After being pushed back 6 or so months after Will Smith’s controversy at last season’s Oscars, Emancipation finally hit theaters and Apple TV+. It is based on the true story of a slave named Gordon (named changed to Peter in the film), a man whose picture depicting the criss-crossed scars resulting from life-long whippings and abuse stirred a nation and the world. In the beginning of the film, Peter is being removed from the plantation in Louisiana where he’s lived for many years, because the confederate army is conscripting slaves to work on a nearby railroad for the war. Peter is torn from his family, and we immediately see his defiant nature. Peter was not born a slave; he and his wife are from Haiti, and he’s never lost his spirit nor his desire to be free. Life at the confederate army camp is brutal, with slaves being worked literally until they die, if they aren’t killed sooner for not working fast enough. Some time later, a rumor comes through from a returned runaway that the north is freeing slaves, and that the northern army has gained a foothold at Baton Rouge, just 5 days journey away. Peter is willing to take this chance to get away. He and 3 other slaves make a run for it at the first opportunity, but a slave hunter (played devilishly by Ben Foster) sets out after them. Peter never learned to read or write, but he knows the swamps of Louisiana, and uses all of his cunning to evade the hunters. I’m sure director Antoine Fuqua wanted a deep, resonating film, but it comes off as more of an action flick. As far as war films go, the end result is more The Patriot than Glory, but that’s still not too bad (who doesn’t like The Patriot?!). It desperately wants to be more, but its contemplative moments seem more like small diversions from the action, rather than true moments of clarity. The director is still trying to match the critical success of his breakout Training Day 20 years ago; since then he’s had good movies, but nothing stellar, and several downright bad movies. For every Training Day and The Equalizer, there’s The Equalizer sequel or The Magnificent Seven (or, worse, Southpaw or The Guilty). ★★★½
Warriors of Future is a Hong Kong film that took a very long time to get made. Three years in development before production finally began in 2017, and then post-production and VFX taking forever (especially after COVID hit), the film finally saw release this year. It’s a sci-fi film in the vein of Space Sweepers, a movie I quite enjoyed. Don’t expect anything more than great special effects and you won’t be disappointed. Taking place just a couple decades in the future, the Earth is on the cusp of environmental collapse, pushed to the edge by pollution, global warming, and advanced warfare between nations. Cities are only surviving thanks to large biodome ceilings erected over them to protect their inhabitants. To make matters worse, a meteorite crashed in Hong Kong, carrying an alien plant species which grows at breakneck speed whenever it is exposed to moisture. However, a scientific breakthrough may solve both problems. A virus has been built which, when inserted into the alien plant, causes it to go dormant, stop growing, and also release air-purifying gases, lessening the pollutants that are endangering the planet. A team of military veterans must get to ground zero, where the plant’s center is, to insert the virus, and it must be done before a big rain storm comes in, which would trigger the plant to destroy all that’s left of the nation. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to see the plant destroyed, and the soldiers must battle the plant, it’s alien protectors, as well as super robots sent in by their own military commanders. Dialogue’s not great, the story is flimsy at best, but the film delivers heart-pounding action and (mostly) fantastic sci-fi effects. Turn your brain off for 90 minutes and sit back and enjoy. ★★★½
There’ve been a couple Pinocchio stories released over the last couple years, one great and one not-so-great. Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio is the latest. Another film which took a very long time to get made (the director first announced it way back in 2008), it is a stop-motion animated film, reimagining the original story to 1930s fascist Italy. During World War I, popular local carpenter Geppetto loses his son Carlo when bombers hit his city. 20 years later, Geppetto has never recovered; he never returned to working, and spends his days drinking at the site of his son’s grave, looked over by a tree planted in his memory. One night, in a drunken fit, Geppetto cuts down the tree and puts together a wooden boy in his grief. Over the night, a wood sprite visits the shop and gives Pinocchio life, and tasks a sentient cricket (Sebastian “J” Cricket, *ahem*) to look after the boy. The sprite promises Sebastian that if he does his job, the cricket will be granted one wish in the future. And so the story begins. This is definitely not your family Disney version. Geppetto doesn’t immediately embrace this strange wooden boy in his house, and Pinocchio isn’t imbued with the desire to be a “real boy” (and thus doesn’t even attempt to obey directions in the beginning); he only wants to explore and experience new things. The film is also very dark and even scary at times. However, the sense of magic permeates, and while parents of the youngest of children should stick to the cartoon, older (maybe 10-ish?) kids will be fine and probably really enjoy it, and adults may be reminded of plenty of lessons that should never be forgotten. A heart-warming story of love and sacrifice, gorgeously told. ★★★★★
OK, I couldn’t help myself. Had to watch Clerks III. I’ve been (mostly) a Kevin Smith fan since the very beginning, and even those films that most people love to hate, I still (mostly) enjoy. If you think you are going to find anything different in Clerks III, you’re kidding yourself. Much like Jay and Silent Bob Reboot was a rehash of their first road film, Clerks III is a rehash of the first Clerks picture from way back in ’94. They even tell some (many?) of the same jokes. Dante and Randall are now co-owners of the Quick Stop, with Jay and Silent Bob running a (legal) marijuana dispensary in the old video store next-door. In the beginning of the film, Randall has a near-fatal heart attack, causing him to second guess his life. He randomly decides to make a movie chronicling his life, the script of which is, of course, the script from the first Clerks movie. They bring all the (now much older) actors back to recreate their scenes, so it becomes a big walk down memory lane, even with some love for the universally-panned Clerks II, as well as easter eggs for all of Smith’s other films. The end of the film strays a bit too far into sentimentality for me, but I’ll allow it. Lots of cameos as we’ve come to expect from Smith, which are fun (and short). I think this film is really just for the fans though. If you are, you’ll find plenty to laugh and reminisce about. If you aren’t, you should save your time. ★★★½
Lady Chatterley’s Lover is the newest film version of the once-banned book by oft-censored author D.H. Lawrence. The film begins with Connie’s marriage to the Lord Clifford Chatterley, just before he heads off to fight in the Great War. He returns a paraplegic, and becomes entirely dependent on his young wife for care. Initially, he refuses any other help, so Connie is at his side day and night, and everything in their life revolves around him; they even leave London, where Connie enjoys her family and friends, to go to his familial estate out in the country, where life is less hectic for Clifford. He seems a nice man, caring about his wife’s health and well being, even going so far as to suggest she seek male companionship elsewhere, since he no longer works “down there.” He hopes to get something out of her tryst too: an heir, to carry on his name, as long as no one else knows about the paternity. At first, Connie is aghast, but only until she starts hanging around the estate’s gamekeeper, Oliver. A strong everyman who is everything that Clifford is not, Connie is quickly swept off her feet, and once she insists that Clifford allow others to help care for him besides herself, she has even more time to run and be with Oliver. But Clifford has a dark side that has until now been mostly unknown: he doesn’t care that Connie finds a man to impregnate her, as long as the man is still of their station, and not “beneath them.” He will not take well to learning of her dalliance with the help. As a period drama, the film is just a notch above “ok.” Lots (and lots) of sex, just like the book, but I do feel the modern telling of it was easier to follow than the long-winded Lawrence novel, and the performances of Emma Corrin (from The Crown) and Jack O’Connell (from, well, everything) as Connie and Oliver are quite good. ★★★
- TV series currently watching: Peaky Blinders (seasons 3+4)
- Book currently reading: All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr
Jons Movie Takes 