Stranger Things 2

This is the reason why I've been singing Christmas carols early, in spite of people telling me that it's too early, because Halloween gave me a premature Christmas present.

Last year, the world witnessed the rise of a wonderful, rewatchable gem called Stranger Things, and because sometimes we can have nice things, we've been blessed with a sequel.  Is it as good as the original?  Heck yes.

My only real complaint is that it isn't quite as self-contained as the first, but otherwise, the show has not yet lost that freshness and special magic that makes it epic.  I can immediately tell you, this is as rewatchable as the first, and I think that this will go down as a classic.

On the note of self-containment: this has one more episode than the previous miniseries, and honestly, you can tell which episode is "the extra."  It doesn't necessarily feel shoe-horned in, because it does contribute to the plot of this season's story arc in relevant ways, but it's obvious that its main purpose is to set up for Stranger Things 3.

Otherwise, this does an excellent job of continuing the story, making callbacks when they're necessary, tying in with last year's story, introducing new characters, doing more with its old ones, and managing to expand on the mythology of the universe in a reasonable way that both ups the steaks and leaves the audience wondering just what sort of stranger things lurk around the upside down.

Only the Brave

There are three types of things that will get me to watch a film no matter what.  Miles Teller, because he blew me away in Whiplash and made me into a loyalist.  Jennifer Connelly, because shes still the most beautiful woman alive and has talent to boot.  And then there's...

Well, wait a minute.  I didn't watch Fantastic 4 or Winter's Tale, so scratch what I said about Teller and Connelly.  But anyway, I guess that's why I save the third point for last, since it's the best one.

Movies about American working-class people who are heroes simply for doing their job.  Basically, the last three films by Peter Berg.  In fact, I thought that this was a Peter Berg film.  For those who don't know, that's the person who directed Lone Survivor, Deepwater Horizon and Patriots Day.  Does that paint a pretty clear picture of what sort of genre I'm talking about?

If you're into this particular subject matter, than you're going to be interested in this movie.  As a work of art, I don't think a whole lot of it.  Bear in mind, I went back and rewatched Blade Runner 2049 the weekend before this movie came out, so I had just been saturated with very high standards for filmmaking.  I'm also a bit disappointed now that I realize that the director for this movie, Joseph Kosinksi, directed TRON: Legacy and Oblivion, which means that he really does have exceptionally high artistic standards, and isn't quite like Spielberg, who could transfer those over from the action movies to his more serious non-fiction stories.

That's not saying that the film is poorly made or anything.  I'm just surprised that this comes from a director with a major eye for aesthetics, editing, and sound, and here you have a movie that feels pretty normal.  The part that probably surprises me the most is his editing, which I don't quite know how to explain, but it's just different and far more casual than in TRON: Legacy and Oblivion.

Does this film really need to be as artistic as a Spielbergian drama, though?  One must bear in mind that the movie mostly takes place in a small town in Arizona.  Perhaps if too much art were put into it, it would feel dramatized, and less intimately appreciative of the real-life individuals upon whom this story is based.  This movie honors the common man, and does so by being quite common.  I don't see this as being a major international movie, or even a major movie that brings America together, but a small community film meant for regular people who want to feel understood.

Speaking of which, Jeff Bridges, man.  I don't feel like this film will get any Oscar nominations, but if it does, it will be in Jeff.  He changes his face and expressions in such ways that change him and also make him ring completely true for me.  I grew up in a small town.  I live in a small town.  Let me just say that he completely channeled some of the local heroes of the small town community.  It was a great performance, and I truly loved it.  That, to me, was the best part of the entire movie.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see that Jennifer Connelly was given more to do than just show up in a couple of scenes as Eric Marsh's wife.  They actually used some of her talent as an actress, which I appreciated.  Also, seeing her as a rancher wearing a cowgirl hat and denim clothes was pretty awesome.  How can a guy complain?

Anyway, as to the firefighters, perhaps one of my complaints is that I didn't feel like I was in a physically real fire department, and I didn't have the greatest understanding of what was going on during the forest fires.  A while back I wrote a review for Deepwater Horizon and how that film made me really convinced that I was in an industrial workplace, because I had worked in an industrial workplace before.  I was hoping to really come to a deep understanding of what it's like to be a firefighter, but the movie didn't make it completely real for me.  Emotionally, it made a lot of it real, but just as a person who's interested in seeing a movie that helps me understand a job really well, I didn't necessarily like I had a comprehensive education.  Perhaps that's a weird thing to want, of course.

But I'm sure that many people aren't considering watching this film based off of whether or not it's a training video on fire fighting with Mel Gibson levels of artistic immersion and James Cameron levels of obsessive-compulsive detail.  You're probably interested in how it depicts people.  If you know the real-life story, you'll understand why it puts more focus on Brendan McDonnough.  Naturally, the supervisor Eric Marsh is the deuteragonist, and overall, there's somewhat of an ensemble cast and a lot of emphasis on how firefighters sort of form a family unit.  The film also explores the themes of firefighters having to spend time away from their actual families quite a bit, and overall, the story is pretty good.  It's always a good thing when movies can spark discussion, and I personally hope that certain people can have fruitful conversations about family planning after watching this.  Once again, I think that people with community values will really appreciate this film.

Since I didn't know the true story, I didn't foresee how the movie would end.  There were certain things that made me think, "Okay, this the type of storyline that I'm going to get, where the characters will develop in this way and this is why they're emphasizing certain scenes and editing it this way," but it turns out that I was wrong.  It's not like the true events were presented as a major twist, either.  I just sort of had certain expectations based off of the film making language used for most of the movie and the type of story it seemed to get me invested in, so that I was preparing myself for one emotion and found myself having another.

If I were to rate this movie, I'd put it above one of those slightly cringeworthy, plotless movies like Courageous, underneath Oliver Stone's World Trade Center and Clint Eastwood's American Sniper, and right about the same level as Deepwater Horizon, just too give people an idea of where this falls quality-wise.  I will say, while not quite as immersive on a technical level as Deepwater Horizon, it did do a lot more to make create portraits of the firefighters that included meaningful details, such as what drove their relationships and what some of their personal desires were.

Overall, I appreciated it.  I like these kinds of films, and I do like seeing this kind of heroism and sense of community celebrated.

Miles Teller will also be appearing in another film of this genre, Thank You For Your Service, next weekend, on October 27, and I will be watching and reviewing that as well.

Blade Runner 2049

When did I watch the original?  Was it six years ago?  It's  been a while.  The main things that I remember were the cons of having little story or character investment, but the pro of having more atmosphere than the planet Jupiter.  So atmospheric.

Its sequel (and unofficially also the sequel to La La Land, if you think about it) manages to find a decent common-ground between the two.  I felt that it had more story, and most definitely more likable characters, while also having a ridiculous amount of atmosphere.  Denis Villeneuve packs this film with it.  While not quite as dark and as noir as the original, he still recognizes that what makes Blade Runner what it is is the emphasis on directing, and he makes sure to pack 2049 with all sorts of provocative cinematography, lighting, sets, sounds, and musical language.  The movie is a work of art.  Ridley Scott chose his successor well.

Some people will wonder why Marvel is accused of making factory-produced films, and movies like this prove the point that the accusers are making.  This  isn't factory-produced.  It relies strongly on a directorial vision to complete a picture that few directors can pull off.  I applaud it for that.  Part of me wants to watch it again because of that, and especially because of the cinematography and lighting.  Earlier this year, I praised Logan Noir for having the best cinematography, but now various other films have come out, and now it's hard for me to say if there is any clear front-runner in the Best Cinematography category.

The movie also does a better job than the original of getting people to think about technology, and it really sells this world to me.  The new types of artificial intelligence, the ways information is kept, and so forth.  It feels incredibly fleshed out.

As for the characters, let's just say that Gosling is much more likable than Deckard back in the day.  Deckard was simply an atrocious character who had no charm whatsoever, and his abusive romance with Rachael was cringeworthy.  I know that was the intention of Ridley Scott, but that didn't make it entertaining for me to watch.  I'm glad that we had a  good main character this time around, and an interesting supporting case, and that the pace of the film let us constantly feel that the characters were developing.

The story had me engaged.  At times it also surprised me.  It really was its own story and was pretty well put together, and it works incredibly well both as a stand-alone and as a sequel, naturally continuing the story of the original which should leave people satisfied while giving itself its own narrative language.  What the story is about, I can't really give that away.  Let's just say that the trailers don't give much away.

Some final thoughts: Jared Leto was awesome, but I wanted more of him.  There was also a scene with an old character who got the Grand Moff Tarkin treatment, at which I cringed, but fortunately that moment was incredibly brief.  Also, Edward James Olmos, whom I regard as one of the greats, makes a brief appearance, which in my mind was the best callback in the entire film, although that's not saying much since this film doesn't use too many "callback moments" that you often get in sequels.

Ultimately, if you really like artistic films, or are a fan of cinematography, or really like this genre, then you should check this out.  Regarding its rating, strong language is few and far between, and the main reason that it has its rating is because of strong sexual themes and imagery, which I would argue aren't entirely out of place due to the strong themes of sexuality within the story.  Don't watch this film if the nearly three-hour running time is a concern, although for me that extra hour really contributed toward it being a good film.  Finally, while the visuals will probably hold up pretty well on Blu-Ray, I do recommend watching this movie in theatres specifically for the sound quality.  Villeneuve makes very striking decisions with his music and sound editing that will likely be lost at home, but which reverberate in the cinemas.