Reviews

Pros: Writer/Director Rian Johnson returns to his Knives Out world to bring us his latest murder mystery, "Glass Onion". And it certainly joins the precious few film franchises that can claim the sequel lives up to the original. Returning with him alongside an all new ensemble cast is Daniel Craig as southern sleuth Benoit Blanc. Craig is marvelous as the whip-smart dandy, you can tell he enjoys the role just as much as Blanc enjoys a murder after months of Covid lockdown isolation. Which is where we find Blanc in May 2020, bathtub-bound and unraveling in his idleness. Craig gives a palpable excitement to Blanc as soon as the plot comes knocking (quite literally) at his apartment door. He jumps at the chance to once again peel the glass onion as it were, and we're off to meet an array of characters on tech billionaire Miles Bron's (Edward Norton) island. This movie is just fun. You can tell these are the movies Kenneth Branagh is trying to make with his Hercule Poiroit series. But Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile just don't have the charisma and clockwork plotting that Johnson is pulling off. Where those movies sag, these keep the tension simmering and the possibilities unwinding. Everyone in the cast brings an interesting color to the film, each one a somewhat larger-than-life parody of the people who dominate the real life post-Covid headlines. Kate Hudson gives us a socialite mogul who seems to pride herself on her endless PR fiascos. Edward Norton plays the tech visionary genius who polarizes with his offbeat philosophies a la Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, etc... Madelyn Cline is social media maven and social climber Whiskey, and Dave Bautista is firebrand streamer and media personality Duke, a la Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dan Bilzerian, etc... But standing out amongst this laundry list of contemporary archetypes is Craig, who really brings his detective to life, this time with a little more of his comedy panache we've seen from him before. He's hilarious as he wades in the pool fully clothed, or expresses his disdain for "Clue". Between the Knives Out series, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Defiance, and Munich, he may be the most acclaimed James Bond actor outside of their stint as 007. Making a similar claim here is Dave Bautista, who between Glass Onion, Bladerunner 2049, and Spectre, might be the most acclaimed actor outside of their wrestling career. (The Rock is the most successful, but we're talking dramatic acting talent. And as for success, let's not forget Bautista is firmly entrenched as Drax in the MCU's Guardians franchise). Bautista is perfectly cast as macho wannabe news and conspiracy streamer Duke, providing some levity to the proceedings, but also notably nailing a tense moment when he delivers a brief but scathing monologue to Janelle Monae's Helen. Edward Norton's also well cast as the smug and smarmy Miles Bron, spouting dimestore life philosophies and carrying himself with all the arrogance and self righteousness that only a billionaire can. He even introduces his new solution to the energy crisis: a glass-looking crystal creation he calls "Klear" that will revolutionize clean and sustainable energy. A familiar miracle promise we're hearing more and more these days, as billionaire moguls expand into more industries promising solutions to everything, even space travel. The movie does a pretty good job of capturing the zeitgeist of early pandemic culture, and lampooning its prominent figures. Before setting off for Bron's island, the rich and famous guests are injected with a curious device (by Ethan Hawke in a quick cameo) and simply told their "good" regarding Covid. A line-jumping privilege not too far from what real rich and famous politicians/celebrities enjoyed when the Covid vaccines were first rolled out on a restricted basis. Commentary laid on thick to be sure, but apt commentary still. As with Knives Out before it, this movie's plot is as carefully constructed as the elaborate mystery box the characters are all sent inviting them to the island. The twists and turns will lead you on a satisfying caper to the destination, with intrigues and stolen glances galore to keep the suspense in the air. And when Helen exacts her justice, its impressive how far she's willing to go. At the risk of losing some likeability to the audience, Johnson has her go all out for her revenge in a manner that doesn't shy away from crossing the line in order to show just how serious she is about taking the villain down. Most movies might not go that far, but it's a feather in Glass Onion's cap that it does.

Cons: That bold step may be so bold as to be a liability, ultimately. It's possible the movie oversteps in delivering Helen's revenge. It almost seems the movie celebrates a payback that is so impassioned it can feel like applauding a temper tantrum. It's doubtful this was Johnson's intent in the director's chair. While it's acknowledged that her willingness to go to such a great length is admirable, the destruction she wreaks to achieve that revenge is such a loss to the world that we may lose some measure of sympathy for her. Helen lets her revenge consume them to the point that society is forever more robbed of the Mona Lisa, to the extent that she perhaps become a villain herself outside the confines of the immediate plot. There's also a little bit of a hurdle to accepting that immediate plot, in that this random group of friends all go on to become social, business, and even governmental luminaries in the space of about 10 years or so. This being a murder mystery, coincidences and uncanny timing are to be expected, but each person in this otherwise ordinary group of acquaintances somehow becoming rich and/or famous and leading their fields just seems an odd stretch. It calls to mind Wes Anderson's prodigious Tenenbaum family. But there you're entering the Anderson-verse of exaggerated reality. Here it plays somewhat forced. Another stretch is that at one point the police are contacted about a fresh murder, and they won't come out to the island because it's high tide and the dock isn't raised. Guys, it's a MURDER. Convenient for the movie, which proceeds without the pesky interference of police to stop the plot, but too convenient. The police aren't waiting several hours to arrive at a murder scene with the suspect still afoot because the dock isn't available. They would helicopter in, or simply just come ashore without the use of the dock. The writing really shows its hand there. Another possible flaw is the big reveal about half way through the movie that Andi is Helen, and Andi's been dead the whole movie. Glass Onion's predecessor, Knives Out, expertly wove a mystery together and invited the audience to play along. Attentive audience members were rewarded with an intricate puzzle they could solve. But here, the big reveal completely changes everything we've seen so far. So much so that you couldn't unravel the mystery without that new information. It's a less satisfying mystery when a necessary piece isn't delivered until you've already been deliberating for an hour, only to find out that work was futile by design. It's like if Bron's wooden puzzle box needed a key that was delivered an hour after the box was received. As for the social commentary, it does do a good job at jabbing the larger personalities that took off in the lockdown. But it would have been nice to have seen the other side of things lampooned as well for a little balance. There's plenty of laughs had at the expense of the self-professed alt-right "truth tellers" as Kate Hudson puts it, but where were the woke social media giants, or the PC politicians? Katherine Hahn was on the island as a governor the whole time. She was right there to fill that role! A wasted opportunity to take an even-handed approach to the satire. The tone overall is a little more loopy than Knives Out was, more comedic and the characters closer to caricature this time out. Maybe the comic relief is more needed now than in 2019, but it does take a little weight out of the film. When Helen finally gets her revenge on Bron, she starts smashing all the glass statues in the room in a big pile. It hits you: "Oh my god, all the glass was actually Klear the whole time! It's all gonna explode! They've been inside a big bomb!" And then it turns out the glass is just...glass... and Helen is smashing it because she's mad. And then it lights on fire anyway and there's an explosion anyway. Ok... The last one ended with a clever ruse tied up in a bow, this one with a big explosion. That's a little telling.

Bottom Line: Rian Johnson is now 2 for 2 on delivering smart and engaging murder mysteries with a flair for theatric personalities. Daniel Craig is a treat as he takes Benoit Blanc out for a spin again, stretching his comedic talents a little further this time. The ensemble cast does a great job delivering some timely social satire, even if it is a little lopsided. This sequel is a little zanier than its precursor, and maybe that's a reflection of the post-Covid world this film so consciously plays in. Johnson takes a gamble on a decidedly blunter finale than in his last film, which may stumble or triumph depending on your sympathies for the hero and villain. His decision to up-end everything with a conclusion that throws away the assumptions of the murder mystery genre is both daring and perhaps a little less satisfying than expected. It's refreshing to see a sequel take that kind of risk regardless. This is a most welcome series in a genre you don't see much anymore, and if a third installment doesn't disappoint, then we'll have a phenomenal trilogy that's smarter and more fun than most of what's on offer. Perhaps Johnson has found the key to exciting blockbusters that don't require CGI and buildings exploding (well ok, one). And like the solution in the glass onion, we were staring right at it the whole time. 8.5 stars out of 10.

Pro's: Ralph Fiennes shines as twisted genius master chef in this haute cuisine thriller. Set in the world of Michelin star level fine dining, Fiennes gives us Julian Slowik- a world renowned chef putting out some of the best plates on the planet at his extremely exclusive and prestigious Hawthorne restaurant, located (where else?) on the remote Hawthorne island. Fiennes is brilliant as the world weary Slowik, bringing a simmering intensity simmering just under the surface of his outwardly tranquil appearance. It takes an actor of his caliber to bring the refinement and gentility to the role that masks a rage which slowly emerges. By the end of the film, he makes Gordon Ramsay look like Mrs. Claus. This being the world of cutting edge cuisine, there's plenty for the eyes to feast on. Several of the shots will call Netflix's docuseries hit "Chef's Table" to mind. In fact, it's name dropped later in the film (probably thanks in no small part to 2nd unit director David Gelb having created the series). There's enough attention to the plating and cooking that you can tell there's some real love for the food here. In fact, for the first act of this film, audiences will likely believe it's a love letter to the world of shrimp foam, white truffle infusions, and breadless bread plates. In this phase of the film, Tyler (the foodiest of foodies) gives a brief but impassioned dissertation on the merits of food-as-art in an effort to enlighten Anya Taylor-Joy's non-foodie civilian Margot. It's a sincere moment that just about has us sold. And then the heat turns up. Way up. With a bang (no, literally). The film is split up into chapters, each named for the course currently being served (or inflicted- more on that later). It's a fun little device to help put the audience in the diners' seats as the evening unfolds. Director mark Mylod uses sound cues to heighten the tension along the way. Chef Slowik's loyal cadre of culinary kamikazes move in perfect silence; plating with agonizing care, standing at attention when addressed, attending their stations with fanatical focus. The silence is shattered violently when Slowik unceremoniously claps his hands impossibly loud at the start of each course. It's shattered again when his cooks are invited to speak, barking Yes Chef and No Chef when questioned. The cacophony immediately returns to quiet, leaving the diners (and the audience) to sit in the excruciating calm. It keeps you on edge and keeps the heat turned up the whole way through the dinner from hell. Speaking of the underworld: The Menu feels slightly Dante's Inferno-ish. We travel to the mysterious Hawthorne Island, removed from the normal world and order. Slowik and his band of chefs almost appear as angels in their impeccable white Chef coats (until things inevitably turn messy of course), positioned physically above the dining room in the elevated open kitchen, descending to take our cast to task for what Slowik proves are deadly sins. A financier does appear at one point in actual angel's wings after all. The film functions almost as a morality play, the Chef punishing his guests for their gastronomic transgressions. Could it be that Hawthorne Island is a nod to Nathaniel Hawthorne of "Scarlet Letter" fame? And as with any morality play, the punishments fit the crime. The foodie who only eats and has no actual understanding of cooking is humiliated into cooking for Chef, dressed up in his big-boy chef coat, his sycophancy turned on its ear to lethal result. The philandering husband has his ring finger chopped off, the Wall Street bros' greed is exposed, the phony cash-grab actor is fooled into giving an autograph in false hope of rescue, etc... A refreshing twist is that Slowik himself receives punishment. Usually the punisher only doles out the damnation. Though self-inflicted, here he too is consigned to his "just desserts" (I had to). His penalty feels like a rebuke of ultra-fine dining itself. The admiration and reverence for this cuisine shown in the beginning of the film ultimately proves superficial. Margot correctly pins Chef Slowik as being a man who's gone so far in his field and achieved such a high level of mastery that his passion and enjoyment is gone. She says there's no love in his dishes, and she's right. The film is not a love letter to fancy desserts and delicately layered dishes, it's an excoriation of haute-cuisine B. S. The message can apply to any field, and the movie could have been made about any auteur working at the highest levels. Slowik is exposed as a skilled but fallen shell of a Chef, and his whole world is called out by the film as over-fluffed snobbery. Through all of this there are little dollops of black humor to ease the pressure every so often. They don't take you out of the moment, but they do provide a quick relief and really help to keep things from getting too heavy. As a side note, there's an interesting point made by Slowik towards the end about how willfully or not the guests went to their ooey gooey deaths. Attempts are made to escape, but they aren't exactly clawing their way out of hell. Could they have tried harder, did they even want to? You'll be chewing on that one after the credits role.

Cons: Outlandish as the premise of the movie is, there are a few times the suspension of disbelief stretches a bit too far. Private island run by a devoted kitchen and a maniacal chef? Ok. Guests hand picked over months or years and all placed on the same day in the right spot? Ok. But would a full kitchen compliment of chefs actually be willing to die (and painfully) for their idol? And none of them would renege at the last moment, or any of the insane moments of the evening? They're devoted yes, but to the point of slowly played out murder/suicide? Margot manages to make it to the radio in Chef's private quarters and signal for help, only for the Coast Guard to be one of the chefs and the radio a trap decoy. Are we to buy that Chef Slowik forsaw a guest he didn't even know would be on the island somehow make it past security and then find this one radio, and then had one of his chefs dress as a member of the coast guard waiting for the moment this happened to launch the fake rescue ruse? That's more half baked than the smores inferno. And to Chef Slowik's point, the guests really don't try to escape with quite the gusto one would expect from a group of people who were all just informed that they were to be killed at the end of the night. There's one chair throw, one attempted escape (at Chef's urging), and Margot's radio gambit. It's more likely there would be a shootout, a knife fight, or at least some kind of general brawl. The movie does want to make the point that perhaps these people felt enough guilt to semi-accept their fate, but that doesn't mean it's not far fetched. As to the guests themselves, if we accept that these pieces can be put into place successfully, it's not immediately clear why they were all picked. We're told the married couple are regulars and Chef takes offense to their lack of appreciation, we're told the actor made a terrible movie for money and Chef is offended as an artist, we're told Tyler only "takes" without giving, and Chef resents his purely academic fandom. But the Wall Street bros? Is Slowik so enraged at their "general capitalist greed" that he's invited them to die? They're money laundering was revealed with the tacos, was there more going on there? Were they backing Slowik's angel investor? We don't know. While the performances are pretty strong across the board, most from our leads Ralph Fiennes and Anya Taylor-Joy, this is the first work I've seen from her that coaxed a slight feeling of weariness. From "The Witch" to "Queen's Gambit" to "The Northman" and now "The Menu", she's racking up "spunky no-nonsense rebel who will not be told how to live" roles. And she's quite good in them. But one wonders if perhaps a range broadening is due. By the time she's putting her high heel down on Chef Slowik you've known she'd be the one for about an hour. We may be approaching "renegade fatigue" with Anya Taylor-Joy, and a character who's shy, or cowardly, or vulnerable, or immoral, or anything negative would be a welcome pallet cleanser at this point.

Bottom Line: "The Menu" is an engaging thriller with enough shocks and a few laughs to keep you hungry for more. Ralph Fiennes relishes the chance to bring a polished intensity to crescendo, and Anya Taylor-Joy is enjoyable as she deftly navigates this dinner from hell, even if it's territory she's trod before. At times the plot's eyes are bigger than its stomach when it comes to just how much we're willing to believe, but a reservation at this restaurant is worth the price of admission. 7.5 stars out of 10.

Of all wars, certainly the most popular subject for film has been World War II. That conflict has become the standard image of a "war movie" over the last 80 years. World War I, by contrast, never really got the same treatment at the theater. It could be the fact that WW2 is more recent, it could be the fact that the Holocaust is an added dimension, it could just be that WW2 was simply even bigger and more devastating, at least in terms of numbers of people and scale of battle. But All Quiet on the Western Front, the original 1930 adaptation, did make a splash. It was ahead of its time with how gritty and brutal it showed modern war to be, and also in taking the "war movie" genre down to the common soldier's level; the camera was in the trenches, the characters were mostly enlisted and drafted men. But WWI never really got its definitive great film. There are numerous candidates for WWII, but most likely on the balance of success, acclaim, and popularity it's probably Saving Private Ryan. WWI had its share, less so, of movies over the intervening decades but none achieved this kind of status. One of the more recent films which may be the closest we've gotten to the kind of triumph Saving Private Ryan managed is 1917. Commercially and critically successful, that film managed to convey the mechanized hellscape of WWI in blockbuster style. But notably, the film stays on one character in real time throughout the course of a day. It is concerned with only the characters and doesn't look up to take in a wider view of the war. Saving Private Ryan stays with its small detactchment of soldiers too, but it's about WWII as well as the immediate plot. And that is where this latest adaptation of the 1929 novel distinguishes itself. Painting a relentlessly grisly tableau of the mud-and-skull ridden western front, All Quiet on the Western Front just may be WWI's definitive great film.

Pro's: AQOWF is skillful in its use of contrasts to define the tragedy of WWI. It makes good use of the disparity between the peace of nature and the destruction of man-made war. The opening shot is an idyllic forest, quiet and sleepy as a den of foxes tranquilly rest among the trees. We then pan over to another part of the same countryside and, quite literally via the camera movement, we descend into the hell of war. Bodies explode, men are ripped apart, machines obliterate boys, and when the quarters become too close the slaughter is carried out by hand. The movie returns to the animal motif several times; the lines of trucks meandering to the front and the soldiers marching look like ants in their anthill trenches, the gas masks make the men look like horses, whenever the starving men get a rare chance to eat they devour whatever is available like dogs (2 of our leads repeatedly steal from a farmer's coop like the foxes in the opening shot), when the men struggle to take down a lumbering tank it brings to mind lions swarming prey. Running alongside this is a constant reminder that the human beings in this war are reduced to disposable objects. The opening scene follows a German soldier, Heinrich, through his last brutal minutes as he endeavors and fails to survive another futile infantry assault. In the aftermath, the dead men's uniforms are harvested from their corpses, washed, the bullet holes sewn up, and re-issued to fresh recruits (read: fodder). In the end, this person's short life and savage end are reduced only to a nametag, ripped off and tossed aside as the uniform he died in is handed off to the next soldier. A pile of reclaimed boots towers over the trench, the men who wore them forgotten and discarded. The imagery is perhaps most starkly drawn in the practice of collecting dogtags off the deceased. Each man's dogtag is bent and snapped in half and thrown in a bag, all their effort and doomed hope reduced to a scrap of metal. The soldiers who make it and live on bear the marks of survival: when we rejoin our protagonists a year and a half after arriving at the front, their teeth are yellowed, their eyes vacant and heavy. Felix Kammerer as main character Paul Baumer nails the infamous "Thousand Yard Stare", especially towards the end when his General announces one last pointless assault. Dignity in this war is simply impossible. When Paul comes across his friend's body while collecting dogtags, all he can do to give him a burial is button his jacket. When he finds himself stranded in a shell crater with a dying enemy soldier he just mortally wounded, all he can do to comfort him is try to wipe the spurting blood away as he gasps for air. Paul cowers in a trench as tanks roll overhead, crushing a man beneath the tracks no different than barbed wire or any other obstacle. As Hemingway would say "In modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason." Another contrast the movie carries well is the slow wheels of bureaucracy and government juxtaposed with the relentless attrition of the war. We repeatedly hard cut from the burning killing fields, laden with broken corpses and drenched in the blood of the unlucky, to the polished sedate offices of the military leadership, luxurious train cars laden with lavish breakfasts and all social graces observed. The color palette shifts immediately from the brown, black, and red of the cratered battlefields to rich woods, soft white linens, and the powder blues of impeccably laundered ceremonial uniforms. As the generals bicker over honor and perceived slights, we cut back to men hacking each other to pieces, stealing the boots off friends who were alive seconds ago, to be worn until the next machine gun burst makes them into corpses seconds from now. The leadership is obsessed with territory and blame, but it's very hard to see which side is which when everything and everyone is caked in mud and guts. German leadership, embodied by General Friedrichs here, is completely out of touch and stuck wallowing in past glories as the defeat closes in. Sitting with his assistant, Friedrichs tells him his future will be secure as the assistant's family makes horse saddles. The irony of this statement, made by a General fighting the war that replaced horses with vehicles, underlines how misplaced the leadership's priorities are. Even the "good" leadership, embodied here by diplomat Erzberger (Inglorious Basterds' and Captain America: Civil War's Daniel Bruhl, pulling double duty here as executive producer) is tragically flawed: although he strains to push the boulder of government up hill, in the end he is satisfied and relieved to agree to a less-than-immediate ceasefire, one which spells doom for our protagonist. A glimmer of hope is the only relief in the chaos. A girl's handkerchief, white shining out from the mud and soot, is passed amongst the men throughout the movie. At one point as Paul observes a bonfire we are tempted to think he will burn it, but instead he puts it on, defiantly clinging to something that isn't killing or dying. Finally, at the end, it is retrieved and worn by a survivor. A small victory for something good. A shred of joy rescued from the wreckage. Perhaps something, if only hope itself, can survive this bloodletting.

Cons: As if to prove that it does belong to the war movie genre, AQOWF has its share of tropes. Of course the friend who is most gung-ho about the war, who encourages Paul to enlist, is the first to crack from the grim reality of war, and the first to die in it. You have the obligatory "it's not that bad, we'll get you patched up" scene when a friend is obviously done for. There is the grown man calling for his mother in the crucible of battle. Paul's friend and farm raiding partner Kat lays out his post-war plan for a family, of course dying shortly after. All fitting, but all done 1,000 times before. Impressively for a 2 & a half hour movie, the only slow parts are the diplomacy scenes. It's probable that the pacing is intentionally ground to a halt here, to underline the snail's pace negotiations as the fighting rages on. And it's appropriate in service to that theme, but the tonal shift is sudden and jarring. These scenes give the viewer a chance to catch their breath, but whether the stop/start edits work in the end will largely depend on the viewer. Another issue, perhaps only for foreign/American audiences (this is a German film) is the use of German for the main characters' dialogue. This is the first adaptation of the novel to present itself in German, and while that's entirely appropriate and accurate, it may unintentionally alienate non-German audiences from the protagonists. In the American psyche, when you put German soldiers yelling in German on the big screen, it's the enemy. And it will take a little bit for non-German speaking audiences to get comfortable with getting their heads around the fact that these are our "good guys" to route for. The fact that the film is released on Netflix with the option to have other languages dubbed will alleviate this (although I would still recommend the original German with subtitles). Lastly, while the film so skillfully illustrates its anti-war message, it can be heavy handed at times. The book is quite subtle in its messaging, and while it makes a point of describing the horrors of mechanized war, it never quite comes right out and tells you "war is bad". Here, the messaging is pretty obvious and laid on pretty thick. A lighter touch with the messaging would elevate the film to a more nuanced take on human nature. As it stands, it's a well-crafted movie with a blunt message.

Bottom Line: Mesmerizing and haunting, WW1 finally gets its due in catastrophic fashion with an epic that drags you into the mud and makes you hunker down through every explosion. Horrific imagery and tender humanity meet to deliver a powerful piece of cinema about the tragedy of modern war. An inevitable tragedy when every man is a pair of boots with a rifle. 8.5 stars out of 10.

Pro's: Director Jordan Peele continues his horror run, and he's teamed up once more with past collaborator Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out) in this latest flick. Kaluuya's OJ and his sister Emerald run a horse ranch out in California where they raise and train horses for Hollywood productions. But when strange events and an unwelcome visitor start materializing, things go from bad to worse. But really this movie is a Western disguised as an alien movie. (Nope and Cowoys & Aliens may be the only 2 movies that make up this genre). Or rather a Western about Westerns. OJ really comes to embody the good guy cowboy of the old Western movies that this film draws on, and which rent out OJ's horses for their productions. He faces off against the menace astride his steed, defending his land; at one point there's a silhouette shot of him framed by a hewn timber archway that just screams John Wayne. His sister Emerald as the trusty sidekick, cinematographer Antlers as the Old Gun who has one more in him, faded child star Jupe as the naïve local who's not the man for the job: all the stock archetypes are there. But they're drawn and fleshed out compellingly. The effects here are top notch, the CGI is impeccable. Most notable perhaps on the chimp "Gordy", whose animation is on par with the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy. Even still, in the 2 instances Gordy is close up and looking right at the camera, the film does a very smart thing. In one instance there is a glare coming from behind Gordy, due to studio lights, creating a hazy camera flare. In the other, a translucent table cloth obscures Gordy's face. Both tricks serve to keep us from getting a 100% close up direct look at him, which is a skillful trick to really sell the CGI just in case our now-jaded eyes can tell it's not real. The result is a completely believable, fully photo-real digital figure. The more narrative aspect of this trick is how it ties in with the broader motif of not looking directly at a wild being. This applies to both Gordy and the alien. In this film, those who do are not long for this world. It's the most direct example of the movie's theme of watching and being watched, which it returns to over and over again. OJ's ancestor is the first actor in the first motion picture. Jupe is a former child actor. Mirror balls recur at different points- on set, as the TMZ reporter's helmet, and the one OJ is making himself at the ranch. These balls, which cause the viewer to see themselves in the reflection, always presage something bad about to happen. Jupe himself refers to the aliens as "viewers". The alien is able to sense being watched. It's mouth/eye/orifice thing revealed towards the end of the movie is like a camera shutter, repeatedly pulsing and seemingly clicking over, even as the people on the ground record it with their own lenses. The TMZ reporter, unconcerned at his impending death, begs only that it be filmed. The security cameras OJ installs around the ranch are always recording, scanning the skies. Watching and being watched, viewing and being viewed, is the main "message" of the film. But refreshingly, Peele takes a more subtle approach here than in previous outings Get Out and Us. The themes here are less in your face and more woven in this time around, a sign of growing maturity from the relatively novice director. The less overt messaging is appreciated. The cinematic lineage of the film is all over the screen. Peele uses the big open sky how Spielberg used the vast expanse of open water in Jaws. OJ ends up tagging the alien with a string of flags much like Jaws' Quint tags the titular shark with barrels. You'll almost expect OJ to say "We're gonna need a bigger horse." All alone at the isolated ranch, pitted against strange occurrences and this unknown malevolence, there are big Coen brothers and M. Night Shyamalan vibes. A Serious Man, The Village, and Signs come to mind. Hell, add a few frogs to the falling objects and you could throw Magnolia in there. A few puzzling things introduced in the first half that will have you scratching your head, such as those objects falling from the sky and Jupe's wishing well, pay off in the second half satisfyingly. It all intensifies and delivers a thrilling second half that's as exciting as it is suspenseful.

Cons: If the second half is a wild ride, the first half is a slow burn. Too slow, to where it almost fizzles out. The movie really takes its time setting up. And while good movies will often do that, they do it while building suspense and anticipation. That's the difference better editing might have made here. The first half of this movie starts to plod along and really drag until we finally get to Jupe's "Star Lasso Experience" catastrophe, and that arguably could have been the ending climax of a shorter film! The film runs 130 minutes, and it really should be about 90. The first hour could easily be a half hour and deliver everything we need. There's a tighter, more focused hour and a half movie in here, but unfortunately the first half is weighed down with a lot of track laying that just isn't very compelling. And for as good as the second half is once the ball gets rolling, it sort of doesn't know when to end. By the time we get to the Jupiter's Claim fiasco, the audience will likely believe they're seeing the tragic climax. But that's only about halfway through the film. There's still a whole plan to hatch and execute with the alien. And while that plan plays out with action and suspense to spare, it's seemingly a second ending. It's almost as if the writers couldn't pick an ending, so they went ahead with both. Not helping the lethargic pace is Daniel Kaluuya's somber OJ. While he is ostensibly the star of this Western, and so the "strong, silent type" is called for, there's taciturn and then there's dull. And Kaluuya starts to slump over that line. His character is witnessing events that not only confirm alien life, but alien life that killed his father and is directly threatening his own life and livelihood. You wouldn't know it from his face or demeanor though, even mid-showdown with a floating death monster. A person, any person, would simply be more affected by these events. I'm sure the argument can and will be made that OJ is being the stern unflappable cowboy, but I'm not convinced. Maybe an "oh my god" or an "oh sh_t" here and there. How 'bout an eyebrow raise? A drop more deadpan and the Kristen Stewart comparisons will start swirling. It worked in Get Out, but here it's just a little puzzling. (As a side note, I'm not sure I believe OJ's father would have been killed by the falling nickel either. His cadaver is shown with a gash in his head and x-rays of the nickel having been imbedded inside (!) his skull. A nickel dropped from any height, even an airplane, is not splitting a skull. Draw blood yes, maybe fracture a bone at the right angle. But break a skull and embed in a brain? A nickel is not doing that kind of damage unless fired out of a gun.) Another part of the movie that doesn't quite jive is the backstory of Jupe and the monkey incident. Ostensibly, the analogy here is that some animals can't be tamed, and trying to will only lead to disaster. That's true for Gordy, that's true for the horse OJ's father observes in a flashback, and that's true for the alien. Jupe pays the price for not learning that lesson the first time around with Gordy. But the analogy isn't water tight, because OJ and his family hadn't been trying to tame, or were even aware of, the alien. What are they being punished for? It's a tenuous lesson that isn't worth the disjointed B-story flashbacks. It ends up more of a distraction than anything else, even if it does deliver the most visceral horror in the movie.

Bottom line: Nope is an interesting and strange film that manages some real suspense and kicks on the back end. A unique take on both Westerns and UFO movies, Peele's quickly building himself a reputation as a meticulous crafter. It's a shame the setup is a little bloated, and Daniel Kaluuya's too dull for most of it to inject much needed life into the first half. A re-cut could make a much sharper thriller out of this movie, but it has some interesting things to say about Hollywood and our content consumption culture. When it does finally step on the gas it proves it can execute. 6.5 out of 10 stars.