Review Round-Up: Emancipation, The Fablemans, Smile, Pinocchio, Bros, and more
Fine, I'll talk about James Gunn, too
Welcome back to another edition of Week in the Way. I’m Paul Shirey of The Way of the Shirey, and this week will be a review round-up of sorts, as I’ve seen quite a few films that I’d like to give my two cents on. On the news side things have slowed down as we prepare for Christmas, but one area that hasn’t slowed down is the back-and-forth with James Gunn and his armada of fans and haters.
Last week I started a piece on this whole WB/DC drama debacle, but as I was writing it the situation just kept evolving and it became apparent that unless I was going to keep updating it, then it was best to just let it play out to some kind of finality before I weighed in. I’ve commented here and there on Twitter, which is the best way to keep up with things on a timely basis, but I’m waiting to write an all-encompassing piece about everything once Gunn makes his announcements in January.
After the “layoffs” of Henry Cavill, Dwayne Johnson, and seemingly the rest of the old guard at DC, the one voice that spoke up saying he isn’t going anywhere is Zachary Levi, who has jumped to the defense of Gunn and Peter Safran’s new DC and given a message that pretty much aligns with what I feel at the moment.
Here’s the quote from Levi, who made these comments during an Instagram Live video on December 22nd:
“You have no idea the reasonings behind any of the decisions that are going on. The amount of conjecture and rumor mill and drama and nonsense that keeps getting spun around out there on Instagram and Twitter is laughable. It is unbelievably laughable. So I would just say be patient, and give them some space and some time to try and really make something special. And I think something that DC deserves to have, and something that [Zack] Snyder tried to do and it just didn’t ultimately materialize, guys.
[Gunn and Safran] are not just making decisions because they like someone or don’t like someone. They’re making decisions based on what is best for Warner Bros., DC, that entire studio and entity and trying to make as many fans, as much of an audience, happy as they can.
If you’re out there and really like what happened before, you can do that, that’s fine. But recognize that there’s a lot of people who didn’t like those things, and we should always be trying to tap into as much audience as possible, make as many people happy as possible. That’s what we’re in entertainment for, and that’s what I think Peter and James are trying to do. And it’s not an easy position, they got handed all these things that were already in a lot of conflict. So guys, just fucking give ’em a break. Take it easy. Take a breath. It’s the holidays, for god’s sake. Just go enjoy what the holidays are, let’s give them some time to enjoy the holidays, and let’s see what happens on the other side of this.”
I think that’s about the most reasoned response thus far, but then again, it may well be so impassioned, because he’s not out of a job. Both Cavill and Johnson gave very cordial messages about their exits, that feel like a nice way of saying “I was fired”, while Gadot gave a cryptic message about her future, while Mamoa is out chopping off his locks and getting his head tattooed. As for Ezra Miller, well it seems like WB has him locked down at the moment, probably tied to a radiator on the studio lot until after the movie is released. Surprisingly, The Flash will have a Superbowl trailer this year, which shows some faith in the film, as that’s a hefty investment.
At any rate, there’s just far too much in flux to write about every new development on this one. However, I will comment on one thing now, and that’s my feeling that Gunn needs to pump the brakes on Twitter before he becomes Trumplike in his division with fans. Say what you will about Marvel Studios and the floundering state of quality in the MCU since Phase 4 kicked off, but you don’t see Kevin Feige addressing every fan criticism on Twitter. In fact, he hasn’t tweeted since 2020. He takes to the stage a few times a year and pimps his wares and lets the chips fall where they may. He’s got bigger things to worry about than answering every disgruntled fan’s hypothetical questions or gripes.
For Gunn, who surely learned a thing or two from Feige, he may want to revisit the chapter on how to address fans, because he’s already said more than was ever necessary. I don’t know if it’s his own ego or if it’s more complex, but he doesn’t have to answer every question that comes his way. And, in truth, even if he gave all the answers, it STILL wouldn’t bring balance to the Internet. Gunn needs to log off, roll up his sleeves, and get to work. We shouldn’t hear from him again unless he’s giving an official announcement or taking the stage (a la Feige) to roll out his big plans. He’s not just a writer/director anymore and it’s time to start acting like it. He can define what that will be, of course, but thus far his approach feels more alienating, even while so many are behind him. Quit while you’re at least a little bit ahead.
Okay, onto some mini-reviews. Some of you may be looking for something to watch over the holiday break and will no doubt be surfing through your streaming platform of choice for something to kill some time with. Below are some of the newer releases (and an old one) that I watched over the past few weeks that may or may not be for you, each from a different streamer.
Bros (currently on Peacock)
I’m a big fan of director Nicholas Stoller. He’s directed two of my all-time favorite comedies, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Five-Year Engagement, as well as Neighbors (and its sequel). Bros is his first gay romcom, which stars Billy Eichner, a gay comedian best known for his Billy on the Street interviews. The film was hyped up early on, with a promotional pitch that seemed to be trying to shame straight audiences into seeing it, by making it seem like they were homophobic if they didn’t.
Well, not much seemed to work, as even the LGBTQ+ population seemed to shun it as well, or, at the least, ignore it altogether. The premise finds Eichner’s character, a podcaster who becomes the curator for a National LGBTQ+ History Museum, meeting a man (Luke McFarlane) at a club who acts more outwardly straight. It’s an opposites-attract kind of relationship and could have been played to better comedic effect, but the problem with Bros is that it takes everything far too seriously for a rom-com and the characters are boring, insufferable, and behave in a way that may shock audiences, particularly the straight folk.
For one, Eichner simply isn’t a “name” and for a lead character, he needed to show something more than being a less animated version of his Billy on the Street persona. Had he played that persona throughout the film it would’ve been something to work with, but instead he’s a preachy, vanilla protagonist with relationship issues and that’s about it. McFarlane doesn’t fare much better, as he’s just not up to the acting challenge (or the comedy challenge). The supporting cast is a hodgepodge of LGBTQ+ actors who aren’t actors. It’s the biggest case in the world for letting any actor play anyone. That’s the point of acting. The inclusive device for the film fails at every step because what Bros really needed was professional actors that could make things interesting.
Beyond that, the comedy is…missing. I expected some uproarious moments, as Stoller has proven time and again to take some big leaps in that department with his prior films, but there’s no Jason Segal, Russell Brand, Mila Kunis, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt, Seth Rogen, or Rose Byrne to make it work. It’s a massive misstep and yet another casualty of the all-inclusive diversity war. Real diversity would’ve been to have a mix of gay and straight actors in the film with each of them adding something unique to the proceedings. Instead, Bros feels like an amateur hour student film made with a group of friends, rather than a professional production with professional actors.
The other aspect of Bros that sullies the entire thing is that the story is so ridiculously boring, while also being preachy and over-the-top. Eichner’s character lashing out at his boyfriend’s mother, a teacher, about teaching gay history to 2nd graders feels out of place and misguided for a rom-com and there’s a lot of that kind of material here. What happened to the laughs? Suddenly, we have somber music playing over gay history images and slow, dramatic, and overt sex scenes that feel like they belong in a drama.
The sex scenes themselves were a bridge too far as well. I am a straight, white male, but I also saw Brokeback Mountain in the theater and loved it, and my personal mantra is to love what you love, which includes people of either gender. But, I am admittedly completely disconnected from the sex lives of the gay community and Bros leans almost too openly about the proliferation of apps and group sex to the point that it’s near unbelievable. The constant threesomes and foursomes are so commonplace that I found myself perplexed if it was supposed to be funny, normal, or something else entirely.
Easing folks into that realm would be a better way to go. Dropping straight audiences into a casual threesome, and then another, and then another just isn’t something they’re accustomed to. I can’t speak for everyone, and there are plenty of swingers and open relationship types out there, both straight and gay, but for most folks, this isn’t the norm, so even a base-level explanation would’ve been helpful for us straight idiots.
In the end, Bros is just a fake out. It wants to be a rom-com, but can’t get out of its own way. Preachy, boring, overly dramatic, and all the amateur inclusiveness one could handle, Bros forgets that, as a film, it should be aiming to entertain the masses that show up for the genre it’s selling itself as, rather than disguising itself as something it is not and expecting everyone to love it or be labeled a homophobe. There’s a better gay rom-com on the horizon somewhere, but Bros will never fit that category.
The Banshees of Inisherin (currently playing on HBO Max)
Martin McDonagh reunites his In Bruges stars Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell for a dark comedy set on a small island in Ireland during the Irish Civil War. Kerry Condon plays Farrell’s sister, while Barry Keoghan plays a local ne’r do well. It’s a simple premise, yet a complex one at the same time. Gleeson’s character, after having been friends with Farrell for many years, just up and decides he doesn’t want to be friends with him anymore. There’s no fight or falling out, just a decision that he finds Farrell boring and no longer wants to be friends.
What transpires is a character exploration of both individuals that goes in some interesting and odd directions, making for a wildly funny, introspective, and shocking tale. On the surface, The Banshees of Inisherin may seem like a sluggish drama, but it’s a far more compelling story than you’d expect. Farrell and Gleeson are once again in top form, playing off one another with the same kind of charisma and wit that made In Bruges such a great film.
To dive too far into the film would be to spoil some of the shocking twists and I don’t want to ruin that experience for you. So, let’s just say that Gleeson gives Farrell an ultimatum about leaving him alone that gives birth to a scenario I’ve never seen portrayed on film before. You’ll never see it coming, but once it happens, The Banshees of Inisheren opens up in some unexpectedly crazy, hilarious, and touching ways. It’s a film you won’t soon forget once you reach the finale and something that will no doubt inspire some good discussion about friendship, relationships, and the extremes they can go in. A worthwhile watch that’s just the right shade of fucked up.
Emancipation (currently playing on Apple TV+)
Will Smith makes his first venture back to features after the infamous Oscar slap incident with director Antoine Fuqua’s Emancipation, a slave drama that had the best of intentions, but crumbles under the weight of better films while struggling to find an identity of its own.
Smith plays a real-life slave known as Peter, made famous by the photograph taken of his back scars, which stand as a testament to the brutality and inhumanity that took place during that era. Peter is sold and separated from his wife and kids to go work on the railroad, vowing to return and be reunited with them. Upon arrival at his new work camp, Peter is confronted by Ben Foster’s slave hunter Jim Fassel, a diabolically evil man who seems to have lost his soul in the battle for the South.
When Peter sees his opportunity to escape, he does so, fleeing through the swamps of Louisana, only to finally reach a Union Army camp, where he promptly joins and enters the Civil War. If all of that sounds like a lot, then you’d be right. It’s the fundamental problem with Emancipation, as it tries to be too many movies at once. Part 12 Years A Slave, part Apocalypto, and part Glory, Emancipation fights so hard to be everything, that it ends up being little more than a Cliff Notes cinematic experience.
Smith’s acting is strong, as always. He may be an overzealous diva, as proven by his Oscar antics, but he can act his ass off. However, Emancipation simply doesn’t draw out something he wasn’t already capable of. It’s a blessing and a curse for the actor, as we already know he can do what he does here. It’s nothing particularly challenging for the actor and, in that way, comes off as playing it safe, which is saying a lot for someone of his caliber.
Fuqua is a gifted filmmaker and makes some interesting choices here, particularly in using an “almost” black-and-white aesthetic that feels a bit too on-the-nose in terms of messaging. I’d love to see either a full-color or full black-and-white version of Emancipation, as I think it toggles the edge of desaturation to the point of distraction. Stylistically and cinematically, Fuqua is up to the challenge, but he’s dealing with a movie that feels like too many scripts in the kitchen and there’s only so much you can do with that.
Emancipation would’ve worked better as a mini-series or to focus solely on Peter’s escape or Peter’s journey as a Civil War soldier, both of which are underserved and overstuffed. There’s a better, more refined version of Emancipation out there, but the one we got feels like a rush-to-the-finish endeavor, rather than a fleshed-out body of work with a story to tell.
Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio (currently playing on Netflix)
As a huge fan of stop-motion animation and Guillermo del Toro, I have been excited to see what the director would bring to the classic tale of Pinocchio and he did not disappoint. Most people know Pinocchio from Disney’s classic animated tale (and now the bemoaned live-action hybrid from Robert Zemeckis on Disney+), but del Toro’s version (along with co-director Mark Gustafson) is something vastly different. It’s a darker, more violent, and more wild tale than has ever been told about the boy with strings and his creator.
Game of Thrones’ David Bradley voices Geppetto, the Italian shoemaker who creates Pinocchio, while Gregory Mann provides the voice of the puppet. Ewan McGregor is a fine narrator as Cricket, with a stellar backup voice cast that includes John Turturro, Ron Perlman, Finn Wolfhard, Cate Blanchett, Burn Gorman, Tim Blake Nelson, Tilda Swinton, and Christoph Waltz.
Del Toro’s Pinocchio may seem like a kid’s film, but it’s really not, even if there are a few music numbers scattered in for effect. In truth, I wish there weren’t, as they feel a little out of place for what is otherwise the darkest, most tragic version of the story put to screen thus far. Not that it’s R-rated or anything, but it deals with some heavy themes, including death, war, authoritarianism, religion, etc. This isn’t one to venture into lightly with the kiddos. Be ready to answer some big questions.
For me, the complexity of this iteration makes for a terrific exploration of the genre, as stop-motion has frequently been a sub-genre that ventures to places that traditional warm-and-colorful animation does not. Movies like Fantastic Mr. Fox, Isle of Dogs, Paranorman, Coraline, Kubo and the Two Strings, or even Henry Selick’s latest, Wendell & Wild (which I was somewhat lukewarm on) have all gone to places that most other animated films step lightly around, making it a unique place to visit and Pinocchio is no exception.
While it’s not my favorite stop-motion film of all time, del Toro’s Pinocchio is a wonderfully dark, yet vibrant version of the classic tale that is served exceptionally well by the format. I’d love to see del Toro go full horror with stop-motion, but these things take a long time to develop, and the director is renowned for stacking the deck when it comes to new projects. Still, if Pinocchio is his only endeavor for the genre, then it’s at least a worthy one.
Smile (currently playing on Paramount+)
The latest high-concept, low-budget horror entry that’s gone on to become a phenomenon, Smile is a horror-thriller from Parker Finn, staring Sosie Bacon (Mare of Easttown), Jessie T. Usher, Robin Weigert, Kyle Gallner, Kal Penn, and Caitlin Stasey. Smile, like this year’s other horror, hits Barbarian, Nope, and Terrifier 2, has scared up $216 million worldwide from a $17 million budget and that’s a tremendous profit. So, what are folks lining up for? More of the same, really.
The appeal to these low-budget horror flicks is that they hone in on a very particular aspect of the genre and drill it down to the core. For Nope, it was the UFO mystery, for Terrifier 2 it was the gore, for Barbarian it was the mysterious hidden tunnel. For Smile, it’s literally the evil smile we’re all capable of making, twisted and turned into the literal embodiment of evil in the film.
It’s reminiscent of a far better horror film, It Follows, which has a curse that passes from person to person, haunting them until they pass it on to someone else. The hook for Smile is that the haunting itself is caused by some kind of demonic entity that feeds on human trauma, namely that of suicide, and that each person “infected” must pass on the trauma by either killing someone or by killing themselves.
The whole thing is pretty silly and I found myself laughing at parts that I probably wasn’t supposed to laugh at, but I have to give kudos for spinning the concept of a curse into something pretty fun, even if also pretty goofy. There is some decent jump scares and blood/gore, but not enough to set it apart from better entries in the genre. Still, there is something to be said about the continuous, persistent growth of the horror genre. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times in that way, as folks keep coming back for more and more horrific cinematic outings. Maybe it’s to show that it could always be worse, as we live in times where everyone from the government to the media to Hollywood itself keeps trying to convince us that things are terrible and getting worse, even if they aren’t.
The Fablemans (currently in theaters and for rent on iTunes)
Steven Spielberg’s semi-autobiographical tale starring Paul Dano, Michelle Williams, Seth Rogen, and Gabriel LaBelle (as “Sammy” aka young Spielberg), The Fabelmans is a restrained Spielberg, but in the best possible way. With Spielberg you always think you know what to expect, but he is nothing if not full of surprises. Sure, there’s plenty in The Fabelmans that is ripped from his cinematic style, but there is even more that feels like new, unexplored territory, which is no small feat for such a world-class filmmaker. At 76 years old, it’s great to see that Spielberg can still surprise us.
The Fabelmans is a slow burn, but when it finds its wings, it really takes flight. It’s partly a story about Spielberg’s parents and their complicated relationship, and partly a story about Spielberg embracing his identity as an artist, which is the result of his parent’s relationship, as much as it is the result of his natural-born vision and curiosity.
I found the parental aspects less interesting, which is an exploration of the difference in personalities and values, as well as the natural chemistry that takes place between two people. Relationships, as it turns out, are complex. Who woulda thought? Williams plays Spielberg’s mother with a manic, radiant, dream-like state, while Dano is the all-business father with loving intentions. Rogen steps in as the affable family friend that upends the family’s picture-perfect setting, showing that sometimes it’s not a question of who is right or wrong, but rather what they feel for one another, and the beautiful and horrible consequences of following your heart.
This is where The Fabelmans collides with Spielberg’s filmmaking journey. While his mother discovers a new passion and a new love, Sammy (who looks, talks, and behaves like the director at every turn) discovers his own love and passion, which is that of being an artist, specifically a filmmaker. He chases this passion with fervent desire and heart, finding that it requires the sacrifice of everything else. After his family is upended, Sammy decides to stop making films and pursuing his passion, which sees him having an identity crisis amidst his family turmoil.
There’s a terrific scene with Judd Hirsch, Sammy’s Uncle in the film, who used to work for the circus. He sees right through Sammy and knows that he wants nothing more than to be an artist. He warns him of the pain and sacrifice it will entail, but reminds him that there’s nothing he can do about it. Making art, true art, real art, art that speaks from the heart, is not something done as a hobby. It is your life.
As Sammy adjusts to a new high school and is bullied for being Jewish, he uses his talents as a budding filmmaker to get even with his bullies. He doesn’t throw heroic punches like Indiana Jones or save the lives of countless people like Oskar Schindler. No, he uses his artistic vision to shape a narrative, even if a false one, to turn the tide of his life and confront his bullies. It’s a tremendous commentary on how artists can share their gift, which is rarely what their gift shares with its audience.
For me, this is where The Fabelmans really shines. For any artist, regardless of your craft, I see The Fabelmans as the perfect inspirational jolt you may well need. There are a number of moments the put a lump in my throat, largely due to the fact that I seem to be getting more and more emotional the older I get. The longer you live, the more you have built up in the reservoir of life to reflect on, and there are a lot of moments buried in your history that can be unearthed to mean new things. It’s the beautiful tragedy of our existence. We learn all our best lessons as we come closer to the end of our journey, rather than at the beginning.
The Fabelmans illustrates this in its final scene, where Sammy meets legendary filmmaker John Ford, then at the end of his career, giving Sammy some sage, yet humorous advice, just as his career is beginning. It’s one of those “wow” moments, which Spielberg recaptures nearly word-for-word based on the real-life meeting he had with the director when he was a teenager. You can watch Spielberg recount the story below (before or after watching The Fabelmans) to compare/contrast, but it’s a brilliant moment bookended with the career of a brilliant filmmaker. If nothing else, The Fabelmans is a reminder of that, as well as a reminder that to be an artist, you must make the sacrificial, non-negotiable plunge into your craft.
The Keep (currently playing on Criterion)
This is the odd duck of the lot, but something I wanted to share with you. All of you know who Michael Mann is, of course. You’ve all seen Heat, The Last of the Mohicans, Manhunter, Miami Vice, etc. Some of you may have not seen Thief, which I can’t recommend enough, but even more of you probably haven’t seen The Keep, which was the film he made directly after it in 1983. Based on the novel by F. Paul Wilson, The Keep tells the story of a group of Nazis in the 1940s who must guard a keep in the Romanian pass that houses a mysterious ancient evil.
I remember seeing the VHS box at Blockbuster for The Keep as a kid, but I was a bit of a scaredy-cat at that age and never rented it. There were a lot of horror movies like that back then. I loved perusing the box art but was far too fearful to ever rent the movies. Beyond that, even at that age, I knew that there was no way these movies could live up to the box art, and I felt that I was just setting myself up for disappointment.
The Keep has been an elusive one, but a few years back I saw a screen grab from the film that had a massive, glowing-eyed creature, which is the mysterious villain of the film, and I was immediately enthralled with curiosity. But, here’s the catch with The Keep. Mann has disowned the film, and the author has vocally chastised Mann’s version, meaning that there’s very little support from the creators to see it restored in any capacity. Beyond that, the rights to Tangerine Dream’s score for the film have been difficult to secure, leaving The Keep as a kind of homeless mystery of a film.
Now, thanks to the Criterion Channel, I have finally been able to scratch The Keep itch. And boy, were my box-art instincts ever right. All the intentions for something cool are there, and you can feel all the shades of Mann’s ethereal style developing, including the early overuse of slow motion and long-running sequences cut to music, as well as lingering shots of characters that stay a bit too long (or too short). But, The Keep ultimately comes off as a bit of a creative disaster, lacking in vision and budget, but showcasing the beginnings of not only Mann but a young Ian McKellen, as well as Jürgen Prochnow in his first American feature.
The effects are fairly shoddy, especially when compared to today’s even mildly-budgeted VFX, but there’s some charm to be had in the wacky things that Mann throws at The Keep. The monster aka Radu Molasar, looks like a much scarier version of X-Men Apocalypse’s titular villain, albeit with some questionable (yet commendable) practical effects makeup. Scott Glenn shows up wearing the worst cinematic contact lenses ever put to film while bleeding Predator blood and having some kind of immortal powers that never get an explanation. He also gets an extended and excessive sex scene with Alberta Watson that feels completely out of place.
Sadly, the presentation for The Keep is pretty terrible, looking exactly like VHS quality (how on Earth did we survive on that for so long?), but it’s also kind of perfect in that way. The movie is bad, no bones about it, even if it hints at some great things to come from Mann, McKellen, etc. The film struggles to find the balance between horror, sci-fi, and fantasy but ends up being a hybrid of borrowed concepts that feel supremely outdated by now. Some old movies hold up better than others, and The Keep reminded me of William Friedkin’s Sorcerer, a far better film with a well-known director that plays with genres (and has a Tangerine Dream score). That one, at least, you can watch in HD and it holds up exceptionally. The lesson here is that sometimes those old VHS movies are better remembered as a box on the shelf.
Next time on The Way of the Shirey:
I still have to watch Glass Onion, Tar, and possibly Violent Night, but I’ve got my picks pretty settled on my Best Movies of the Year, which will be the close-out post for next week. In the meantime, I hope that all of you celebrating Christmas have a merry one, and I thank you for joining me here and everyone else. Kick back, relax, and catch up on some movies, TV shows, comics, video games, books, or whatever else keeps you satiated and inspired. I’ll be right there with ya.