Making a novel into a book is about understanding who the perception of the film is based towards. “The Goldfinch” is very clear about this and the hyperfocus of a boy who goes through a tragedy. The story is told with aplomb in many ways. The movie plods along with the essence of a late 70s movie but at times seems to forget what it is serving and, at others, seems laser focused. Director John Crowley, who also directed the rich “Brooklyn” which starred Domnhall Gleeson and Soarise Ronan, does an apt job here with reservations.
“Brooklyn”, like “The Goldfinch” does no feel the need to move to satisfy people’s current tastes. The movie is not so much a thriller or a mystery which some of the trailers might claim it to be. It is a basic character story…maybe one that would have been better served by a limited television series. But movies are meant to be seen in many ways on the big screen since certain actors can shine in ways that are different in other mediums.
This film is truly that of Oakes Fegley who plays the young Theo (played by Angel Elgort in the later scenes). Fegley conveys a sense of dread and lost childhood. His possession of a certain artifact after a tragedy is what connects the movie. While the grief and emotional pull of his acting is not overwhelming, it is palpable especially when he is inside the house of Nicole Kidman or hanging out with his Russian school friend on the edge of society in Las Vegas.
Nicole Kidman takes a small role as his caregiver and surrogate mother at two points in his life. Even though her character doesn’t have a whole ton to do, Kidman is undeniably effective as the mother who is in control and yet not, compassionate and yet poised, happy and yet sad. It reminds me in certain ways of Kidman in “The Hours” or Julianne Moore in “Far From Heaven” though those are still better performances. But she is understated here.
The true waste of the film since she has a role that could been played by anyone is that of Sarah Paulson. As an audience member it is undeniable to know what she is capable of. Maybe she wanted to work with the director but her talent is just barely touched in this as the Las Vegas girlfriend of Theo’s dad (overplayed a bit by Luke Wilson).
The only one who seems to get a more fully formed structure is Geoffrey Wright as a antiques dealer who suffers a loss but also offers an unfettered kindness to the victims. Geoffrey hasn’t had a chance to play such soul in a long while. You can see the emotional hurt pouring through him.
Ansel Elgort as the older Theo takes on a quieter role than he is know for. The acting again is solid but not transcendent and while the movie undeniably has to move to its end with a certain determination, its resolution is simply satisfactory yet still fulfilling. The music adds just the right amount of melodrama without overstating and Robert Richardson’s cinematography is understated and yet luscious at the same time. John Crowley as with “Brooklyn” shows that he is an apt director but is not catering to anybody’s notion of pace. While that may make the movie slow, it does not make it any less of a well made movie. It is just not as greater as maybe it wants to be. It comes off as a effective adaptation of a book, one that is very cognizant of not losing its identity along the way.
By Tim Wassberg
The undeniably draw of the story of IT is the narrative of the community prevailing over the tyranny. The first chapter had a dexterous draw to the children of the 80s. The archetypal structures that had made “Stranger Things” a success were fully embodied by Stephen King many years before albeit in a different time. When the miniseries was made in the 90s, it used a different reference. But, as with this film, it used the innocence and naïveté of youth to propel the story. Now with the introduction of Chapter 2, it progresses the idea to modern times…and while it does not portray an essence of exactly today, it nonetheless feels now which sometimes can interrelate too closely for a sense of closure in a narrative. Pennywise in the first film was that aspect of the unknown, that personification of fear that cannot be contained. Bill Skarsgard’s portrayal in that film was a new way to see this permutation of fear that preys upon children’s misunderstanding of the unknown. While the adult actors reflect their characters well, it is not as key to the journey.
The first movie was a quest in a way, while the second film is more about placing the puzzle pieces together. The inherent structure of the book worked more in jumping in tandem between young psychology and mature thinking. That dynamic was not possible at first as it was not guaranteed the first film would be a hit. Its connection is what drew bigger actors like Jessica Chastain, who had worked with director Andy Muschetti on her early film “Mama” as well as her longtime friend and collaborator James McAvoy. Most of the rest of the kids save for Bill Hader as Richy are unknowns per se which allows the audience to buy into the belief of them returning more fully. The most effective element here is the transition in location between the young and old versions in key sequences. These are the segments of the film that truly work without seeming that it is rushing to tie up loose ends. Sequences like those in a funhouse which should illicit more dread don’t seem as powerful as they should be. Skarsgard as Pennywise, doesn’t have as much as a presence as in the first one, and is missed in many ways as the story, in adhering to King’s narrative, uses his continual use of Native American lore more as a central context. This idiom, which at times is overused in King’s narratives, is used perhaps to plug a narrative hole in comparison to perhaps “Pet Sematary” where it was more essential to the story. And at other times, like in “Dreamcatcher”, it can work quite well. Here however it is not explained enough to make full sense to the casual viewer, or even one familiar with the world.
The aspect of the subconscious especially involving the memory of the Losers, is adequately played but not as fulfilling as it should be. The best example of all cylinders working without the filmmakers worrying too overtly about the plot is when the gang comes back together at a Chinese restaurant in Derry (this was also the scene that was teased in the recent theater re-release of the first film). This scene paints the dread of Pennywise still apparent from the first film but also perfectly encapsulates the details of the grown characters as adults. Balancing these two worlds however is tricky while also keeping to audience expectations. “It Chapter 2” tries in many ways to live up to the original but it is a different construct. It is about how people understand aspects when they are older versus perceptions when they are young. While it does an admirable job of placing those story points in play, its delivery simply does not live up to the first film, through no fault of the actors or story but simply because of the trajectory placed against it.
By Tim Wassberg
The texture of a monster movie relies on its sheer size but the diametrics of destruction have a certain threshold of believability and therefore, art in a way. Sometimes with certain dialogue it is better to say nothing at all, than risk an essence of impact. “Godzilla: King Of The Monsters” suffers from this ailment in numerous and many ways. Even though the texture of some of the large monster scenes is indeed impressive, the core family story that is supposed to fuel it with Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga and Millie Bobby Brown just falls flat mainly because of confused motivations and simply bad dialogue. “The MEG” functioned in this same way but with more of a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor but that cannot save a bad script. Now popcorn movies can be just that but they can be done with that sense of weight. The first “Godzilla” made by Gareth Edwards took a different approach with Godzilla in terms of the mystery and especially with the Bryan Cranston family angle, it definitely gave it a sense of stakes. Here it switches it around but Farmiga’s character who is motivated by loss is one sided. Vera is an exceptional actress but one cannot save bad motivation. Kyle Chandler, so great in “Wolf Of Wall Street”, seems exceptional cardboard and flat here. Millie Bobbie Brown is the only that seems to understand or at least try to impact what she is doing but she seems like she is doing almost a different movie or script than what is being filmed. Her part works. In essence, this is likely the fault of the director.
Michael Dougherty wanted to take the film to a different tone than the first one with this sense of scale. But oddly enough Godzilla had much more a sense of scale in the Gareth Edwards’ version. Another actor that understands what film should be created is Ken Watanabe, He has a sense of weight and genuinely a sense of loss for what Godzilla could be. His solo scene where he confronts Godzilla is perhaps the high point in the movie. The overall dexterity of the film though lacks cohesion as if the director was more interested in the sequences than the actual story. That is fine in certain cases but it really creates a separation of definition when the motivations come off as a laughable. There is somewhat of a happy medium somewhere between what Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla was and this. One is a disaster movie and one is a perception on survival. The aspect here that should inspire comes out as schlock.
By Tim Wassberg