Month: July 2021

Released: July 2021

Director: Cate Shortland

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 133 Minutes

Distributor: Marvel/Disney

Genre: Action

Cast:
Scarlett Johansson: Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff
Florence Pugh: Yelena Belova
David Harbour: Alexei
Rachel Weisz: Melina
William Hurt: Secretary Ross
O-T Fagbenle: Mason
Ray Winstone: Dreykov

Before I begin with this review, I should issue a major spoiler alert for Avengers: Endgame.  There are details in this movie that involve certain aspects of the last Avengers film, and it relates directly to this film’s main character.  So, if you haven’t seen Avengers: Endgame yet(unlikely), I would close this page and go see Black Widow first.  Fair warning.  Marvel’s Cinematic Universe is a one-of-a-kind achievement.  Even if you don’t really like Marvel’s movies, you have to give them credit for 11 years and 23 movies worth of superheroes.  Not all of them were great, some were forgettable, and others were some of the best action movies ever made.  The last two Avengers films are a landmark achievement.  Nobody had ever attempted anything like this before in the history of film.  DC and Warner Bros. attempted to follow suit, but that didn’t end up working very well.  There’s been many attempts at crafting “Cinematic Universes.”  Honestly, most of them don’t pan out.  Just ask Universal Pictures about their Dark Universe concept.  It took YEARS for the MCU to become what it is.  It’s not something you can just conjure up overnight.  It’s called playing the long game, and most movie studios aren’t willing to put forward that kind of effort.  The MCU isn’t perfect, it’s had a couple of misfires.  That brings me to Black Widow.

Black Widow follows former assassin-turned-Avenger Natasha Romanoff as she is on the run from the United States government.  Why is she on the run?  Because she violated an international agreement and helped Captain America get his friend out of reach of the government.  As she arrives in the middle of nowhere in Norway, she’s attacked by a mysterious assassin known only as Taskmaster.  Taskmaster is looking for a mysterious box that was sent to Natasha from her estranged sister, Yelena, who also ended up in the same assassin program as she did.  Realizing that the Red Room that she was trained still exists and other Black Widows are being trained, she and Yelena set out to destroy the program that ruined their lives.  This film is set between the events of Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War.  I’ll just flat-out say it:  If you’ve Avengers: Endgame, you already know how this movie’s going to end.  In Endgame, Natasha sacrifices herself so that her partner, Hawkeye, can get the Soul Stone so they can save the universe and destroy Thanos.  In the grand scheme of the MCU, Black Widow serves no real purpose aside from expanding on Black Widow’s history, and even then, it doesn’t go far enough to explain her own personal training and how she ended up leaving the assassination program.  In truth, the movie would have been better served had it been made and released between Captain America and Infinity War.  It would’ve had more impact from a narrative standpoint.  The real story in this movie, is the family dynamic between Natasha, Yelena, Melina, and Alexei.  That’s really about it.

I really like the main characters in this film.  I really do.  There’s real chemistry between Yelena, Natasha, Melina, AND Alexei.  So, whenever these folks are on the screen, that’s when the film is at its best.  Unfortunately, the balance is off because the villains in this film are about as generic as you can get for a movie of this sort.  Dreykov, who is supposed to be one of the most important figures in Natasha’s past, comes across as little more than a greedy business man playing at being a puppet master.  This guy didn’t even FEEL like a threat.  He was just there for Natasha and Yelena to eventually kill.  Taskmaster is a huge problem here.  Taskmaster is supposed to be a supervillain that can mimic the movements and fighting styles of his opponents perfectly, making him an extremely dangerous enemy.  The twist involving Taskmaster is not only predictable, but it’s laughably stupid.  I haven’t seen a twist THAT poorly written since the reveal of Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness.  That’s how bad it is.  Honestly, just give me more of Alexei, Yelena, and Melina.  Alexei in particular is interesting because his character is the Soviet Union’s attempt at creating their own version of Captain America.  Alexei was known as the Red Guardian.  He comes across as a bit of a bumbling oaf, but the character feels genuine.  Yelena is Nat’s “sister” and she has the best chemistry with Natasha.

The acting for the most part is pretty good.  Scarlett Johansson gives her best performance as Black Widow.  Florence Pugh, just knocks it out of the park as Yelena.  She handles the role incredibly well, emotionally as well as physically.  Rachel Weisz is always a pleasure to watch.  The real standout here is David Harbour as Alexei.  He’s basically the comic relief, and he definitely delivers on that front, but he also has a surprising amount of vulnerability given his size and abilities.  I’ve always enjoyed Ray Winstone as an actor.  He brings a real grit and gravitas to nearly everything that he does, and even in the worst movies, he’s entertaining.  He’s just not given a whole lot to do here outside of “being evil.”  Now, let’s get to the action.  The action is pretty decent.  Some of the fight scenes between Black Widow and Taskmaster are pretty well done.  She even gets to take on a whole team of Widows towards the end of the movie which is pretty decent.  This being an MCU movie means lots of CGI and explosions and it delivers.  Not the best I’ve seen, but still pretty entertaining.  However, it all feels a bit hollow because of the story.  Because most people already know what happens to Natasha in Avengers: Endgame, there is really no tension to be found in the action.  We know that she will survive to take part in the conclusion to the Infinity Saga, so why should we worry about what happens to her in THIS movie?  This has always been an issue with prequels of any sort.  We already know the outcome regardless of how the movie arrives to that outcome, and it robs the film of any kind of suspense or thrills that we would’ve had otherwise.

Is Black Widow the dumpster fire that Stephen Dorff said it looked like, even though he hasn’t seen it?  No.  Not even close.  It’s a decent action movie, with some pretty good characters.  It just ends up being a victim of very bad timing.  This was a movie that’s 3 years too late.  Had it been released back in 2018-19, it would’ve had a larger impact and more staying power.  With that in mind, the movie does set up for another film with Yelena taking over as Black Widow, and THAT I am definitely excited to see.  Cate Shortland should be commended for being able to bring this movie to audiences despite the fact that it was delayed because of the pandemic.  It’s one that’s worth checking out, but it’s definitely not Marvel’s best.  I would put it on the same level as Captain Marvel.  Not groundbreaking, but fun enough to keep your eyes on the screen for about 2 hours.  So, yeah, I’m definitely looking forward to seeing Florence Pugh as the new Black Widow.  Bring it on.

My Final Recommendation: 7/10.

Normally, I wouldn’t even bother with news like this.  You just chalk it up to another washed-up actor/celebrity being a moron.  But something came out in the news this week that kind of makes my blood boil.  This weekend marks the release of Marvel’s Black Widow MCU film starring Scarlett Johanssen.  It’s a film that’s garnered some pretty decent reviews.  It looks to make a good deal of money this weekend and over the next week or so.  I’ll get to whether or not I’ll see it in a bit.  According to Hollywood Reporter, actor Stephen Dorff sat down in an interview with the U.K.’s Independent, and tore into Black Widow, saying he was embarrassed for Scarlett Johanssen and Marvel’s movies in general.  Here’s what he said in its entirety: “I still hunt out the good shit because I don’t want to be in Black Widow. It looks like garbage to me. It looks like a bad video game. I’m embarrassed for those people. I’m embarrassed for Scarlett! I’m sure she got paid five, seven million bucks, but I’m embarrassed for her. I don’t want to be in those movies. I really don’t. I’ll find that kid director that’s gonna be the next [Stanley] Kubrick and I’ll act for him instead.”  Dorff isn’t the first person to go after the movie industry and he certainly won’t be the last, but what gets my goat is the degree of hypocrisy.  Has the general public ever heard of Stephen Dorff?  Probably not, but let me fill you in.  See, back in 1998, Stephen Dorff was cast opposite Wesley Snipes in the Marvel film, Blade.  Dorff played the vampire Deacon Frost.  He actually made a pretty cool bad guy.

If you noticed, I mentioned that Blade was a MARVEL movie.  So, for him to tear into the company that really put him on the map is incredibly self-defeating.  But the real reason that this makes me angry is that Dorff made it personal.  It would’ve been one thing for him to say that Marvel movies aren’t for him and that he prefers other kinds of film.  That would’ve been just fine, and nobody would’ve cared.  Not only did he rip into Scarlett, but the film’s director as well as the fans who enjoy these movies.  There’s a reason most of his garbage is basically direct-to-video, and not the best DTV either.  Statements like the one that Dorff made can kill careers faster than a bullet.  Look what happened to Shannon Dougherty on the set of Charmed.  Most notably, pay attention to the drunken tirade of Mel Gibson from over a decade ago.  Now, are Scarlett Johanssen and Black Widow director Cate Shortland going to give this idiot the time of day?  No.  Nor should they.  Scarlett Johanssen has been on a hot streak since The Horse Whisperer.  She’s one of the most successful actresses in the industry and she staked her reputation on getting Cate Shortland to direct Black Widow.  What the fuck has Stephen Dorff done, aside from putting both of his feet into his mouth?  This guy was NEVER an A-list actor.  Quite frankly, he’s not even C-list.  I would put him on the F-list of actors.  This guy has audacity to say that he’s holding out for the “good shit” when he’s been a part of some of the worst movies ever made like Alone in the Dark.  He doesn’t have the standing to complain about Black Widow.  He hasn’t even seen it yet, which makes this situation all the more appalling.  Passing judgment on something you haven’t seen yet, makes you look stupid, but I will admit that I have done that from time to time, as have we all.  But Dorff takes it to another level.

Initially, I was not super-interested in going to see Black Widow this weekend.  But since Stephen Dorff decided to open his stupid mouth and spew arrogant and short-sighted bullshit, I’ve decided that maybe Black Widow is worth a look-see.  Will Mr. Dorff have a career after this fiasco?  It certainly couldn’t be any worse than it is now.  Now that all this is on the Internet, he’s going to have a hard time walking it back and convincing anybody else to work with him.  It sucks because he’s legitimately talented as an actor, he’s just made some questionable film choices.  Congratulations, Mr. Dorff: You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Released: December 2018(USA)

Director: Lars von Trier

Run Time: 152 Minutes

Rated R

Distributor:  IFC Films/Shout! Factory

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Cast:
Matt Dillon: Jack
Bruno Ganz: Verge
Uma Thurman: Lady 1
Siobhan Fallon Hogan: Lady 2
Sofie Gråbøl: Lady 3
Riley Keough: Simple

When people talk about controversial movies, they generally refer to specific genre films.  Even more specifically, the horror and thriller genres.  While most fans would pick The Exorcist or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and rightfully so, I would say controversy in film goes back even further.  I would say that Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho was controversial when it was released back in 1960 with it’s infamous shower stabbing scene.  To be fair, though, it was during the 70s when horror movies started catching a lot of flack for their content.  Wes Craven’s directorial debut, The Last House on the Left was particularly notorious for it’s graphic depiction of violence and sexual assault.  In fact, the tag-line for the film was, “It’s only a movie. It’s only a movie.  It’s only a movie.”  The Exorcist really pissed people off with its content involving a young girl being possessed by a demon.  It earned it’s controversy.  So did I Spit on Your Grave back in ’76.  Some of these movies were put on the United Kingdom’s infamous “Video Nasties” list.  It wasn’t the 70s that produced some controversial movies.  We saw stuff coming out of the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and the 2010s.  Oddly enough, one of the most controversial movies to come out of the last decade was Rian Johnson’s Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  It wasn’t a horror film, but it was one that really split audiences down the middle.  You never know when a movie will generate any degree of controversy.  Certain directors, on the other hand, can be notorious for directing some…interesting movies.  Darren Aronofsky recently directed Mother!  It was high-level abstract film starring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem that also divided people.  But there’s a director that I had heard about and he’s made a number of controversial films over the past 20 years, Lars von Trier.  This man is responsible for directing films like Nymphomaniac, Meloncholia, Antichrist, and most recently, The House That Jack Built.  This is my first foray into Trier territory, so I can only judge the man by this movie for the time being.

The House That Jack Built is centered around a highly intelligent, but OCD-suffering serial killer named Jack.  Over the course of 5 incidents, Jack describes to an off-screen character, Verge, about different ideas surrounding architecture, violence in the media and movies and other topics while he meticulously hunts and kills people.  To say anymore about this film would be to spoil the whole thing, and I really don’t want to do that.  I’m not going to sugar-coat it:  This movie goes to some really dark territory.  Yet, at the same time, there’s a really twisted sense of humor peppered throughout the whole thing.  While it’s not necessarily laugh-out-loud funny, I did get a chuckle out of some situations that I would not normally laugh at.  It’s actually a very interesting story about how broken a person really is and how they deal with that.  Jack is a charismatic dude, but when you peel back the layers, there’s an ugly monster lying in wait.  Von Trier is known for writing some pretty complex stories from what I understand.  While Von Trier is clearly self-aware at what he’s doing here, there are a number of situations throughout the film where it feels like he’s being incredibly self-indulgent.  He’s notorious for having an ego, but this film takes it to another level and it gets in the way of the story at times.

One of the most interesting aspects about the film is not necessarily the kills, I’ll get to that, but rather what happens between incidents.  Jack has a dialogue with a character named Verge that gets really philosophical at times with Jack describing how killing influences his ability to build a house, and Verge counters with how corrupt that kind of thinking is.  It’s a really interesting back-and-forth that’s often peppered with a number of still images and historical footage of various time periods including World War II.  While Jack is the central figure in the film, we aren’t really given much backstory into why he is the way he is.  Even less is said about his victims who are mostly not particularly likable, especially the first victim played by Uma Thurman.  The character’s a bitch, and we really couldn’t wait to see how she bites the dust.  Outside of the character of Simple, we aren’t given enough to have an emotional connection to anybody outside of Jack, and I’m guessing that was Trier’s intent.  Again, it doesn’t always work.  If the only character that you connect with is a terrible human being, that makes it really difficult to care about what happens to anybody else.  Character development?  Jack eventually outgrows his OCD somewhat and takes more chances with his murders, but that’s it.  Not terribly compelling character-work.

The House That Jack Built was apparently brutal enough for 100 people to walk out of the screening at the Cannes Film Festival in 2018.  Is the violence in the film really that brutal?  Yes…and no.  No in the fact that the violence isn’t super graphic with the exception of one or two victims, but the rest is pretty tame.  Yes, because it’s often the idea that tends to more controversial than the act itself.  Incident 3 will probably go down in history as one of the most controversial moments in the film and rightfully so.  Anybody who has seen the film will know exactly what I’m talking about.  No, the violence isn’t necessarily shocking in terms of how gruesome it is, although there are a couple of moments as I said where it is gory.  Rather, it’s how creatively sudden some of these deaths are.  The first death scene involves a tire-jack to the face.  It’s brutal, but it’s quick, and most of them tend to be that way.  Simple’s predicament is the only one that really doesn’t deserve what happens to her.  She gets the knife, but it’s the verbal abuse that Jack levies at her before it all happens that’s legitimately disturbing, not necessarily because of him threatening her, but rather that nobody is coming to save her.  Ultimately, the level of violence in the film is certainly brutal, but I don’t think it’s as savage as everybody seemed to make it out to be.  Incident 3, though is where a lot of people drew the line.

There is definitely some humor here that I found to be pretty effective.  After Jack kills victim number 2, his OCD won’t allow him to leave until the crime scene is scrubbed clean.  He ends up going back into the house to make sure it’s clean.  I’m sure I’m going to Hell for this, but when he started dragging a body behind his van, I couldn’t help but chuckle a little bit at how ridiculous it looks.  Not only that, but his attempt to get into the woman’s house is strangely amusing.  Yet, a major problem keeps coming up.  See, I initially accused the first victim of being a bit of a bitch, but the fact is is that a lot of the victims in this movie aren’t particularly smart or likable.  Lars von Trier’s movies have been notorious for being insensitive at best and deeply misogynistic at worst.  There are other issues at play with The House That Jack Built.  For one, the movie is overly long at 2.5 hours.  You could cut about 15-20 minutes, and the movie would still be the same.  The pacing can be off at times as a result.  Also, the constant use of David Bowie’s Fame was a constant source of irritation.  I will say this though, the final 20 minutes of the movie are absolutely bonkers.  I won’t say more than that, but it’s really spectacular.

So, is The House That Jack Built as controversial as everybody says it is?  To a certain extent, yes.  Unfortunately, Von Trier’s massive ego has weighed down what could’ve been a really great movie with some incredibly questionable decision-making.  While I haven’t seen any of his other works, I can’t fully recommend The House That Jack Built.  Even if there weren’t any issues, I still don’t think I could recommend it because of it’s extremely grim and bleak nature.  That said, I can’t say that people SHOULDN’T see it.  Ultimately, I truly appreciate what Lars von Trier was going for here, and I think he got more right than he got wrong, but I really do wish he would reel himself in from time to time, because his ego is cashing checks that he can’t afford.  Bottom line:  I DO like it, as Matt Dillon puts in one of the best performances of his career and the setups to the murders are creative enough to get a pass.  Not only that, the film is beautifully shot.  It has some outstanding cinematography.  I do question the use of Nazi imagery in the film though, and the videos of animals being hunted.  It isn’t as graphic as Cannibal Holocaust was as far as violence against animals goes, but it’s pretty unsettling regardless.  Mr. von Trier is a provocateur that doesn’t care if you hate his movies as long as you really hate them.  He’s more interested in getting a reaction rather than crafting film at this point.  I’m still processing what I just saw, so I won’t be giving this one a score for a while.

My Final Recommendation:  For fans of shock cinema, check it out.  Everybody else, be very careful with this one.