Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

I don't often give hearts to a movie I rate 4 stars, but this movie tugged all the right strings for me, even if it didn't quite hit all the right notes. The movie is packaged in such a whimsically charming way that gives me joy. The visuals are exciting (the animation and live action mix is even more seamless with 2018 visual effects), the pace is leisurely, and the plot is perfectly sentimental. I do believe in the power of nostalgia and the enduring magic of Mary Poppins. Derivative isn't an accurate description when the movie is done well to nostalgic effect. After fifty years, I don't think anyone was really asking for a sequel, but I'm so glad it's here.

The biggest fault of the movie (and it's a big one) is the music. It is...just fine. In most situations, it would be sufficient. But this is Mary Poppins. The music from the original is iconic. The new music simply is not that catchy. Musicals have to have memorable music, moreover Disney musicals have to have singable music.

But I can overlook that because the rest of the movie is so much fun. Emily Blunt is amazing, really making the quintessentially British nanny her own. She is the epitome of elegance. Special call-outs for Lin-Manuel Miranda and Ben Whishaw too. Meryl Streep makes a cameo appearance that does not really advance the plot. And I didn't even see her in the end in the balloon scene. They probably should have cut out that scene.One last note on Rob Marshall. He can't resist the Chicago-esque scene when Lin and Emily dance and sing on stage about book covers. Mary Poppins even wears a Catherine Zeta Jones-esque hairpiece. Don't get me wrong, it's a great scene but the wig looks so out of place for her that you can't help thinking it.

The Lobster (2015)

The Lobster is a super strange and awkward movie. It almost has a bit of a Wes Anderson feel to it. I love the premise. It is fresh and original. Colin Farrell moves into a hotel where singles have 45 days to find a partner lest they get turned into an animal. The first half of the film is highly enjoyable. It is a quiet kind of funny and you have no idea what is coming up next. The premise evolves and unravels and you're never sure what insane new rule the hotel came up with or what quirky guest is staying there. I won't reveal too much cause it's really insane. I do feel like the movie sort of falls apart in the second half. The hotel was so brilliant, that I was unsatisfied with the world created outside it where you have to learn a new set of rules.  I would've been happy if they had just fleshed out the story within the confines of the hotel. It's a shame because I really like Rachel Weisz, but the second half in which she appears was a little difficult for me to follow. 

Spectre (2015)

Sure, it was never going to live up to the glory of Skyfall, but Spectre fell far short. This is James Bond and we have come to expect certain things from 007--that is action sequences. And for a two and a half hour movie, they are too few and far between. And in such a long movie, they travel to a lot of different locations, more than necessary (Mexico, London, Rome, Tangiers, Tokyo, and middle-of-nowhere). There is more story than action. Action movies have gotten more story heavy lately and I can appreciate that, but I don't think the film did a very good job at explaining things. We are given so little to go on and the leads that he follows seem to arise out of nowhere. I also thought the dialogue was quite lacking. There is some lame dialogue and some uncharacteristically funny lines (Bond doesn't do funny). And that very last scene was wholly unnecessary. The film does attempt to tie all of the Craig films together (it kind of inexplicably tries to) and then ties up the Craig films period. I think it would be appropriate for him to end on that note and let someone else don the suit.

The Danish Girl (2015)

The Danish Girl is very similar to last year's The Theory of Everything.  Eddie Redmayne underwent a complete transformation for both roles and he is likely to be a contender for the Oscars this year too (though I think his likelihood of winning is pretty low having already won last year).  Both films featured strong female characters (arguably co-leads) to complement Redmayne's--both were played by excellent newcomers to Hollywood.  And both are variants on a traditional romance.

There are stages to Gerda and Lili/Einar's relationship.  It didn't feel like the stages followed a natural progression.  Until the last third or so, it was not clear that Gerda's love for Einar would persevere.  I was expecting Gerda to love Einar unconditionally, but for a large chunk in the middle she does not seem to understand Einar or Lili.  And I don't expect her to get it right away, but I did not find a turning point where it clicked for her.  It appears to the viewer that she uses Lili for financial gain and it is not clear where her feelings and her work separate paths. Where it all changed was the conversation with Dr. Warnerkos. All of a sudden, Gerda became ultra supportive. Maybe it was that she felt guilty for triggering Einar, and finally understood that it was not Gerda's doing, but that is not clear.  And when things turn around, it is Lili that pushes Gerda away.  Lili/Elbe are presented as dual personalities--two people who inhabit the same body with one who loves Gerda and one who pushes Gerda away. Perhaps that is how transgender people were understood in the 1920s, but as far as I understand that is not quite the case.  For example, Lili claimed that she could not paint because Einar was the painter.  But if this was an activity that Einar enjoyed and had success in, then Lili could have done the same.  She should be allowed to live her life normally as a transitioned woman.

I appreciate Danny Cohen's cinematography. He also worked with Hooper on The King's Speech. He centers certain shots, and lets others sit uncomfortably off-center. But I love the artistic choice.  And Alexandre Desplat's score is very fitting. He always composes great works.  The acting is superb. Eddie Redmayne is extraordinary and makes a full transformation into character both into Einar and then into Lili.  His makeup and costumes are very well done and very convincing.  There has been some controversy over the casting of a cis man as Lili Elbe, but I would contend that Redmayne is properly cast as Einar, and then he makes the transformation successfully to play Lili.  Alicia Vikander has had a standout year following her breakout role in Ex Machina.  She is astounding, too, and she does not allow Redmayne to upstage her--after all she is titular Danish Girl, too.

Sufragette (2015)

The protagonist, played by Carey Mulligan, is a young working class woman who does not like to be classified as a Suffragette, but when her husband predictably throws her out she takes up the cause wholeheartedly.  Both Carey Mulligan and Helena Bonham Carter are excellent. Meryl Streep gets a brief moment in the spotlight as activist Emmeline Pankhurst. Her screen time is very brief, emphasizing to the audience that the groundwork done by average women was of utmost importance to the cause.  Pankhurst served as inspiration, but the people had to act on their own--change is effected from the grassroots.  Their method is militancy, and yet the audience is made to sympathize with the suffragettes who are thwarted by the patriarchal society of Great Britain.

The camerawork is very unsettling throughout the movie.  Much like any effective activism, it is in-your-face.  The camera is so close to Carey Mulligan's face, that the viewers are quite uncomfortable. But you should feel uncomfortable, because in order to upend the status quo, we cannot be satisfied with comfort.  The cinematography understands this and does not let the audience forget it.  The end of the film has a fade to white, followed by real, powerful archival footage from 1913, which is pretty incredible in and of itself.

I got to see an advanced screening of this movie at The Charles Theater by the Gender Studies Department at JHU!

I'm Not There (2007)

I'm Not There is a very innovative biopic that very loosely based on "the many lives" of Bob Dylan.  Dylan is played by six different actors, including a black child actor, and a woman.  Each character goes by a different name (none of them Bob or Dylan) and they represent different stages of Dylan's life, or rather different parts of his persona.  Cate Blanchett was especially convincing playing a 60s-era Dylan.  I wish I knew a little more about Bob Dylan because I feel like I missed out on a lot of the details that were included in the film that allude to his life.

The film is very stylish with two of the six actors being portrayed in black and white, and one of the six being portrayed in a documentary format.  Time is not linear in the slightest, jumping constantly between personas.  The whole thing is very surreal and sometimes you're not quite sure what to make of what you're seeing on screen.  But it is fitting for such an enigmatic man as Bob Dylan.

The film opens with a motorcycle accident (a reference to Dylan's own motorcycle accident) and Jude Quinn's subsequent autopsy.  I could not help but draw a parallel to the opening of Lawrence of Arabia, another biopic about a complex man who wore different personas in different phases of his life.