Top 10 Films of 2017

December 27, 2017 by Keith Garlington

It’s hard to believe it’s that time again – the time of the year where critics and bloggers throw together lists of the movies they felt shined the brightest during the past year. Sure, some turn their noses at these things, but I’ve always enjoyed them. Why not take time to promote the movies you feel were the real treats of the past 365 days. So here we go, reflecting back on 2017 and sharing my picks from what the year had to offer (At least out of what I’ve seen. Sadly, frustrating release schedules means some much anticipated films have yet to open near me. “Phantom Thread”, “Hostiles” and “The Post” head that list).

As always I’ll begin by showing some love to the fine movies that just missed my top 10. Here are my #11 – 20 picks:

#20 – “Pilgrimage”
#19 – “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”
#18 – “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”
#17 – “The Bachelors”
#16 – “Lady Bird”
#15 – “Frantz”
#14 – “Wonderstruck”
#13 – “Molly’s Game”
#12 – “The Beguiled”
#11 – “Maudie”

And now my Top 10 films of 2017..

#10 – “1922” There were plenty of surprises in 2017. In fact it was the surprises that saved the movie year for me. Perhaps the biggest one came in the small psychological horror film “1922” based on a Stephen King short story. Thomas Jane (in what may be my favorite performance of the year) plays a struggling Nebraska farmer at odds with his wife over keeping their land or moving to the city. Writer/director Zak Hilditch crafts a movie that gets under your skin and maintains a menacing vibe from start to finish without ever relying on overused genre gimmickry. It may be a tad too slow for some, but its steady sense of discomfort and dread had me hooked. What a year for Netflix.

#9 – “The Unknown Girl” The Belgian sibling duo of Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne have become some of my favorite filmmakers. There is an unvarnished naturalism in their handling of their characters, their circumstances, and the moral quandaries they face. All hold true in “The Unknown Girl”, a mesmerizing drama and personal journey veiled as a murder mystery. The Dardenne’s focus their real-world lens on a young doctor played with a magnetic measured intensity by Adèle Haenel. Her striking performance is almost Bressonian in its quiet authenticity – a perfect match for the Dardenne’s style.

#8 – “A Ghost Story” David Lowery’s meditative supernatural drama was unlike anything else I saw in 2017. There is nothing conventional or routine about Lowery’s film or his approach to storytelling and that’s part of its allure. “A Ghost Story” surprises at so many levels. It may be the seismic yet effective narrative shift midway through the movie. Or maybe the amount of emotion we get from Casey Affleck under a bedsheet. Or Rooney Mara’s soulful, evocative performance despite having little dialogue. I found it all to be both beautiful and tragic. Its story is patient and personal; its presentation audacious and impressionistic. It all had me under the film’s spell from the start.

#7 – “First They Killed My Father” Through four films Angelina Jolie has shown a sharp awareness of technique but has never quite hit her stride. That changes with her fifth film, “First They Killed My Father”. It’s a heart-wrenching true story of a young girl growing up during the Khmer Rouge reign in 1970s Cambodia. Jolie’s commitment to authenticity pays off. The movie was shot in Cambodia, with Cambodian performers, and uses the Khmer language. Also many films have told their story from a child’s perspective, but few have done it as well as Jolie does here. The true story in incredible, Jolie’s pacing is perfect, and the cinematography is stunning. It’s a difficult movie to watch but it’s an absolute must-see.

#6 – “The Lost City of Z” James Gray’s masterful biographical adventure “The Lost City of Z” didn’t get a ton of buzz, but it is a film that has stuck with me since my first viewing. Its story of British officer, geographer, and eventual South American explorer Percy Fawcett is fascinating on its own, but Gray’s storytelling is just as absorbing. You can’t help but see light shades of Herzog’s “Aguirre, the Wrath of God” and “Fitzcarraldo”. Even touches of John Huston come to mind. Yet remarkably James Gray has created a movie that feels completely of itself. It’s his best film. It’s Charlie Hunnam’s best performance to date. It’s easily one of my favorite movies of the year.

#5 – “Mudbound” Over the past few years there have been several movies willing to deal with slavery and the racial aftermath that reverberated for decades. “Mudbound” is the best of them. Set in the Mississippi delta during the 1940s, “Mudbound” tells the story of two families bound by the rugged farmland they work. Co-writer and director Dee Rees brilliantly portrays the harshness of the period setting while her shrewd handling of the racial climate is powerful and authentic. “Mudbound” is a devastating movie with a bold perspective, great performances throughout, and a young filmmaker with an incredible eye and great understanding of her material. The results are superb.

#4 – “Wonder Woman” DC’s attempts to match Marvel in the superhero genre haven’t been warmly received (sometimes unfairly but I’ll leave that be). “Wonder Woman” was the injection their shared universe needed. Director Patty Jenkins brings a fresh sensibility and perspective to the genre while still capturing what makes these comics-to-screen adventures so much fun. And of course there is Gal Gadot who not only makes Wonder Woman her own, but gives her more depth than I expected. And that’s what made this film one of the best of its genre – a protagonist with powers that leave us in awe but genuine emotions we can relate to.

#3 – “Columbus” One of the great surprises of 2017 was “Columbus” and its first-time feature filmmaker Kogonada. Rarely does a first film feature such a deft handling of story and visual technique. Set among the modernist architecture of Columbus, Indiana, Kogonada elegantly and meticulously composes shot after shot that are stunning but never without purpose. They always serve the beautiful but quietly devastating story of two wounded souls played by John Cho (who is fantastic) and Haley Lu Richardson who turns out to be a true revelation. It all melds into one of the most soulful experiences of the year and one of the strongest filmmaking debuts in decades.

#2 – “Phantom Thread” While I’ve always appreciated Paul Thomas Anderson’s talents as a filmmaker I often find myself mixed on his movies (“There Will Be Blood” aside). That’s certainly not the case with “Phantom Thread”, a masterful mixture of story and craft from a filmmaker perfectly in tune with his vision. Add in three superb performances led by the always spellbinding Daniel Day-Lewis (supposedly his last performance). The camerawork is exquisite, Jonny Greenwood’s score is intoxicating, the costume design is breathtaking and Anderson’s script is both beautiful and wildly unpredictable. Whether you’re an Anderson fan or not, “Phantom Thread” shows why he is considered among the great American directors.

#1 – “Dunkirk” In my mind Christopher Nolan has established himself as the premier big budget filmmaker of our time. Time and time again he has delivered fascinating cinematic experiences that make their own rules. “Dunkirk” is one of his best. This World War II action film honors an incredible true story by creating some of the most harrowing war sequences ever put to film. It fluidly moves between land, air, and sea campaigns while also using time in clever unexpected ways. But perhaps the most surprising element to “Dunkirk” is the emotional punch it packs. It’s not delivered through backstory or heavy plotting. The emotion builds through the intense visceral experience we share with the characters. The vividness of Nolan’s presentation puts us on that beach, aboard the boats, or in the planes. It’s a masterclass of filmmaking and storytelling.

Now it’s your turn. What did I get right? Where did I go horribly wrong? Please share your thoughts and your picks in the comments section below.

BlindSpot Review: “Grave of the Fireflies”

December 22, 2017 by Keith Garlington

In the final months of World War II American planes began a bombing campaign across the mainland of Japan. Incendiary bombs were dropped on over 60 cities and estimates are as high as 500,000 civilian deaths. This provides the setting for the powerful 1988 animated war drama “Grave of the Fireflies”, a movie I shamefully hadn’t seen until recently.

The film comes from the acclaimed Japanese animation team Studio Ghibli. It was written and directed by one of the studio’s founders Isao Takahata and based on a Akiyuki Nosaka autobiographical short story. Numerous offers were made to Nosaka to adapt his story to a live-action movie, but he felt none could do justice to the deeply personal story. Takahata approached Nosaka with storyboards and a fresh idea – make an animated adaptation. Nosaka was surprised and convinced by the concepts and Studio Ghibli was given the rights.

The opening scene immediately sets the tone for the film and identifies it as something significantly different than more traditional animated features. It’s a moving bit of foreshadowing which shapes our mental and emotional approach to what’s to come. I’ll leave it there because it truly is something you should take in for yourself (for those who haven’t seen it).

From there the story is told in flashback form. It focuses on a fourteenish boy named Seita and his 4 year-old sister Setsuko. It’s 1945 and the two live in Kobe, Japan with their mother while their father is away fighting the war with the Imperial Navy. One morning the sounds of air raid sirens pierce the sky. Seita sends his ailing mother to the bomb shelter and straps Setsuko to his back. After grabbing some belongings Seita runs outside to see incendiary bombs falling from the sky, almost beautiful in their decent. But on impact they ignite the entire neighborhood – houses, schools, stores, and many residents are incinerated.

Seita and Setsuko manage to survive but their mother is fatally burned. In one of the film’s many crushing scenes Seita finds his mother in a makeshift hospital and makes the decision not to tell Setsuko. It’s such a well constructed scene that doesn’t exploit the emotions of the moment. It lets them play out as naturally as anything you would see in a live-action rendition. The entire film handles the material with this type of reverence and sincerity.

With nowhere to go Seita and Setsuko’s story ultimately becomes one of survival. Without a home or parents they stay for time with their cruel and exploitative aunt. But soon they are driven away and once again find themselves on their own. Seita takes on the responsibility of caring for Setsuko himself. They essentially create their own little world and sustain it the best they can. Despite the harsh reality they face we also get scenes of them having fun as children do. Seita’s heartwarming compassion and sacrifice for his sister shows in the actions he takes. Setsuko’s love for her big brother comes through in every word or expression she shares with him. And as their circumstances grow more grim, they never lose their shared bond.

Takahata doesn’t shy away from the horrors of the bombings or the aftermath, but he doesn’t dwell on them either. Sobering glimpses jar us back to the reality these children face and we are never allowed to forget it. But every image is meaningful and effective. There is also practically no context given to the war, the two sides or their ideologies. Takahata isn’t interested in that even though the framework of the story may lead you to believe he is. His vision for the story is far more intimate and personal.

“Grave of the Fireflies” packs quite the emotional wallop. Writing on the conscientious yet more conventional animated films, Roger Ebert observed “they inspire tears, but not grief”. There is a lot of truth to that and it gets at what makes “Grave of the Fireflies” so special. It does more than ‘tug at your heartstrings’. It evokes deeper and more complex emotions. It does indeed give grief a powerful cinematic form. And even if (like me) you struggle with the animation style, the pure potency of the story and the care with which it is presented on screen trumps any hesitation you may have. The movie will not only move you, it will affect you, and that is one of the best compliments it can receive.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”

December 20, 2017 by Keith Garlington

The mammoth success of 2015’s “The Force Awakens” shouldn’t have surprised anyone. Star Wars fans had ten years of anticipation built up since the last movie and when Disney purchased the property from George Lucas they immediately began touting a new installment. Now just two years later (not counting last year’s stand-alone film) an incredible $450 million for the latest episode’s opening weekend indicates the fire hasn’t died down one bit.

“The Last Jedi” is the eighth film in the series proper, the ninth Star Wars film overall. And while it has been intensely popular and profitable, the reactions have been all over the map. Some have heralded it “the best Star Wars film since Empire” while others are petitioning Disney to have it removed from canon. Regardless of where you land, everyone has to agree that “The Last Jedi” continues the franchise trend of epitomizing the ‘space opera’ concept.

J.J. Abrams hands over the reins to Rian Johnson who both writes and directs episode VIII. Johnson has shown himself to be an intriguing filmmaker as evident by his movies “Brick” and the sci-fi mindbender “Looper”. But a Star Wars film is an entirely different animal, heavy with high expectations and an extremely passionate (and vocal) fanbase.

Johnson’s story offers franchise fans plenty to smile at and just as much to chew on. Several scenes call back to the original trilogy and the inspiration is undeniable. “The Force Awakens” not so subtly but effectively followed the blueprint of 1977’s “A New Hope”. You could say Johnson’s film is a melding of “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Return of the Jedi”. The structure of some scenes are so similar you can’t help but recognize it.

But fear not, this is no ‘copy and paste’ rehash. Johnson has numerous fresh strokes and narrative angles that makes “The Last Jedi” feel completely of its own. Some of Johnson’s decisions have stoked the ire of certain fans, but he’s clearly trying to develop his own take on the universe. Because of this a couple of characters handed off by Abrams don’t quite get the attention. Is it because they don’t completely fit within Johnson’s vision? I’m not sure.

“The Force Awakens” ends with Rey (Daisy Ridley) finding Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) on a remote island. Johnson drops his anchor and spends a lot of time on the island with Rey trying to convince Luke the Rebel Alliance needs him. She also seeks his help in understanding the Force and the powers she has discovered. But Luke has become a disillusioned hermit conflicted about his own legend and convinced the time of the Jedi has passed. Hamill’s performance may be his best yet and Ridley is such an asset. The two share several good scenes – some funny and some emotional.

Elsewhere in the galaxy the young rebellion led by General Leia (Carrie Fisher) is forced to evacuate their base after Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and the menacing First Order arrive. The pursuit that follows takes a big chunk of the film and includes the return of impetuous hot-shot pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), former stormtrooper turned resistance superstar Finn (John Boyega), and droid-of-all-trades BB-8. Fisher brings out a whole new layer of humanity to Leia that’s hinted at in the previous film but truly realized in this performance (sadly her last following her recent passing). Speaking of new layers, Kylo Ren has several of them and Johnson has made him into the most intriguing character of the new series.

“The Last Jedi” is the longest Star Wars film by a good 15 minutes and unfortunately you can tell. The first half has some big moments but it’s also a bit slow getting its footing. Johnson spends a tad too much time on the island only giving us baby steps of progression with Luke and Rey until finally getting in gear in the second half. The pursuit segment also has some stumbles particularly involving a side mission with Finn and a new character Rose (Kelly Marie Tran). Aside from some pretty obvious logistical issues, their mission lacks energy and only exists because of a pointless story angle involving another new face Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern). She is without question the most poorly conceived character of the new trilogy. This mission also features a pretty bad CGI-heavy chase sequence that felt completely out of sync with the rest of the movie.

At the same time there are many more things Johnson gets right especially in the second half where the intensity really amps up. I especially love the stress on characters and the personal bonds many of them share. And there is also the connections between the old and the new. I’ll be intentionally vague but this can be tricky ground for a filmmaker. Johnson nails it and none of these moments feel contrived or meaningless. Some had me wanting to cheer. Others brought tears to my eyes. The film also ends with an exhilarating final sequence that leaves the story in an interesting place, ready to be picked up in Episode IX.

I can certainly understand fans having a lot of questions. I do myself. But that’s a big part of the fun when it comes to a Star Wars movie – wondering and speculating. “The Last Jedi” has some early pacing issues and a few things that simply don’t make sense. But it’s still a fantastic Star Wars experience filled with excitement, emotion and nostalgia. It also features a few of those truly great moments that franchise fans will forever link with this film. I know I won’t forget them and my inner fanboy is getting a bit giddy just thinking about them.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

December 17, 2017 by Keith Garlington

Some actors work on a higher and entirely different plane than others. I’m convinced Denzel Washington is one of those actors. Over the years Washington has shown himself to be in tune with his craft. So much so that even when the material he works with may not be the strongest, he has a way of making it better. Take his new film “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”, a legal drama that could have collapsed at several points yet you have Washington, injecting every scene with life.

That’s not to take away from writer/director Dan Gilroy. He wrote the part specifically for Washington and he’s well aware that his star is the linchpin. Similar to Gilroy’s first turn as directing, 2014’s “Nightcrawler”, this is an engaging character study and morality play revolving around an intriguing central character. It’s a great fit for Washington who enjoys digging deep into his roles. For Roman he gets to go full throttle.

For 36 years Roman J. Israel has worked as the behind-the-scenes brains of a small, two-man Los Angeles firm. He’s an earnest go-getter with a photographic memory and an impressive history of civil rights defense. He’s also a bit of a wild card which has kept him in the office instead of the courtroom.

Washington pulls everything out of this fascinating, off-kilter character and then adds some flavor of his own. His Roman is rich with personality and is always operating within his own world. His eccentricities are evident from his lumbering stroll, unfashionable wardrobe, retro headphones, or his strong affection for peanut butter sandwiches. But it’s when Washington and Gilroy give him a voice that his peculiarities shine.

When his boss (who is also the face of the firm) suffers a heart attack, Roman is ready to take the helm, but he is blindsided when secrets begin to surface regarding his boss’ practices. Even worse, Roman learns the firm has been left in the hands of an ambitious hot-shot attorney George Pierce (Colin Farrell). With no plans to keep the practice running, George offers Roman a job at his big downtown firm out of pity. Strapped for cash Roman accepts, but in doing so is put face-to-face with the very things he has crusaded against.

Gilroy’s story puts Roman through some pretty tough situations which compound his frustrations. Does he stay true to his convictions or does he give in to the hand he has been dealt? Carmen Ejogo plays a civil rights activist who is intrigued and inspired by Roman. In many ways she plays his conscience – a representation of the ideals he has held close. Both she and Farrell offer up some good supporting work.

“Let us be enraged by injustice but not destroyed by it.” It’s a Bayard Rustin quote framed on the wall of Roman’s meager apartment. We revisit it a couple of times, each with a more stinging relevance than the last. It gets at the core of Roman J. Israel, a man of dignity but idealistic to a fault. Gilroy and Washington deftly open up this character’s quirks and complexities, and even when the narrative begins to wander Roman is still the focus. That alone was more than enough to keep me glued to the screen.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Lady Bird”

December 12, 2017 by Keith Garlington

Over the years Greta Gerwig has shown herself to be much more than simply Noah Baumbach’s muse. That unfair moniker does a disservice to her talents and accomplishments as an actress and co-writer. With her new film “Lady Bird” she can now add director to that list.

Speaking of unfair, for some “Lady Bird” is burdened by expectations it can’t possible meet. Adoring fans have been passionately shouting its praises since it debuted in September at the Telluride Film Festival. “Lady Bird” made news headlines everywhere after Rotten Tomatoes declared it to be the “Best Reviewed Movie of All Time”. No pressure.

I’ve got good news for those who can go see “Lady Bird” openly and unaffected by the hype. It’s a good movie. It has some issues which I’ll get into, but ultimately it reveals yet another side of Gerwig, this time completely behind the camera. “Lady Bird” shows her to be much more attuned to the art of filmmaking than many first-time directors. She’s nimble and assured of what she wants from each scene and the film benefits from her understanding and confidence.

Gerwig began writing the script years ago (the full writing credit is hers) under the name “Mothers and Daughters”. The story’s framework is inspired by her own life growing up in Sacramento, attending a Catholic High School, and desperately longing to leave for the east coast. That is also the film’s main character, Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson. She’s played by Saoirse Ronan, an Oscar nominee for “Brooklyn” and the perfect canvas for this movie both physically and expressively.

Gerwig’s coming-of-age story is unique in that its interests are internal and personal. Its narrative centerpiece isn’t the tired ‘girl likes boy, girl gets boy’ plot line. Similar to Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood”, “Lady Bird” deals more with the experience of life and the various elements outside of this young girl’s control that shape her experience. Lady Bird navigates these sometimes turbulent waters while seeking out her own identity and trying to define “her best self”.

Ronan personifies Gerwig’s vision in what could be called a case study of adolescence (and not the Hollywood version). She effortlessly moves from fireball to introvert and few can sell insecurity quite like Ronan. It’s realized through her many interactions including with her best friend (played in just the right tone by Beanie Feldstein). Mostly it’s in the scenes with her family particularly her deeply caring but passive-aggressive mother. She’s played by Laurie Metcalf who delivers one of the year’s best supporting performances.

Ronan and Metcalf have a staggering chemistry and Gerwig utilizes it in every scene they share. You could say this is a mother who loves her daughter to a fault. She’s a remarkably true yet complex person who one character describes as “warm but also kinda scary”. Lady Bird rebels in her own quirky way but you also see the longing she has for her mother’s acceptance. Look no further than the movie’s superb opening scene. Gerwig’s dialogue for the two is so precise and their relationship forms the emotional backbone of the entire film.

As good as the writing often is there are a couple of characters who feel surprisingly conventional. One is the Danny character, well played by Lucas Hedges, but hampered by the tidy and predictable thread that runs throughout his story. Also there is Lady Bird’s father played by Tracy Letts. His daddy archetype has been seen from “Sixteen Candles” to “Brave”. Don’t get me wrong, Letts is fantastic and contributes to some of the film’s best scenes. But his father character feels too familiar and easy to read which is surprising in a movie rich with wonderfully-conceived characters.

In a fabulous interview with Rolling Stone, Gerwig said “I just don’t feel like I’ve seen very many movies about 17-year-old girls where the question is not, ‘Will she find the right guy’ or ‘Will he find her?’ The question should be: ‘Is she going to occupy her personhood?’ Because I think we’re very unused to seeing female characters, particularly young female characters, as people.” This approach from Gerwig is what makes “Lady Bird” such a good movie. Its 2002 post-911 setting feels relevant, its portrait of adolescence feels genuine and personal, and its pitch-perfect and bittersweet final shot lands just right. I can understand the adoration especially from women who see reflections of their own mother/daughter relationships. The film has that kind of powerful resonance, but also expect to enjoy some good laughs along the way.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Thor: Ragnarok”

December 10, 2017 by Keith Garlington

Marvel Studios seems so have found a soft spot with many critics. Unlike their DC competition, Marvel movies are generally well received by critics who (as I gabbed about in my “Justice League” review) appreciate the MCU’s willingness to be a bit more lighthearted and poke fun at itself. Never has that been more true than with “Thor: Ragnarok”.

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 92% and over $820 million in the box office bank (so far), Thor’s third solo film and seventeenth installment in Marvel’s cinematic universe has been yet another critical and commercial success. But what made is such a treat for many critics is part of what held me back.

Easily the most intriguing thing about “Thor: Ragnarok” was the choice of director. Taika Waititi has made two of my favorite straight comedies of the past several years. “What We Do in the Shadows” and “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” showcased Waititi’s hyper-quirky brand of humor. Handing him the reins of a Marvel franchise film was guaranteeing something different.

The story begins with Thor (Chris Hemsworth) held captive by the flaming demon Surtur. Thor learns that his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) has left his throne and Surtur plans to fulfill the Ragnarok prophecy and destroy Asgard. The God of Thunder will have none of that. Waititi wastes no time showing his comic intentions. This quick opening sequence summarizes the balance the entire film wants to maintain – wacky humor and superhero action.

For the remainder of the first act the story hurriedly hops from one plot point to the next. Thinking he has prevented Ragnarok, Thor returns to Asgard and soon learns the true threat to the realm is none other than Cate Blanchett. She plays Hela, the Goddess of Death and Odom’s long-lost firstborn who returns to Asgard to take the throne and wake her army of the dead. Her intent is the same as most MCU baddies – power, world domination, the usual. But Blanchett is wickedly fun, a bit dry at times but a hoot.

Hela wins round one and Thor finds himself stranded on a trashy planet ran by Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster. No one else in the film can match Goldblum whose performance is both bizarre and hysterical. Waititi urged Goldblum to improvise and the actor runs with it without the slightest restraint. I can see some audience members bewildered by what he’s doing. I found him to be an absolute scene stealer.

Adding to the fun is the return of the mischievous Loki (Tom Hiddleston). We also get an overly chatty Hulk played partly by Mark Ruffalo and partly by a lot of green CGI. Idris Elba also returns as Heimdall, Asgard’s guardian sentry. The biggest new addition is Tessa Thompson who plays a hard-as-nails bounty hunter with a complicated past. Thompson adds plenty of energy even though she occasionally overplays the hard-drinking scoundrel type.

Waititi and company put together a lot of big action, but the film plays more as a comedy which means plenty of funny moments. But his treatment of Thor clashes with the past Marvel movies. From his first film Thor has been a bit of a lug. “Ragnarok” portrays him as more of a wisecracking dimwit. There are scenes where he steps outside of that box and reminds us of why he’s one of Marvel’s powerhouses. But after this movie it will be hard for some to see him as much more than a goof. The same could be said with Hulk. The film makes some weird moves with him and it will be interesting to see how it effects the character going forward.

Those not interested in continuity or source material won’t have any problems with “Thor: Ragnarok”. That’s probably the best way to approach it. For me, despite having some truly great aspects, something felt off. I can’t deny the film’s charm and there are some genuinely funny scenes. By no means is it a difficult watch. But I find its skittish first act and some questionable character handling is still gnawing at me.