Michael Che Matters (2016)

If you like Michael Che, you'll like his comedy special. His delivery is pretty much exactly the same as on SNL Weekend Update. And even the jokes are kind of similar. He sort of laughs at his own jokes, which he does on SNL too--it's part of the whole breaking thing that SNL does not discourage. It works. That is to say, I thought he was funny. I enjoyed it. 

Grillo vs Grillo (2017)

I tried watching stand-up comedy in Italian. And surprisingly, I understood a large chunk of it. But maybe my sense of humor is just un-Italian, because I didn't think it was very funny. Sure, it has its moments, but the whole thing seemed a little too forced. It is very political. The whole thing is essentially made up of stories from Grillo's life, to explain how his Movimento Cinque Stelle became what it is today. And in terms of politics, I think that's brilliant. We learned about Grillo at school.  He has become a very important figure in Italian politics. You cannot discuss it without mentioning Grillo's populist movement and you can see why he's popular. He's a charismatic story teller and says what he's thinking. He points out the things that everybody knows but was too afraid to say, In a way, he's kind of like Bill Maher, who also got fired way back when for controversial comments made on air. But Grillo has actually created a movement. 

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

I think Disney actually did an enchanting job with this remake of the (Oscar Best Picture-nominated) original. The acting and casting is spot on. Specifically, Emma Watson is simply divine. She's beautiful and charming and who knew she could sing? Her voice actually sounds very pure. She is helped greatly by the new orchestrations, modernizing the familiar tunes. Emma Thompson is fine as Mrs. Potts but I don't think her rendition of the title song can match the iconic Angela Lansbury. There are some new songs in addition to the old classics. And they're all quite good. There is a noticeable amount of diversity among the villagers and even some interracial couples, though in provincial France they were surely all white. Disney of course had the controversy with Josh Gad's flamboyantly gay Le Fou, but it was actually surprisingly tame. They're making a big deal out of nothing. And Josh Gad is perfect for Le Fou. Besides, shouldn't Le Fou be gay? It's really just reading a little deeper into his character. The one casting I wasn't crazy about was Dan Stevens for beast. I have to admit, I did not recognize him or his name, but it's Matthew from Downton Abbey! His face is only in a small portion of the film, but the big reveal at the end was shocking. He looked to pretty with his golden locks to be taken seriously. It was like a joke ripped from the cover of a romance novel. If Disney was really trying to push boundaries, the prince would've been black.

Visually, the castle and costumes are quite stunning. The Be Our Guest sequence is just like the original. I, personally, had a problem seeing the detail though. I don't know if it was the movie or me, but every time the camera moved, everything looked blurry. I couldn't make out any of the lines. It felt like watching a 3D movie without the glasses on sometimes. Maybe it was filmed in 3D? There are definitely 3D versions being shown, but we had a 2D screening in a large cinema in Dublin.

Patton (1970)

The Strategic Studies Club screened Patton for the obvious reasons, but it is such a sprawling epic that there were only four of us left in the end. Patton is a film about a complicated man. I kind of drew some parallels with Lawrence of Arabia, another film about a crazy (I think Patton was further along the crazy scale--he thinks he was reborn as all the great generals) historical war figure who dies in an automobile accident. George C. Scott really embodies the character in all his eccentricities. We go inside him and try to understand how he craves war. And by the end, we kind of get it. That iconic opening monologue in front of the American flag is really telling. It is an introduction to the man and the myth that is fully developed over the next three hours with unflinching reality.

Your Name. (Kimi no Na wa) (2016)

Your Name is strangely brilliant. What makes it brilliant is the trippy plot. Everyone knows it's a body-swapping movie, but it surprisingly becomes much more than that. It throws in a welcome twist that I did not see coming. It becomes more than just Freaky Friday, but a time-travel disaster movie. It is also brilliant because of its beautiful animation. It is cinematic. I know it's all drawn, but the "camera" pans, it zooms, it moves. How incredible is that? The animators take painstaking care to create a real world. There are real locations that I recognized, like the pedestrian bridge outside the Toshin building in Shinjuku. Firstly, I was shocked that I recognized it. But secondly, I was shocked that it merited being in the movie.

It's kind of cheesy in the way that anime is (like the title?). I think Western audiences are just not very used to it but what is mainstream in anime comes off as cheesy--the shrieking voices, the dramatic poetic narration. But what stands out the most are the musical interludes. It's very strange, sort of recapping and interpreting the movie for us. We have become accustomed to Studio Ghibli's anime, but the animation style is actually totally different. But I think Your Name is a good introduction for Western audiences to a more traditional style of anime. Makoto Shinkai is supposedly the "new Hayao Miyazaki." What is yet to be seen is if he'll have the same crossover appeal.

Jackie (2016)

Natalie Portman is just divine. I'm glad she made this triumphant return to serious films. Jackie Kennedy created this fairy tale of Camelot quite brilliantly ex post facto. I actually didn't know how the Camelot analogy came about, but now I do and it's a fascinating study of a grieving woman with a legacy to think about. And Portman plays the part as regal as we imagine Camelot, helped immensely by the gorgeous, glamorous costumes of the 60s. She speaks just like Jackie Kennedy. It's in fact so spot on with the cadence and rise and fall of her voice that it's kind of annoying.  Her regular speech was very breathy like a whisper. Portman is poised and always in control, even when in a vulnerable grieving state. She strictly instructs the journalist on what he is to publish. There is a great philosophical/theological scene with a priest in which we see Jackie in a different position. It is perhaps the only moment she is not in the power position. She listens to him, and genuinely takes what he has to say with authority.

The breathy voice along with the beautiful score by Mica Levi is haunting. It's the perfect word to describe the tone of the movie. The cello is a pretty haunting instrument and the dissonance, from the very first notes at the beginning of the film, give it a creepy vibe. The fantastic use of the Camelot soundtrack contributes to the eerie aura surrounding the Kennedy legacy. The camera is often uncomfortably close to the face. Grief up close is discomfiting. We literally get an intimate look at her.

The story centers around the week following JFK's assassination. There are several flashbacks weaved seamlessly into the plot. It shouldn't work, but this disconnected storytelling does work. The interview with the journalist is used as a vehicle for the flashbacks. There is a very authentic look to the White House Tour and some of the other seemingly archival footage. It is a story that makes you think about legacy. What is legacy? How is it formed? How is it manipulated? And what did JFK do? Our remembrance of JFK is very much colored by the aftermath of his assassination. Thanks, Jackie.

Manchester by the Sea (2016)

By no means is it a fun film. No, it's about as depressing as it gets-. I really appreciated the storytelling. Kenneth Lonergan's script is well developed, unfolding in stages, weaving in flashbacks seamlessly, slowly revealing how our characters became the characters they are. It is an emotional story made more so by full fledged characters. Casey Affleck plays the troubled brother of the deceased. He is very good, dealing with grief in his own way. His expression does not change when he is first informed of his brother's death. Grief is a process, and we watch him go through various stages. Lucas Hedges, too, is excellent. His is another approach to grief. He provides some comic relief to the audience. What is perhaps so impressive about the characters are how real them seem. That's why it's so powerful.