bring this character to life.’” With so little information about O’Neal, Stanfield had to approach the role like a puzzle, diving deeply into the one on camera interview O’Neal gave, and the second-hand accounts of the few that knew him.

Something unique about this film is that it follows O’Neal as much, or perhaps more closely, than it does Hampton. Kenny and Keith Lucas, the co-writers of the film who developed the story, describe the choice as a way of getting the audience to connect with O’Neal. In many ways a victim, O’Neal’s manipulation by the system would connect him to the audience and his ultimate betrayal of Chairman Hampton would in turn cause more introspective reflection on the mart of that audience.

Ultimately the film and its creators aim to change the narrative and set the record straight, but “Judas and the Black Messiah” aims higher. The reality is that so little has changed in America since the time of Chairman Fred.

Fishback drew a powerful connection between Chairman Hampton and Breonna Taylor, who, fifty years apart, were both murdered in their beds. More than setting the record straight, Fishback remarked that the film wants to inspire “revolutionary love for each other and to spur people to action.”

As it is so often stated in the film: “Where there is people, there is power.” To learn more about how you can help, visit liveforthepeople.com, a service set up by the creators of the film to continue the work of Chairman Hampton. As Mother Akua puts it, “Not everyone is a revolutionary, but everyone can do something”.

“Judas and the Black Messiah” is available to stream on HBO Max.

Our Take: 3/5 Stars

The 2017 release of Patty Jenkins’s “Wonder Woman” instantly changed the movie industry. Almost all of the most popular and commercially successful films of the past decade have been superhero movies.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the DC Extended Universehave heralded a golden age of the superhero genre.

Before “Wonder Woman” studios were wary of backing a female-led superhero film — but the film’s critical and commercial success brought an end to that.

The second installment of Jenkins’s Series, “Wonder Woman 1984” has been greatly anticipated. Having been pushed back several times due to COVID-19, the film finally premiered on Dec. 25 in a joint HBO Max and theatrical release. Despite a strong cast and some powerful moments, the film fails to live up to both its expectations and the story’s promising potential.

Jenkins (“Monster”) is an incredibly talented director who tackles her third feature film with genuine heart and energy.

Additionally, the film is superbly acted and the chemistry between the cast members is a joy to watch. Returning from the first film is the duo of Diana Prince and Steve Trevor, played by Gal Gadot (“Justice League”) and Chris Pine (“Star Trek”), respectively.

The pair feed off each other and create a truly riveting dialogue.

Despite occurring 66 years after the events in the previous film, “Wonder Woman 1984” provides a strong continuation of the story of Diana and strengthens her character in ways that the first film does not. The film also serves to give Diana a strong catharsis for the traumatic events in the first film that she has yet to move past.

This emotional journey is surprisingly organic in a film where so much of the message seems forced, and is the strongest facet of the film.

Kristen Wiig (“Bridesmaids”) is wonderful as Barbara Minerva or Cheetah, a truly iconic comic book baddie.

Sadly, her role is reduced to a side villain in favor of Maxwell Lord, played by Pedro Pascal (“The Mandalorian”). While Pascal is a truly talented actor and his portrayal of Maxwell Lord is intriguing and surprisingly multifaceted, the smaller role that Cheetah is relegated to is such a missed opportunity.

The development of Barbara Minerva into Cheetah that occurs in this film is so formulaic and is such an overused trope that she almost felt like an afterthought. In a film that allows its cast great moments of heart and humor, the fact that Kristen Wiig, one of the strongest comedic actors of our time, was given so little room to work was a tragedy. There is so much potential in the character and with Wiig but the film failed to do her justice.

Jenkin’s sequel fails to mirror the success of its predecessor. For all of its strengths, it fails to live up to the potential of its story and its characters.

Central to the film is a Monkey Paw-like, “be careful what you wish for” plot which is interesting.

But the story set up has much more promise than what is actually on screen, serving as little more than a thinly veiled message for viewers.

It is painfully obvious that the film is so centered around conveying a message that the writers took the story to painfully unrealistic lengths, even for a superhero film, to achieve that message.

“Wonder Woman 1984” is an enjoyable film full of fun 80s references and several strong moments, but the story itself is lacking to the point that the film becomes muddled.

Essentially, the effectiveness of its message becomes greatly reduced.

Our Take: 5/5 Stars

This pushes the story forward in a whirlwind of zingers and pullable quotations that truly immerses the audience into the story. This story was not one of one group, nor did the defendants have one cohesive ideology and personality. The hodge-podge group was incredibly diverse in terms of their personality and their mannerisms, but they were all united by their quest for justice and peace. Sorkin treats them as individuals and as complex human beings. Every little bit of dialogue works to illuminate the person within, and no line is wasted.

Coupling beautifully with the inspired dialogue is an incredibly cast of actors. Led by Sacha Baron Cohen (“Borat”) as Abbie Hoffmann, Jeremy Strong (“The Big Short”) as Jerry Rubin, Yahya Abdul-Marteen II (“Aquaman”) as Bobby Seale, and Eddie Redmayne (“The Theory of Everything”) as Tom Hayden, the defendants each stand out and add bits of likeability and personality to the story.

The other players, like the prosecutor, Richard Schultz, played by Joseph Gordon Levitt (“Inception”), the defense attorney, William Kunstler, portrayed by Mark Rylance (“Dunkirk”), and the judge, Julius Hoffmann, played by Frank Langella (“The Box”) add powerful performances that masterfully crafts the ever shifting tone of the film.

Despite the large and star-studded cast, no role is a small one. The talented cast, coupled with a dialogue masterclass, leave a lasting imprint in each role. Still, the standout performance came from Rylance, who, even in a room filled with the lively and powerful members of the 7, stood out for his deeply intimate and nuanced performance.

For a writer-director that has made his living on dialogue, and particularly constant dialogue, what really stood out was Sorkin’s use of silence. In a film where so much is going on, the quiet moments become even more pronounced, and even more touching. Sorkin masterfully manipulates the mood and the pacing of the film, shifting between witty and comical moments to seriously impactful and personal moments at a lightning pace. The story in itself is an incredibly moving one, and Sorkin’s pacing and not quite linear storyline allow the events to unfold naturally and with as much impact on the audience as possible.

At times, “The Trial of the Chicago 7” may seem too busy, but in reality perfectly mirrors the flurry of action and chaos of the events told in the story. The story is an impactful and powerful portrait of different people coming together for a purpose that is greater than any of them. The film never once feels as though it is out of Sorkin’s control. He knows exactly where the story is headed, and leaves just enough breadcrumbs to ensure that the audience is delightedly enticed and following confidently on their way.

“The Trial of the Chicago 7” is something truly remarkable. The film, like its subject matter, says something more than what happened at the trial. It speaks to larger issues ingrained in our society and serves as a testament.

Our Take: 4/5 Stars

Since long before Ian Fleming put pen to paper, the spy genre has been a staple of literature and film. There is something about the secrecy, excitement, and danger of espionage that has captured the hearts and imaginations of generations. But with twenty-five James Bond films and six Mission: Impossible films to date, the individual installments can run together, and the plots and devices can become repetitive and dull.
Nowadays, it takes something special to create a lasting and truly unique addition to the spy thriller. Turns out, Christopher Nolan’s newest project, “Tenet,” is just that special something.

Set up like any other spy thriller, with a botched mission and a whole lot of secrets, Nolan’s film quickly sets itself apart from the others in the genre, and establishes itself as a film that stands alone. It is a true Christopher Nolan film in that it is only comparable to the celebrated filmmaker’s other endeavors, a unique and visionary work of art that has a lingering effect long after the credits roll.

The story of “Tenet” follows John David Washington (“BlacKkKlansman”) as “The Protagonist,” an ex-CIA agent employed by a mysterious agency called Tenet. The Protagonist has been tasked with finding and destroying a weapon that can invert the flow of time and cause the apocalypse.

It is a refreshing change from the usual nuclear holocaust that accompanies spy thrillers, and Nolan’s dedication to scientific reality crafts a thoroughly thought provoking and entertaining story. Not only is the premise unique, but the story and writing are worthy of such a great setup. Nothing is worse than a film that has so much potential, but tragically falls short of expectations.

Through Nolan’s use of nonlinear storylines and mind-bending stories, he walks a fine line between great success and being overly erudite; however, he does so repeatedly and without faltering. Nolan surrounds himself with an incredible cast and crew that churn out great performances with great direction and chemistry.

John David Washington shines in a performance that even his father, the legendary Denzel, would be proud of. Joining him are Robert Pattinson (“The Lighthouse”), Elizabeth Debicki (“The Great Gatsby”) and Kenneth Branagh (“Thor”). Each member of the star-studded cast gives an inspiring and charismatic performance.

Each aspect of the film — from the writing, cinematography and direction, to the editing and acting — perfectly melds to form, not just a movie, but a cinematic experience. The film is enthralling and mesmerizing, with fast paced action and a constant crescendo of intrigue and thrill that viewers simply cannot look away from.

This film, however, is not without flaws. “Tenet” exists in a vacuum of space, and details outside the time period are allusions at best, meaning that the audience receives only bits and pieces of the future ramifications of the events within the film. The lack of concrete details are painfully tantalizing.

“Tenet” also shies away from establishing any emotional connection between the events of the film and the audience. While the characters do endear themselves to the audience through witty dialogue and excellent acting, they are little more than names and faces, with no backstory to connect them emotionally to the audience.

Christopher Nolan is a modern-day auteur — a filmmaker that controls a large portion of the production process, such as writing, production design, directing, cinematography and editing. Although it is more popular outside of the big budgets and studios of Hollywood, Christopher Nolan is not the only filmmaker to bring this independent filmmaking concept to the world of blockbuster cinema. But he is arguably the biggest box office success of them all.

Nolan’s attention to detail is impeccable, and it is incredible to watch the film and to realize just how easy it would have been to slip up, how any tiny continuity error could have destroyed the illusion, and thus the power, of a truly remarkable film.

Only Nolan’s mind could create such a work. His dedication and extensive control over all aspects of production is the cornerstone to making the whole thing work. He is a visionary filmmaker, truely an auteur; only a man with a vision as strong as Nolan’s could have created the action packed delight that is “Tenet.”