"One Battle After Another" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

I saw “One Battle After Another” in theaters on October 3rd, 2025, the first weekend of its release in Japan. In the first viewing, it was difficult to separate politics from my assessment. It was impossible, actually, and I walked out of the theater a bit annoyed. What was this nearly 3-hour spectacle of radical-left hogwash?

Even for moderates, “One Battle After Another” will press buttons. The story revolves around members/ex-members of a left-wing revolutionary group called the “French 75”. They resemble a rag-tag kind of mid-2000s-era Weather Underground; with Perfidia Beverly Hills (Teyana Taylor), a brash, ruggedly regal Black female at their spiritual helm. First impression, Perfidia is strong, and tactically-sound; a Revolutionary to be scared of, and respected. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays her romantic partner, Pat Calhoun/”Ghetto Pat”. His specialty is bomb-making. Other members include Laredo (Wood Harris) and “Junglepussy” (Shayna McHale), aggressive soldier-types; as well as the calmer-minded “Lady Champagne”/Deandra (Regina Hall).

In the first act, we see the French 75 in action. Against the backdrop of Otay Mesa (east of San Diego, CA), they liberate immigrants at a detention center, knock out a power-station and plant bombs in a courthouse, all to great success. Yet, their evasion of authorities comes to a screeching halt when a bank robbery goes wrong, leading to the first of two incredibly filmed car-chases. 

In the fallout, some members are killed, others are caught, and the rest are forced into hiding.

Among those caught is Perfidia. Her circumstances are unique. During the aforementioned detainee break-out operation, Perfidia breaches a room where the camp CO, Col. Stephen J. Lockjaw (Sean Penn) is napping in a chair. She takes Lockjaw’s sidearm, and then demands that he achieve an erection, at gunpoint. We suspect this to be solely a practice in humiliation. But a palpable, mutual attraction overwhelms. It is a weird scene. Aroused, Lockjaw is rounded up with the rest of his soldiers and locked in a fenced collection area as the French 75 escape with the immigrants, accompanied by a fireworks show from Pat.

Lockjaw reunites with Perfidia after stalking her movements to the courthouse location. In plainclothes, he confronts her with an ultimatum: return his gun, in-person, at a hotel room; or standby to have the operation exposed. (Lockjaw is a part of a fictitious military unit called MKU, a kind of Army/DEA/ICE mish-mash).

Perfidia takes option #1. At first we feel a sense of coercion. What unfolds in the hotel room makes it clear that this is a mutual affair. 

Arrested after the botched bank robbery, Perfidia is bailed out by Lockjaw who provides another ultimatum: sing like a canary to the Feds and go into Witness Protection or face decades in jail. Option #1 again. Perfidia dishes on the French 75, but quickly flees her new house (and identity) for Mexico, leaving Lockjaw with a broken heart.

Meanwhile, Pat Calhoun is left with Perfidia’s newborn baby (audience has reason to doubt the fatherhood), and sets off for a life off-the-grid in a rural Northern California town called Baktan Cross.

After about ~35 minutes runtime covering all of the above, we fast-forward 16 years. Pat is now Bob Ferguson, a reclusive, seemingly unemployed stoner who spends most days in his tiny, woodsy cabin smoking joints, listening to Steely Dan, and watching “The Battle of Algiers” on repeat. Standing in sharp contrast to Bob is the now-grown-up Willa (Chase Infiniti). She presents as a mature teenager, getting rave reviews from her High School teachers and admiration from her karate sensei, Sergio St. Carlos (Benicio Del Toro). The rest of the story picks up from here. 

It is not my intention to provide a robust plot summary here. You should see this movie. Rather, I want to point out some knee-jerk perceptions that negatively colored my first viewing:

• On the whole, the “Revolutionaries” are the good guys in this movie.

• The military/law-enforcement are portrayed as totally inept, racist, disorganized, and corrupt. 

• There is a fictitious Catholic convent featured in the latter half that is named “Sisters of the Brave Beaver”. Classy.

• One scene features a peaceful march of protestors on the Main Street of Baktan Cross. An MKU officer signals to “send in Eddie Van Halen”, then a disguised MKU officer enters the crowd of protestors, lights a molotov cocktail and chucks it, instigating violence.

• A second act group of villains called the “Christmas Adventurers Club” play a key role in the plot. More on them later, but the crux for now is that they are a secretive white-nationalist group of uber-wealthy WASP elites. 

These are just a handful of aspects that force “One Battle After Another” into a political realm. Try watching the movie now that ICE is regularly front-page news!

I fell for the trap. “One Battle After Another” pushed my political buttons. There is a world in which I don’t buy another ticket for round two. But something brought me back. Also, in brass tacks, Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from Vineland, a Thomas Pynchon novel published in 1990. PTA also started working on the adaptation over 20 years ago… The film was greenlit in 2023. Unless PTA can see the future, it is safe to say that “One Battle After Another” is not a reactionary film (see “Eddington” for a counter-point).

The reason I point to these details is because I believe there is a big conservative crowd out there that will pigeon-hole “One Battle After Another” as liberal junk and miss out on what is truly a great movie experience. If this review prompts a viewing, I hope it allows for more of my round-two takeaways, rather than the political qualms of round-one.

Political hurdle cleared, “One Battle After Another” is a must-see if only because PTA is among the top-five finest living auteurs. His greatest strength is in creating complex characters. You will be hard pressed to develop an entirely cynical, or positive reading on a main character. PTA also routinely chooses tainted landscapes for his films, “Hard Eight” with gambling, “Boogie Nights” with Adult film, “Magnolia” with broken homes and drug addiction, “There Will Be Blood” with cut-throat capitalism, and “The Master” with New Religion/cults. Within these morally rigged arenas, PTA masterfully develops characters that defy expectations. 

In “One Battle After Another”, Perfidia Beverly Hills is a great example. First viewing, she is a proud, fearless revolutionary! She does what she needs to survive. A true example of women’s empowerment and new-wave feminism! Defiant! Brave! College girls in the Reproductive Justice Alliance ought to get posters made! 

Or, maybe not.

If we sum up Perfidia’s actions in “One Battle After Another”, the picture isn't pretty. In no specific order of importance/consequence, throughout Act One Perfidia: cheats on Pat with a sworn enemy, brazenly consumes alcohol whilst pregnant, kills a bank security guard (minority too!) in cold blood, abandons her newborn and a hapless Pat, and then rats out her Revolutionary comrades to save her own skin… 

Perfidia is as heroic or as despicable as you want her to be. PTA lets us decide, and gives ammo to both sides.

The characters are what pulled me back into the theater, days after the first watch. Beyond anything, they are what make all of PTA’s films so inherently rewatchable.

On to the categories…

Highlight of the Game: Bob/Pat’s phone conversation with Comrade Josh.

Player of the Game: Leo. He perfectly blends the most enjoyable Rick Dalton-isms from “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” with the muted, stoner affability of Jeff “The Dude” Lebowski.

Costly Turnovers: I have three. First, Perfidia and Pat lack romantic chemistry. Scenes of intimacy between the two feel wholly unrealistic. Second, the final two sequences of this movie are unneeded. There is a very clear ending point (Pat and Willa’s embrace on the desert highway). The denouement rings hollow and adds unnecessary minutes to an already lengthy run time. I would have rated “One Battle” ALL-NBA if not for this glaring blunder. Third, the “Christmas Adventurers Club” plot line is dumb. It is by far the most hokey concept in the movie, Brave Beavers included. I get that Lockjaw needs a reason to revisit the French 75 and his prior relationship with Perfidia, and the Christmas Adventurers facilitate this. However, why not just have Lockjaw on the short list for an unspecified “Washington D.C. position”, and insert a scene with a racist Bureau Chief? An internal race against an FBI/CIA entity would make a lot more sense than a troupe of Patagonia-vest-wearing white supremacists.

First Five

“Send Help” Review

Year: 2026, Director: Sam Raimi

OP-ROB RATING; STARTER

An inventive, low-stakes, B-movie thriller that lets Rachel McAdams shine. What makes “Send Help” an easy thumbs-up is its approachability. The remote island survival story of a socially-awkward, frumpy analyst and her arrogant, nepo-baby boss is just a fun template. The plot is adequately taught and twisty for a great in-flight viewing. Film-buffs can also enjoy bits of vintage Raimi with plenty of “Evil Dead” references lying in wait. “Send Help” is not a “serious” film, nor does it try to be. Most of the effects look pretty bad. But cleaning them up would detract from the kitschy charm.

“Sinners” Review

Year: 2025, Director: Ryan Coogler

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Two movie conventions I detest: vampires, gratuitous sex. Emphasis on either makes it difficult to move up the OP-ROB ladder. “Sinners” is a double-whammy. That said, this is by no means a bad movie. Miles Caton is especially riveting as Sammie, the earnest guitar phenom caught in a “From Dusk Till Dawn” style nightmare. “Sinners” is also a rare big-budget passion project from a young director. The research and attention to detail are palpable. If Coogler takes home “Best Picture”, I won’t be mad. Nonetheless, this adventure drips too much blood from fangs and sweat from bodies for my appetite. 

“The Limey” Review

Year: 1999, Director: Steven Soderbergh

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

Heavily-stylized revenge noir that ranks near the bottom of Soderbergh’s work in my book. Terrence Stamp commands on-screen as Wilson, an old-school, Cockney, career-criminal visiting LA to discover what really happened to his daughter, who died in a car “accident”. Luis Guzmán supplies a memorably zesty performance as Eduardo, a friend of Wilson’s late daughter and tag along to the investigation. What drags “The Limey” down is its milquetoast story. Predictability makes the 89 minutes feel bloated. Soderbergh also deploys a distracting foreshadowing technique multiple times, giving us a glimpse of 15-20 seconds past present and then jumping back.

“Mystery Train” Review

Year: 1989, Director: Jim Jarmusch

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

For “location feel”, Jim Jarmusch is among the best. This movie takes place in Memphis, and succeeds at making us feel like we are getting an authentic view of the “Home of the Blues”. None of the filming locations look staged or exclamatory (think of Washington D.C. movies that flood you with scenes around the Capitol or panning shots over the National Mall, for the opposite idea). Three zany stories unfold within a dilapidated hotel clerked by a perfectly cast Screamin' Jay Hawkins. This is a fun movie with quirky characters and a bluesy flourish.

“All Quiet on The Western Front” Review

Year: 2022, Director: Edward Berger

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-NBA, RODMAN

Delivers across the board: Directing, Acting, Sound, Cinematography, Storytelling, and Set Design. Everything is polished. AQOTWF looks and feels like an epic filmmaking feat. It is also not a movie that you enjoy. Admired characters die in gruesome, unglorious fashion. We follow Paul (Felix Kammerer), who desperately, and then numbingly tries to survive an intermittent barrage of bullets, shells, and gas. It’s a cold, mucky, dreary, loud, and altogether harrowing ride. Moments of serenity are interspersed, but those are not the focus; AQOTWF is a great, if unpleasant capturing of what made the book so definitive of “The Great War”.

"Boyz n the Hood" Review

            “Boyz n the Hood” is a 1991 drama written and directed by the late John Singleton. The first time I saw “Boyz” was just under a decade ago and I liked it enough at that time to add it to my permanent collection on iTunes. However, having watched the film again in July of 2020, it struck differently than in past viewings. There were various important intricacies that had gone unnoticed.  Before sitting down to “Boyz n the Hood” a few days ago, the lasting impressions of the film had been mainly stylistic. From the opening scenes the film oozes early 90s imagery. In almost every frame of “Boyz” you can catch glimpses of characters adorned in LA Raiders and Georgetown Hoyas gear and downing St. Ides malt liquor. The soundtrack features the likes of Ice Cube (“How to Survive in South Central”), Compton’s Most Wanted (“Growin’ Up in the Hood”) and Stanley Clarke’s fantastic and haunting score “Black on Black Crime”. In these ways “Boyz” is an ode to a West Coast hip-hop culture that has maintained interest and popularity throughout the years. However, “Boyz” is much more than just a relic of the 90s and a showcase for hip-hop culture.  It is a dynamic masterpiece that feels all the more important in these times of strife across the United States.

             The film opens in South Central Los Angeles in 1984 and follows three young boys who are Tre Styles (Desi Arnez Hines II), Ricky Baker (Donovan McCrary) and Darrin “Doughboy” Baker (Baha Jackson).  The children own the first 30 minutes of the film, before flashing forward seven years and picking back up with the now-grown Tre (Cuba Gooding Jr.), Ricky (Morris Chestnut) and Doughboy (Ice Cube).  It is in those first 30 minutes that we get a sense of what each character is at his core. Tre is wicked smart but perhaps too quick to emotion, as displayed when he takes up his teacher’s challenge to try to teach his elementary school class but ends up fighting with another student mid-lecture. Ricky is dedicated and innocent, but also a little naïve. Doughboy is the opposite of his brother, without a calling like Ricky has with football; he instead channels his energies into the streets, an arena in which he is extremely adept. This contrast is on display when the kids follow their friend Chris (Kenneth A. Brown) through the streets of South Central looking for a dead body. They find the body, but are interrupted by a group of young men, one of whom asks Ricky to pass over his beloved football which Doughboy had warned prior not to bring. Ricky gives up the ball, and the young men take off with it. “I told you not to bring that ball!”, Doughboy tells his brother as he chases after the older group.  Indeed, Doughboy gets the ball back, but at the cost of getting beaten up by the older boy in a fight. This short scene sets the stage for later developments. The kids are beset on all sides by inescapable violence, destined for tragedy.

            Indeed, “Boyz n the Hood” seems to take on black-on-black violence as its main theme. The opening titles include quotes about black mortality rates and crime, while the closing title pleads “INCREASE THE PEACE”. However, Singleton pursues a plethora of other issues throughout the film, often in very subtle ways. For example, during Tre’s elementary school class at the beginning of the film his teacher drones on about the pilgrim settlers in early America while the camera pans across a wall in the classroom displaying the students’ artwork. The drawings include dead bodies and LAPD squad cars. Perhaps Singleton was drawing our attention to a white teacher lecturing a room full of black students on a historical topic that is exclusively white for a reason. This scene was amplified for me by today’s current events, in which people across the country are expressing very different perspectives on what it means to be American, and what America represents to them. The pilgrims are an important part of my heritage to some extent, but are they to Tre’s? In this very simple scene Singleton raises complex questions about how history is taught.

            Similarly, Singleton proposes other quandaries through the character of Furious Styles (Laurence Fishburne), Tre’s father. Furious is featured the most in the film outside of Tre, Ricky and Doughboy. In the opening act we see him guide the young Tre into manhood offering sage advice in a variety of scenes. Furious is tough, opinionated, and the kind of guy you would not want to get into an intellectual argument with because he would win by theoretical knockout. One of the most interesting scenes with Furious comes toward the end of the movie, when he brings Tre and Ricky to a neighborhood in Compton that is undergoing the process of gentrification.  Furious gives a short speech that harkens back to Malcolm X’s famed “The Ballot or the Bullet”. Furious’ ethos, as far as I can tell, is that of a Black nationalist. Indeed, Furious’ profession is helping members of the black community in South Central secure loans for houses. Furious’ beliefs and those contained in Malcolm X’s 1964 speech are absolutely worth thinking about today, for their strengths and weaknesses. On that same subject, there is a subtle divide between Furious and Tre’s mother, Reva (Angela Bassett). Although little detail is given on Reva, we can derive that she has a master’s degree and a high-paying job. When Furious goes to meet her at a swanky restaurant in Beverly Hills we can presume that he disapproves of her success and residence in white society. Furious has decided to work from within, seeking to solve the brokenness of his community in South Central while Reva has found wealth and status on the outside. Is one path more “right” than the other?

            Complex questions such as these are riddled throughout the film. Something that speaks to the nuances of “Boyz” is that any one of the infinite camps debating America’s race problems could find aspects of the film to mean something that supports their cause.  Those critical of BLM could point to the opening titles, and the violence that ensues throughout the film that is exclusively black-on-black crime. On the flipside, there are plenty examples in “Boyz” pointing to a system of oppression. Furious’ gentrification speech is just one. But Singleton doesn’t make anything easy or obvious. For example, the racist cop in “Boyz” is portrayed by Jessie Lawrence Ferguson, who is black. Why did Singleton make that choice? I would venture to guess that he sought to make issue of the problem of police brutality outside of strict racial lines. But that decision could have been made for any number of reasons!

            In terms of criticisms of “Boyz” I have two. One is with Furious’ comment to Tre that “A black man ain’t got no place in the Army.”  This comment is brought up again later on in the movie, and is never really fleshed out. Furious explains that he joined the army after Reva got pregnant as a teenager so that his child could have someone to look up to as a father. Obviously Furious grew into an extremely impressive adult and more than capable father, so where does the distrust of the military come from? This is never explained. Perhaps Furious views the military as an escape from the black community that he dreams of building up and giving real power. Secondly, there is a prolonged scene in which Tre fibs to Furious about having sex with a young woman. The fantasy is played out in a sequence that is overlong and gratuitous. Why add it? However, other than those complaints, “Boyz” is a powerful film with scarcely little fluff.

            In closing, I will warn that “Boyz n the Hood” does not make for a relaxed Friday evening movie. It is a crushing film, with an ending as tragic as I have ever seen. Yet, I absolutely feel that “Boyz” is worth the heartache. The performances are without flaw, especially those of Fishburne, Ice Cube, and Cuba Gooding Jr. The scene that occurs after Tre is roughed up by the aforementioned cop is one of the finest in film history, all due to Gooding Jr.’s ace performance. More importantly, as I read the news and struggle to understand what is going on in America today, “Boyz” offered a prescient glimpse into an experience of the US that I fail to truly comprehend. The film is rich with the very issues heating up debates across the country. Raising those vital questions and forcing deeper thought without real bias is the best asset of any great film and “Boyz n the Hood” is most certainly one of those.

"The Last Dance" Ep. 1-4 Review

            In the midst of COVID-19 keeping most of the country indoors, ESPN recently aired a documentary series detailing the 1997-1998 Chicago Bulls called “The Last Dance”. As of last Sunday night, the first four episodes have been released. While the series uses the 1997-1998 season as a baseline (the team granted filmmakers unprecedented access that year), the series jumps off to different timelines periodically. That final season is the common thread, but each episode tows another subject that deviates from the Bulls’ last title run. For example, episode one digs back into the origins of star-player Michael Jordan, episode two deals with the underappreciated Scottie Pippen, three with Dennis Rodman, and four with head coach Phil Jackson. All of these throwback segments lend context to the main subject, the 1997-1998 season. As we learn in the first episode, that season was fated as “The Last Dance” by Phil Jackson upon the realization that it would be the end for a team that had dominated the league for the better part of a decade.

            While “The Last Dance” may feel like a re-tread at times for those that have seen “Michael Jordan to the Max” as well the ESPN 30 for 30 films “Jordan Rides the Bus”, “Bad Boys”, “When the Garden Was Eden” and “Rodman: For Better or Worse”, it succeeds in bringing a lot of behind-the-scenes footage and fresh interviews to the table. The most current episode features a segment detailing the Bulls triumph over the pesky Detroit Pistons in the 1991 NBA playoffs. In it, former Pistons guard Isiah Thomas tries to justify his team’s decision not to shake hands with the Bulls after the completion of the series. Cut to Jordan reviewing Isiah’s current explanation and saying, “you can show me anything you want, there’s now way you can convince me that he wasn’t an a*****e.” This is one of many examples in “The Last Dance” that brings old rivalries roaring back to life with all the acrimony of the past. It is difficult to imagine such tensions existing in the present NBA.

            Along similar lines, the biggest thrills in the “The Last Dance” occur when we get a glimpse of Michael Jordan that deviates from the god-like image that has shrouded his mortality over the years.  For younger generations especially, Jordan does not so much occupy the picture of man as he does a legendary logo and image of greatness encapsulated in a number of famous highlights. He is the only athlete I can think of that occupies that rare air. However, “The Last Dance” provides moments here and there where we can see the perseverance of MJ and the effort and grit that went into those iconic plays. My favorite of these was in episode three after the Bulls eliminated the heavily favored Cleveland Cavaliers in the 1989 NBA Playoffs on Jordan’s fabled buzzer-beating shot over Craig Ehlo. All I had seen up to that point was the shot itself and Jordan subsequently fist pumping into the history books. In “The Last Dance” we get to see more of the aftermath, a reporter runs up and says, “Michael you stuck it baby!” to which MJ responds with an exasperated “Yeah!” You can hear the shake in his voice. We also get the anecdote that upon hitting that shot Jordan actually said, “Go home motherf*****s, go home!” effectively sticking it to the sportswriters that had doubted his Bulls. Those are the moments that make “The Last Dance” great viewing.

            My biggest issue with series thus far is that the filmmakers sometimes leave out information with the apparent intention of deifying Jordan beyond the truth. For example, the recap of the 1982 NCAA Championship game between North Carolina and Georgetown portrays Jordan’s game-winning shot as essentially a buzzer-beater. Jordan hits the shot, and then the scene cuts to North Carolina’s celebration. However, the filmmakers should have included the very next play in which the Hoyas’ Fred Brown erroneously passed the ball to North Carolina’s James Worthy in one of the most egregious turnovers in NCAA Tournament history. After being fouled, Worthy actually missed both of his free throws and Eric “Sleepy” Floyd ended up missing what would have been a buzzer-beating shot to win the Championship for Georgetown. So while Jordan did hit the game-winner, the way in which the ending was shown in “The Last Dance” feels a bit dishonest. The same can be said for the 1986 NBA Playoff matchup between the great Celtics led by Larry Bird and Jordan’s undermanned Bulls. “The Last Dance” goes into great detail for games 1 and 2, in which Jordan scored 49 and 63 points. Yet they again cut to the Celtics sweep of the Bulls and footage of Bird heaping praise on MJ with the famous line, “it’s just God disguised as Michael Jordan.” What isn’t mentioned is the third game which sealed the series for the Celtics, in which Jordan had just 19 points (albeit being only one assist shy of a triple-double).

            These may seem like nit-picky complaints. However, I fear they may point to a larger issue with “The Last Dance”. It would have taken maybe 15 seconds of screen time to properly settle the ending to the 1982 Championship as well as the 1986 Celtics-Bulls playoff series. And I might add that it would have taken absolutely nothing away from Jordan’s accomplishments! Just from the first four episodes of “The Last Dance” we have been given an abundance of legendary Jordan moments. Leaving out little details like those aforementioned feels somewhat shady and biased. If the filmmakers are trying to spin certain aspects of the Jordan story, even minor ones, then what else are they spinning? Hopefully the next six episodes don’t raise any more red flags in this regard.

             This complaint aside, “The Last Dance” is an undeniably well-made documentary that has provided a much-needed refresher of Jordan’s greatness. I never saw prime Michael Jordan but as a basketball fan I have been aware of his greatest hits. It is a real treat to see the backstory and behind-the-scenes of moments like the 63 point playoff outing and the shot over Ehlo. Even more so, it is interesting to see the dynamics of basketball management and coaching. One could argue that the drama off the court was as explosive as on-court, especially between GM Jerry Krause and Phil Jackson. If the rest of “The Last Dance” is anywhere as good as the first four segments, it should prove to be a madly entertaining if not completely forthright tribute to Michael Jordan and the 1997-1998 Chicago Bulls. Wrap-up review to follow the conclusion of the series.

Op-Rob 2019 Best Picture Nominee Rankings

8. “A Star is Born”

“A Star is Born” was perhaps the worst movie I saw this Oscars season. It had a few poignant moments, such as Jackson Maine’s (Bradley Cooper) conversation with George (Dave Chappelle). However, on the whole it was an incredibly confusing and fragmented film. Ally's (Lady Gaga) transition from a homegrown country singer to zany “Pop Star” is totally bizarre and unexplained, as are Maine’s troubles with addiction and haunted past manifested through his relationship with his brother. The movie seems to lay out several different paths and never commits to any of them. A good example of “A Star is Born” done correctly is “Crazy Heart” starring Jeff Bridges. Bradley Cooper’s directorial debut is more in line with T.I.’s “Whatever You Like” music video than a serious film about stardom and substance abuse.

7. “Vice”

Reviewed in full earlier on Op-Rob, “Vice” is perhaps worth watching for Bale’s masterful transformation into former VP Dick Cheney, but ultimately amounts to a jittery film meant to deliver leftist jeers at former Republican administrations.

6. “Green Book”

“Green Book” is named for “The Negro Motorist Green-Book” hotel guide that was necessary for African-Americans to safely travel throughout the South in the Jim Crow era. It is a film that mainly focuses on the relationship between two entirely different men: one is the Italian-American tough guy Tony Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen) and the other is Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali), a sophisticated maestro who is also gay and black. The two somehow end up spending a lot of time together when Shirley hires Vallelonga as his bodyguard during a playing tour through the Deep South. While “Green Book” works as an uplifting sort of buddy drama, there is nothing extraordinary about the film. It has the feel of a made-for-TV movie in many ways, and from the very beginning the viewer can deduce what will happen by the end. Perhaps the most glaring problem with “Green Book” is how Shirley’s sexuality is skimmed over. When we discover that Shirley is gay, it is by far the most shocking revelation of the entire movie. Yet the film immediately shifts away from the subject and plods forward as if it were some small footnote. The same shallowness affects our understanding of Vallelonga’s racist views, which are somehow erased throughout the film without any real turning point. Thus, “Green Book” fails to get at the heart of the very issues that make the setting of the film compelling in the first place.

5. “Bohemian Rhapsody”

As overhyped as “Bohemian Rhapsody” was, I have to admit that I enjoyed the film as an entertaining drawn-out music video. Rami Malek is superb as Freddie Mercury, and there is an undeniable pep to each live-music scene. However, when it comes to the more daunting questions surrounding the rise and fall of Mercury, the film completely flops. We never understand Mercury’s strained relationship with his family, beyond a few scenes where it is clear they disapprove of his lifestyle. We never understand why Mercury fell in love with Jim Patton (Aaron McCusker), his eventual long time partner. And we never get a real sense of how Queen managed to make the music that made them an all-time great beyond sporadic scenes in which Mercury has an epiphany and starts belting out a hit song. The film operates as a simple showcase for Queen’s music, which serves as ample entertainment, but forgettable storytelling.

4. “Black Panther”

I reviewed “Black Panther” in full back when it was released, and thought it was a solid superhero movie and well deserving of its “Starter” rating. The fact that it squelches 4 of this years nominees speaks to just how bad this year’s lineup turned out. Sure, “Black Panther” is a good superhero movie, and it draws great strength from a primarily African-American led cast and crew. The film has vital cultural importance. But it lacks the cinematic qualities of a “Best Picture” winner. I fear that a “Black Panther” win in this category will open the doors for other superheroes who by no means belong there.

3. “The Favourite”

With “The Lobster”, “The Killing of a Sacred Deer”, and now “The Favourite”, it is hard to deny that Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos has incredible skill and a wide variety of tastes. His films are uniquely strange, and the characters never cease to surprise. Olivia Coleman, Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone each add to the authentic feel of this quirky 18th century drama. Everything from the costumes and the dialogue to the palace setting feels pitch perfect. “The Favourite” also deserves credit for its historical roots regarding Queen Anne and her court. Yet, despite all these praiseworthy elements, I cannot say that I enjoyed watching “The Favourite”. In fact, it is a rather queasy film that leaves you wondering what it was even about. I felt the same way about “The Lobster”, and it is not a good quality. Great films are not always enjoyable, nor should they be (think “Spotlight” or “Schindler’s List”), but if watching it requires a bit of pain then it should certainly offer more meaning than whatever “The Favourite” ends up providing.

2. “BlacKkKlansman”

Another film previously reviewed on Op-Rob, “BlacKkKlansman” proved to be a dynamic story full of laughs, cringes, action and surprises. It certainly deserved its “All-Star” rating. And despite the fact that I don’t necessarily buy the gimmicky finish to “BlacKkKlansman”, or the overarching political spin, it is a very well made movie that utilizes a stranger-than-fiction true story to take often convincing stabs at modern day racial issues in America.

1. “Roma”

In an ideal world, the Best Picture is a film that speaks to the critics and the audience in a balanced way. Think of “12 Years a Slave”, “No Country For Old Men”, “Silence of the Lambs”, or even lighthearted movies such as “The Artist”, “Forrest Gump” and “Going My Way”. I realize that “Roma” is a critic’s kind of movie. People I have talked to groan when I say I think it should win. Nonetheless, Alfonso Cuarón’s film is extremely rich in terms of storytelling, subtext, and film work. It is a beautiful movie that can be studied frame-by-frame (just look at the screenshot above). Yalitza Aparicio also delivers one of the best performances of the year. Her role as Cleo, the good and honest woman, is reminiscent of Morita Mitsu, the protagonist in Shūsaku Endō’s touching novel “The Girl I Left Behind”. Seeing her operate as the glue in a family splintered by a bitter situation is subtle and inspirational. Though it is not my personal pick for best picture amongst all the movies released this past year (it would be “The Guilty” directed by Gustav Möller), “Roma” is the clear winner from this rather weak crop of nominees.

"Vice" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

            “Vice” is a 2018 film directed by Adam McKay about the former Vice President Dick Cheney (played by Christian Bale).  The film follows Cheney from his early years when he failed out of Yale and racked up two DWIs, all the way through his beginnings and maturation while working in the White House, his appointment as Secretary of Defense under President Gerald Ford, terms as a Congressman for Wyoming, and ultimate ascension to the Vice Presidency.  Though much of the focus of “Vice” is on Cheney in his VP years, the film bounces back and forth between various periods of his life.  Recurring characters include Cheney’s wife, Lynne (Amy Adams), Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell), George W. Bush (Sam Rockwell) and a mysterious narrator named Kurt (Jesse Plemons) whose importance is revealed near the end of the movie.  Other characters include a bevy of familiar faces associated with the Bush/Cheney White House, as well as Cheney’s two daughters Liz (Lily Rabe) and Mary (Alison Pill).

            By far the strongest aspect of “Vice” is Christian Bale’s performance in the lead role as Dick Cheney.  Beyond the sheer impressiveness of his physical transformation, which is on par with past weight fluctuations as seen in “The Machinist” and “American Hustle”, Bale’s acting just flows.  Everything from his speech and mouth movements to his bulky stride is seamless.  Sometimes major transformations can be distracting. Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour” comes to mind as a good example where even if the performance is genuine, something about the character feels a bit off.  This is not the case with Bale’s Cheney, and his presence on screen is undeniable.  Amy Adams also deserves immense credit for her portrayal of Cheney’s ambitious wife Lynne.  McKay casts her as a sinister presence in “Vice”, as she cajoles Cheney to pursue more and more power.  Steve Carell’s Donald “Rummy” Rumsfeld pales in comparison to the former two performances, as he comes off as a cartoonish villain plastered with cosmetics.  He looks unnatural, and acts unnaturally.  The same can be said of Sam Rockwell, who portrays former President George W. Bush. 

            McKay depicts several characters as arrogant bureaucrats, constantly chuckling and conniving in a silly manner.  It is understandable that “Vice” straddles the line between drama and comedy, in the same vein as McKay’s masterful 2015 film “The Big Short” about the 2007/2008 financial crisis.  However, “Vice” treats many of its characters, George W. chief among them, with an air of mockery that “The Big Short” never came close to.  There is a difference between humorous cut-aways, such as those with Margot Robbie and Anthony Bourdain explaining subprime mortgages in “The Big Short”, and then scenes such as Dick and Lynne’s bedside bantering with lines from Shakespeare’s Richard III in “Vice”.  If the film were meant to be purely comedy, then turning characters into clowns would not be such a big deal.  However, “Vice” strives to be something more, and the various gags throughout the film undermine the greater message.

            Indeed, “Vice” is out to make statements on serious issues.  McKay makes a compelling, and evidence-based argument for Cheney’s responsibility in getting America into the devastating invasion of Iraq following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Much of the film is dedicated to that narrative.  While there is a step-by-step chronological leadup to the Iraq invasion, “Vice” fails to thoroughly explain exactly why Cheney wanted it to happen in the first place.  There are snippets depicting general US oil interests and Cheney’s former role as CEO of Halliburton as possible motives.  Yet, we never get an idea of anything beyond these selfish business related themes. “Vice” avoids the harder questions surrounding Cheney.  Iraq War aside, McKay attributes everything from the 2008 housing bubble to the recent California wildfires to Cheney, without any concrete explanation, accusations that are just thrown in.  People who follow the ins and outs of politics might know what McKay is getting at, but the average viewer certainly will not.  “Vice” is a film dedicated to painting Dick Cheney as an evil mastermind responsible for an array of foreign and domestic disasters regarding the United States, but it fails to provide substantiation (or evidence) for its claims.  Coupled with the mocking tone evident throughout the movie, everything in “Vice” must be taken with a grain of salt.

            This problem relates to what I see as the fatal flaw in “Vice”.  Just as we never understand Cheney’s motivations on a practical level, such as with the invasion of Iraq, we also never understand them on an ideological one.  Why did Dick Cheney believe what he believed?  Why was he a Republican? There is a scene early on in the film where a young Cheney serving as a White House intern earnestly asks Donald Rumsfeld, “What do we believe in?”  Rummy laughs off the question, and the scene ends.  This was a mistake, and shows McKay’s own lack of knowledge surrounding Dick Cheney’s personal ideology.  There is no rhyme or reason as to why he does what he does in “Vice” beyond perhaps simple power mongering.  And if so, then is Lynne more to blame than Dick?  It is clear from the film that McKay strongly dislikes Dick Cheney as he goes to great lengths painting him as a heartless villain and in one scene even shows Cheney in surgery with his chest cavity stretched open, literally without a heart.  However, by failing to delve deeply into Dick Cheney’s motivations, the film ultimately falls flat.  Haters of the old conservative power players such as Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld will probably enjoy “Vice”.  But unlike “The Big Short”, which hit on an intensely personal level, “Vice” plays out like an inside joke, pre-packaged for a select audience.  Such blatant and shallow one-sidedness errs on the side of cheap propaganda, rather than thoughtful filmmaking. 

"Mirai" Review

OP-ROB RATING: LEGEND

“Mirai no Mirai” or “Mirai of the Future” is a 2018 Japanese anime film directed by Mamoru Hosoda centering on a toddler named Kun (voice by Moka Kamishiraishi).  In the film he is referenced as Kun-chan, chan being a common name ending for Japanese children. Kun-chan’s life takes a sudden turn, as most first children’s do, when his mother and father return home with a newborn baby girl.  Interestingly, Hosoda refrains from naming any of the adult characters who appear in the film; Kun-chan’s salary woman mother and architect father are simply cast with the Japanese names for each, Okāsan (voiced by Kumiko Aso) and Otōsan (voiced by Gen Hoshino).  Through the lens of a toddler, parents first names do not matter so much.  They are just mom and dad. The baby is named Mirai 未来, meaning “future” or “not yet come”.  As Kun-chan’s life at the center of attention is shaken up by the newborn, he is whisked away on several imaginative journeys that help him to accept his sister.

Our initial impression of Kun-chan is that of a loveable, yet ornery toddler.  He sleeps face-down with his butt in the air, is fascinated by trains, and loves playing with the family dog, Yukko. He also screams, cries, throws his toys everywhere, and is generally disagreeable.  However, there are subtle signs from the beginning of the film that the young boy is perhaps wise beyond his years, on the cusp of maturing beyond his current rambunctiousness.  This is alluded to early on, in a scene where Kun-chan looks out of the window waiting for his parents to return home with baby Mirai.  He breathes on the glass, and then attentively wipes away the fog in anticipation for a car pulling in the driveway.  In another scene his father asks him for baby name recommendations, as the boy stares wide-eyed at his newborn sister.  Kun-chan responds with “Nozomi” and “Tsubame”, names his father realizes belong to certain Shinkansen (bullet) trains.  It is in moments such as these when we witness Kun-chan’s profound thoughtfulness, as contrasted with his frequent temper tantrums.

As the film title implies, some of Kun-chan’s adventures take us into fantastical realms in the future where he encounters a teenaged version of Mirai and an anthropomorphized version of Yukko. Others take us as far back as 70 years in the past. Each of his journeys teaches a lesson, while also providing insight into his heritage. My favorite is his encounter his great-grandpa, identified in the film as Seinen (meaning “young man”). When Kun-chan meets his great-grandpa in a realistic, immediate post-war rural Yokohama, he is working in a motorcycle shop building engines. A note that permeates other parts of the story is that Seinen walks with a permanent hitch due to an injury during WWII. During the journey Seinen takes Kun-chan to a stable where they climb onto a horse and go for a ride through radiant fields in Yokohama, where Kun-chan’s urban neighborhood has yet to be built. Kun-chan is initially terrified, eyes glued to the ground.  However, Seinen encourages him, telling him to never look down and always to the horizon.  As the horse goes from a trot into a full on gallop a train speeds through the frame blocking our view, upon passing the two are suddenly on a motorcycle zooming along the seaside. This episode is preceded by Kun-chan failing to ride his bicycle at a local park, a feat he conquers immediately after the sequence with Seinen.

As with all great children’s movies, there is a mature and complex story accompanying the basic fantasy driven plot of “Mirai”, especially regarding the father and mother.  Though the film begins with a whimsical introduction with still shots showing the progressions of life: a house renovation, the mother’s pregnancy, and the birth of Kun-chan, we soon get an idea that the marriage is not as rosy as it seems. In one scene the father speaks with a well-wishing group of mothers outside the house just after baby Mirai has arrived.  He explains that he has switched to a freelance architect, and will be shouldering many of the domestic duties at home as the mother goes back to full-time work. Back in the house, she questions his authenticity, and essentially accuses him of phonily portraying the supportive husband.  In subsequent scenes, we get the sense that he had been consumed with work and neglectful of his family duties during Kun-chan’s infancy. Mirai is born with a large birthmark on her right hand, perhaps indicating that she was born into strife, or maybe that she will play a special role. As the film progresses, we see the family come together, as they must face similar challenges of acceptance as Kun-chan, only entirely in the real world. Baby Mirai is a catalyst for introspection in the fantasy-laden imagination of Kun-chan, as well as the reality-based relationship of the mother and father.

My one complaint with “Mirai” is that Kun-chan’s fits can become redundant. Almost every one of the imaginative journeys is preceded by Kun-chan erupting in tears, leaving high-pitched echoes of “Okāsan” (mother) and “Otōsan” (father) ringing in your ears. Perhaps this is simply a realistic depiction of an irritable toddler, but certain tantrum scenes drag on far past their usefulness. Despite this considerably minor flaw, “Mirai” is a near perfect film. The run-time is a non-arduous 100 minutes, and the film has a breeziness about it that carries you from start to finish aided by a brilliant soundtrack featuring songs from Tatsuro Yamashita.  Perhaps the genius behind “Mirai” is that it can be taken in lightly, as an imaginative and innocent story of a toddler coming to terms with a new sibling, but also as a complex story of a strengthened marriage and appreciation of family history.  In many ways, “Mirai” harkens back to the mastermind of Yasujiro Ozu, with his focus on the subtle profoundness of family, but in this case through the eyes of a toddler.

"First Man" Review

OP-ROB Rating: LEGEND

            “First Man” is a 2018 biopic of astronaut Neil Armstrong, directed by Damien Chazelle. The film begins in 1961, as Neil (Ryan Gosling) pilots an X-15 plane out of the atmosphere, but then experiences mechanical failures in trying to get back in. The scene is shot with intense drama, and it is the first of many times in “First Man” that we are pushed to the edge of our seat as the film marches toward the seminal 1969 Apollo 11 mission that put Neil on the moon.

            The main focus of “First Man” is Neil Armstrong, solemnly portrayed by Ryan Gosling. However, there are some interesting dynamics going on throughout the film that make it more than solely an in-depth character study. One that struck me in particular was the presence of opposition to the entire moon-landing operation from within the United States at the time. Throughout the film Neil and other members of the NASA crew have to convince the public, Congress, and sometimes themselves that the mission is worth the cost. In several scenes we see protesters, skeptical college students, and disgruntled congressmen. As the Apollo 11 mission nears its launch, black jazz artist Gil Scott-Heron sings his “Whitey on the Moon” jingle at a rally across from the NASA base in Houston, listing off the struggles of his community with the sarcastic anecdote that none that matters because “whiteys on the moon”. In retrospect, I think the vast, vast majority of Americans celebrate the moon landing as a wholeheartedly worthy endeavor, thereby making the song seem silly. But director Damien Chazelle does a good job of making the audience truly consider the controversy at the time. The protesters had a valid point, though history would eventually prove them wrong.

            This gray area surrounding the justification of going to the moon permeates into Neil’s personal life in moving ways. For example, his wife Janet (Claire Foy) has to strong-arm him into briefing their kids before embarking on the Apollo 11 mission the night before he leaves. In this conversation, Neil’s younger son asks, “So you won’t be at my swim-meet?” which, in a different context could be played off as a joke. However, the scene is anything but laughable. It brings into question to obligations of a man with a family. Is a great endeavor worth sacrificing family life? We get a harsher challenge to this question after Ed White (Jason Clarke) is burned alive in the cockpit during a “plugs-out” test for the Apollo 1 mission, and his wife is left in almost catatonic despair with several children in tow.

            These more grievous themes certainly dictate much of the tone of “First Man”, however I don’t want to mischaracterize it as entirely woeful. At each step from 1961 to the actual landing in 1969, Chazelle documents the incredible bravery and technical genius that went into the moon-landing effort. There are dozens of scenes that display the grit of everyone involved, shot with a sense of admiration and patriotism. One of my favorites takes place near the beginning of Neil’s involvement with NASA, during a G-Force simulator test. Each astronaut is strapped into this mechanized gyro and spun until he passes out. Afterwards, the puke-stained astronauts are led into a classroom to study rocket-physics, with over 600 pages of reading to take home that night. Scenes like this help put into perspective what these astronauts were doing on a daily basis. As the lead up to Apollo 11 progresses, we are shown more and more seemingly impossible challenges that were met, time and time again.

            Aside from the entirely straightforward chronological lead up to Apollo 11, “First Man” delves into its main character study with almost awkward intimacy. At the outset of the film, we see Neil lose his young daughter to a brain tumor and grow despondent and consumed with his work and see him struggle to connect with his two young boys, his wife Janet, and his colleagues at NASA. All these scenes add up to a portrait of a broken man, unable to overcome his own grief. Because Neil cannot face his own sorrow over the loss of his daughter, he consistently fails in his personal relationships. This leads him to divert all his attention to what he is good at: NASA operations. By the time Neil touches down on the moon, we expect to feel triumph, but the accomplishment rings somewhat hollow. Fulfilling the most daring mission in the history of mankind is not enough to free him from the crushing grief of losing a daughter.

            One of the reasons people may be disappointed with “First Man” has to with expectations. I thought “First Man” was going to be a hype-drama about the Apollo 11 mission. Rather, it is a somber film about that “first man”, Neil Armstrong, who was not the rah-rah figure that I had expected him to be. These preconceptions could turn many away from the film. My own expectations were not met in the way that I thought they would be, and that forced me recalibrate my thoughts after leaving the theater. Chazelle has a way of doing that, especially with “La La Land”, a film I had to re-watch and re-review. It is a trait of a great filmmaker to make you think a little deeper about what his film is trying to express, outside of your own preconceptions. With “First Man”, Chazelle is showing us the emotional tolls that often plague those who chase great endeavors, and how they can mute equally important facets of life.

OP-ROB Nippon Restaurant Ranking

During my 4 and a half months in Japan last semester visited 74 different restaurants and made sure to document each one. Below is a list of my favorite spots, and I will provide a subsequent list of the best ramen shops. Also, at the bottom of each review there is a Tabelog (Japanese version of Yelp) link to each place for reference. For those planning a trip sometime soon (Tokyo 2020?), I hope this can be a helpful list!

* Note that none of the provided photos were taken by me, as I (a gaijin) was trying to be as discreet as possible while in Japan.

THE RESTAURANTS

15. Manaita: Izakaya [bar-type restaurant], Tokyo (Takadanobaba Station)

Manaita is a tiny izakaya (Japanese bar/restaurant) located several blocks away from the bustling area surrounding Takadanobaba Station in Shinjuku, Tokyo. I stumbled upon the restaurant because I was searching online for the best places to drink the national liquor of Japan: sake. As with a few of the restaurants listed further up the list, Manaita is a place where I doubt they get many foreigners. There is no English menu, and the sake sommelier doesn’t speak much at all either (though he is extremely engaging and happy). The food offerings are prepared by his wife, who works in a small area behind the counter (she is a Yomiuri Giants fan, and had the live game on a small TV at her side of the bar). In the whole place there are only 10 seats, so I was lucky to get one on the Friday night that I visited in early March. Fortunately for me, one of the patrons was a music teacher who had spent some time at North Texas University and spoke English fluently, so I was able to order some delicious yakitori and vegetable tempura to accompany the steady cups of sake being poured by the sommelier. Had I known the restaurant had such an intense neighborhood feel, I may not have had the courage to venture in as a gaijin, but I’m sure glad I did. The food at Manaita was fantastic, and it was the most personalized sake drinking experience of my entire Japan trip. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1305/A130503/13001007/)

14. Miyakozushi: Sushi, Tokyo (Itabashikuyakushomae Station)

In the same vane as Manaita, I was somewhat hesitant to add Miyako to this list because my personal experience there had so much to do with why I liked it, not purely the food. For example, Sushi Arai was a Michelin-star place I visited that was phenomenal sushi. However, my two visits to Miyako provided experiences that you would never get at one of the Michelin-rated restaurants. My first visit to Miyako was during my first few days in Japan: I had found a review on Yelp (I didn’t understand Tabelog at this point) and it sounded like a top-grade sushi spot. The sushi at Miyako was indeed really solid, and because the sushi master does not speak much English, you can just order “omakase” (chef’s choice) and let him decide what to serve. However, the real highlight of eating at Miyako was the experience of walking in and essentially stepping into what felt like a Yasujiro Ozu movie. Miyako is located in a sleepy neighborhood in Itabashi, and it is not easy to get to from the more central parts of Tokyo. When I walked in, there were three elderly men drinking and hanging out. It was a chilly night in late March, and they were all wearing sharp-looking cardigan sweaters, and one of them was smoking cigarettes at his end of the counter. The men, and also Chef Miyako, were a little stunned I think to see this random gaijin white dude at what was clearly a secluded neighborhood restaurant. But as I sat down and spoke with them (they were very gracious in trying to speak English with me), we suddenly got to talking about everything from old Japanese movies to different aspects of WWII among many other topics. At one point Chef Miyako excitedly shuffled back into the back of the restaurant and returned with an old Japanese flag that his father had taken with him to the war while serving on a battleship in the Imperial Navy that was signed by all his relatives. The entire night was such a humbling and overwhelming experience. I had been preparing to leave for Japan by watching all these films from the 1950s and 1960s, and on one of my first nights I was lucky enough to arrive at Miyako and step into what felt like one of them. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1322/A132205/13133441/)

13. a. Hiroki: Okonomiyaki, Hiroshima (Kaitaichi Station)

Hiroki, Koshida, and Hassho are all okonomiyaki restaurants located in Hiroshima, and they are all very good. Hiroshima-style okonomiyaki is a kind of “Japanese pancake” layered with a thin crepe on the bottom, a fried egg on the top, and filled with vegetables, tempura pieces, slices of pork, soba noodles, and slathered in a sweet/savory kind of barbecue sauce called otafuku and then sprinkled with seasoning. I only spent one night in Hiroshima, but was determined to try all the best okonomiyaki places, and none of them disappointed. Hiroki is located about 25 minutes by train outside of downtown Hiroshima and had an intense local feel: no English menu, no gaijin customers. But like all the other off-the-beaten-path restaurants I visited in Japan, everyone was super welcoming. Koshida was a bigger, livelier spot, especially because I went at night after a Hiroshima Carp baseball game. The place was packed with fans, as I assume it always is during the season. Finally, Hassho was the final place I went before my flight back to Tokyo. Unbeknownst to me at the time, it is a historic restaurant and one of the originators of the Hiroshima-style okonomiyaki. Of all the okonomiyaki I tried at these different places, though they were all similar and all good, would say Hassho was the best, as it had a little more flavor, crisp, and pop with every bite. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/hiroshima/A3401/A340105/34002051/)

b. Koshida: Okonomiyaki, Hiroshima (Kanayama-cho Station)

LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/hiroshima/A3401/A340101/34001191/)

c. Hassho, Okonomiyaki, Hiroshima (Kanayama-cho Station)

LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/hiroshima/A3401/A340101/34019405/)

12. Yajima: Traditional Japanese, Kyoto (Gion-shijo Station)

The first time I visited Kyoto was during a nationwide holiday called “Golden Week”, and the historic city was jam-packed with tourists, so it was difficult finding a reservation at any of the critically acclaimed restaurants. By chance, I ended up booking a spot at Yajima, a tiny kaiseki restaurant located in the backstreets of the Gion district in Kyoto. As it turned out, I was the only patron that night, which was a little intimidating at first. However, as one seasonal fish-orientated dish after another was served and I had the opportunity to talk with Chef Yajima and his wife (pictured above) it turned into one of the best dinner experiences of my entire Japan visit. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/kyoto/A2601/A260301/26024189/)

11. Kyou Raku Tei: Soba, Tokyo (Kagurazaka Station)

Kyou Raku Tei is one of the few examples on this list where there is no “omakase” option. That is fine, because they have English menus, but also because all of their appetizers are delicious, so you can’t go wrong. However, the real star of Kyou Raku Tei is the soba. Made that day from freshly ground ingredients, the soba noodles here are the best I had in Japan. Furthermore, the restaurant does not require a ton of waiting or super-advanced reservations. Rather, it has the feel of a neighborhood place where people go after work to unwind and have a lively meal. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1309/A130905/13000479/)

10. Momijiya: Okonomiyaki, Tokyo (Iidabashi Station)

Perhaps it is sacrilegious to put this Tokyo-based okonomiyaki joint ahead of the OG restaurants listed earlier. However, having been to Hiroshima and eaten at three of their most heralded spots, I can assure you that Momijiya’s classic okonomiyaki pancake is on par with the real-deal. Furthermore, like Koshida, Momijiya is consistently a lively place. Whether it is businessmen streaming in after work, or baseball fans rolling through after a game at the nearby Tokyo Dome, this restaurant always has an electric atmosphere. Another reason I love Momijiya, besides the great food, and why it belongs on a list with far more prestigious restaurants, is because it gave me a felling and a taste of what Hiroshima was like before I actually went. The place is covered with Hiroshima Toyo Carp baseball apparel. And on any given night when the Carp are playing you can be sure they’ll have it on the TV. The place is just alive with excitement and pride for Hiroshima, which is something unique, especially in Yomiuri Giants territory. Note: don’t waltz into Momijiya wearing another NPB team’s apparel (I once went in wearing a Giants jersey), because they will kindly ask you to remove it… Go Carp! LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1309/A130905/13000245/)

9. Himeshara: Sushi, Sapporo (Maruyama Koen Station)

This Sapporo restaurant is located a ways from the more bustling parts of the city like Odori and Susukino. However going out of the way was almost never disappointing when eating in Japan, and Himeshara was no exception. It is amazing to watch the Chef, Akira Tanaka, meticulously prepare his lineup as he perfectly crafted each piece of sushi for every patron individually. Of all the sushi restaurants I visited, Himeshara was heaviest on the uni (sea urchin). Though that may have been a negative early on in my stay, Himeshara played a big part in swaying my attitudes in favor of the Japanese delicacy (as did another restaurant higher up the list). Himeshara was also a bit more radical than the more traditional sushi restaurants. For example, one dish involved a piece of fatty tuna nigiri, topped with some kind of pickled vegetables, and then uni, served in a piece of nori (seaweed). The shrimp piece (pictured above) was equally complicated, with the meatiest part of the shrimp carefully folded in a circle on top of the rice, then Tanaka slid the gooey shrimp head on top, and then topped that with the shrimp eggs. It was a marvel to watch. Was it a bit gimmicky? Maybe. But it sure was delicious. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/hokkaido/A0101/A010105/1057657/)

8. Ichibancho Teruya: Sushi, Tokyo (Hanzomon Station)

Unlike all of the sushi restaurants located a bit higher on the list, Ichibancho Teruya is not super famous. It should be though, because it certainly stands toe-to-toe with any of the sushi restaurants I tried in Japan. The chef, Teruya Iida is much more engaging than your typical “omakase counter” sushi master, as he engages with his diners throughout the night. The sushi itself is what I would like to think of a “gold ribbon” kind of sushi, just great all-around. The course is very traditional, and each piece is incredibly fresh and pure in taste. A rare perk for Teruya is that Iida speaks English fluently, so you can just call directly to make a reservation, rather than going through the expensive booking intermediaries or a hotel concierge. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1308/A130803/13136559/)

7. Kohaku: Traditional Japanese, Tokyo (Kagurazaka Station)

Kohaku is perhaps the most critically acclaimed restaurant I ended up trying. With 3 Michelin stars, my expectations going in were very high, and they were certainly met. My meal (pictured above) was highlighted by the Shark fin and uni on sticky rice, which was surprisingly creamy in consistency and mellow in taste. Towards the end of the lineup was the steamed rice with scallop and Japanese herbs. The Chef makes an entire pot just for you, and it is so phenomenal, and when you inevitably can’t finish, they use the remaining rice for onigiri (rice balls) which you get to take out after the meal. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1309/A130905/13049130/)

6. Sentorizushi: Sushi, Kanazawa (Kanazawa Station)

Sentorizushi is another sushi restaurant that, like Teruya, was just impressive all around: from the museum-like interior to the seriousness of the Chefs and promptness of the service. A unique aspect is that the sushi is served directly on top of the pristine counter top. The highlight of Sentori was the Maguro nigiri piece, which was perhaps the best I tasted among all the other sushi spots. Kanazawa is particularly famous for its sushi, and Sentori is a prime example of that brand of excellence. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/ishikawa/A1701/A170101/17000048/)

5. Nakamura: Sushi, Tokyo (Roppongi Station)

Walking into Nakamura, my guest said “it smells like a temple”, because of the incense burning at one corner of the restaurant. Indeed, eating at Nakamura is something like a religious experience, because every piece of sushi is perfect. Even the hot green tea is made in front of you, and poured fresh as soon as you get maybe 1/4 through your cup. Though I prefer a bit more of a relaxed environment, the seriousness of Nakamura pairs well with the exactness of the sushi. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1307/A130701/13003314/)

4. Ichirin Hanare: Chinese-Japanese Cuisine, Kamakura (Kamakura Station)

Just a short walk from Tsurugaoka Hachimangu shrine, one of the most beautiful and famous in all of Japan, Ichirin Hanare is by far the coolest restaurant I visited purely by location and decor. To get to the restaurant you walk through a quiet residential area with tiny winding streets outside of the shrine before coming upon Ichirin Hanare (the entrance is pictured). The actual restaurant was like a Japanese-style house that had been converted. It feels like the kind of restaurant a villain from James Bond would be hosting a high stakes poker game: as in secretive and fancy.

As for the food, it was presented in perhaps the most artful way compared to any restaurant on the list. Each dish was presented on a special plate that has a design on it to compliment the equally beautiful food. The highlights of the meal were the shark fin, as well as several succulent gyoza with a szechuan dipping sauce. With both of those dishes, the plate did not end with the shark fin or the gyoza, as rice was served to soak up the delicious broth used to accompany the shark fin and then somen noodles to capitalize on the szechuan sauce. This folding of one dish into another was a particularly fascinating aspect of dining at Ichirin Hanare. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/kanagawa/A1404/A140402/14066990/)

3. Amamoto: Sushi, Tokyo (Akebanebashi Station)

This two-star Michelin restaurant is a stones throw from the iconic Tokyo Tower, and the entrance is typical of top-class sushi place, with little signage and an unassuming traditional wooden Japanese facade. My visit to Amamoto was in the first two weeks of my semester in Japan, but the memory of how good the sushi was always stuck with me. Chef Masamichi Amamoto doesn’t speak much English, just enough to describe what he is serving, but regardless he seems like one of the jolliest people I have ever seen. He is a far cry from the stereotyped surly Chef you would think of in high-end dining. Even when you leave the restaurant, Amamoto shuffles out from behind the counter to shake your hand before you exit.

As for the details of the food, Amamoto is known for his signature shrimp nigiri, which he dangles off the counter (pictured). This piece is delicious, as are the various other sushi pieces served throughout the meal… even the shirako (fish sperm sacks)! LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1314/A131401/13196420/)

2. Yakitori Imai: Yakitori [chicken skewers], Tokyo (Gaiemmae Station)

Yakitori Imai definitely had one of the most modern spaces of all the restaurants I went to in Japan. The sleek countertop and wrap-around bar was super cool. But in a practical way, it also allowed diners to see everything going on in the workspace. The main chef, Takashi Imai, is hard at work on the main charcoal grill perfectly seasoning and cooking all of the different chicken skewer offerings. The best of which was the reba (chicken liver). It’s not something that I would typically enjoy, in fact at the beginning of the meal one of the adjunct cooks will ask if you are okay with eating liver, because it is a somewhat polarizing food I suppose. However, I implore you to try it, because it was the most tender and richly flavorful skewer on the menu.

Over the course of my visit to Japan, I came back to Yakitori Imai 7 times, once with my mom, who agreed it was spectacular. In Japan, Yakitori is not typically considered “high-class” food, as it is mostly served as a kind of bar snack or street food. But at Yakitori Imai, watching the cooks intently cook every vegetable, every little skewer to its optimal temperature and then rushing over to serve it, you get the sense that these guys have taken the cuisine to a whole new level. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1306/A130603/13025995/?from_yoyaku=1)

1. Kirakutei: Traditional Japanese, Tokyo (Kugayama Station)

One of the greatest aspects of dining at Kirakutei is getting to watch each and every step of head Chef Kotaro Asakura preparing the food. As more customers come in, you also get to see how Kotaro diligently controls his rotation of preparation. For example, the pike-conger eel (hamo) sashimi dish takes at least 7 minutes of focused slicing and texturing. And then the beautifully decorated tray of bamboo wrapped sushi, soaked egg yolk, salmon roe, and pickled vegetables requires an equal level of attention. Kotaro’s wife, Keiko, is involved in the preparation, as are two other sous-chefs, but Kotaro is undoubtedly the point guard of the meal. Lots of fancy restaurants in Japan have set times for meals, so the chef doesn’t have to juggle. But Kirakutei is not one of these, and it works in favor of the entire experience. Furthermore, Keiko is a delightful person who constantly monitors the counter and tables explaining the intricacies of each dish and recommending drinks. At no point do you feel that anyone at Kirakutei is not 100% involved.

Of course, the real joy of Kirakutei is the food. Eating in a foreign country, especially as an American, some foods come off as repulsive at first. For me, a few of these were sea urchin (uni), raw shrimp, monkfish liver, and then abalone. At Kirakutei I was served all of these foods at some point. But eating is only truly magical when you are forced to think about something differently, when something initially repugnant becomes delicious. Because Kirakutei was an omakase course, with 10+ dishes, I will not divulge on each and every one. Some of my favorites included a raw shrimp soaked in Hennessy cognac, served with uni in a little glass bowl. The flavor of the cold shrimp was so fresh and clean, then the uni acted as a creamy entity in the bite adding more texture and complexity. A more simple example would be the raw abalone. I had tasted it before many times, and never enjoyed it. But the chilled pieces at Kirakutei had a crunch, and a smooth flavor that once again defied my preconceived notions. Kotaro simply said “milky” pointing to the dish, and he was spot on. Kirakutei was so good that I made another reservation before I left the restaurant for later in the week. On my second visit one of the dishes was a kind of monkfish liver ice cream, served in between two savory rice crackers. Other staples at Kirakutei are the crispy eel, and the gyu-katsu sando (steak sandwich). It was these kinds of creative plates, all of them delicious, that set Kirakutei apart from many of my other top picks.

As a side-note, the logo of Kirakutei was inspired by the Jerry West NBA logo, as Kotaro is a big basketball fan. He knew all about legendary Georgetown Hoyas such as Patrick Ewing, Allen Iverson, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutumbo, etc. So if you are an NBA-nut then be sure to ask Kotaro when you visit. LINK: (https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1318/A131806/13050819/)

"Drunken Angel" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

“Drunken Angel” is a 1948 Japanese-gangster film, set in post-war Tokyo, directed by the legendary director Akira Kurosawa.  The film’s biggest claim to fame is that it was the very first collaboration between Kurosawa and one of the lead actors, Toshiro Mifune.  The two would go on to make movies that would define the golden age of Japanese cinema, and strongly influence some of the best known American films ever made. 

            In “Drunken Angel”, Mifune portrays Matsunaga, a young gangster, or “yakuza”, who, in the beginning of the film ventures into a doctor’s office to have a bullet removed from his palm.  The doctor, a scruffy and blunt older man named Sanada (Takashi Shimura), stiches up Matsunaga and suggests that the young man may have tuberculosis.  Though Matsunaga reacts violently to Sanada’s suggestion, and leaves the office abruptly, the two meet again shortly after the disease forces stronger symptoms.  As Matsunaga comes to terms with his condition, Sanada does his best to care for various patients in a particularly filthy district of Tokyo, which has been ravaged by WWII.  Rubble abounds, and Sanada spends his days roaming the streets advising children to stay out of a toxic bog that runs through the center of town, meanwhile caring for his spare patients and nursing an intense alcohol addiction. 

            The title of the film, “Drunken Angel” is referring to Sanada, whose addiction is perhaps a necessary aspect of his profession in such a dilapidated area.  We get a sense of Sanada’s devotion early on, as his main nurse in the office is a woman named Miyo (Chieko Nakakita) whom he graciously took into his practice after her boyfriend viciously abused her and infected her with venereal disease.  The boyfriend, an imprisoned yakuza named Okada (Reisaburo Yamamoto) ends up playing a major role in the film, as he is released from prison and returns to reclaim his turf, since taken by Matsunaga, and his woman. 

            Despite being his first appearance in a Kurosawa film, Mifune is in top form in “Drunken Angel”.  His portrayal of Matsunaga, a spindly yakuza dying of tuberculosis is a far cry from his later iconic characters in “Rashomon”, “Seven Samurai”, and “Yojimbo”.   Each of those movies has Mifune as a somewhat one-dimensional player.  However, Matsunaga has a bit of everything from later Mifune characters: rage, spontaneity, but also a calm contemplativeness.  That last facet is the most interesting, and proves to be the driving force behind the most powerful scenes in the movie.  In one scene, Matsunaga is presented with a drink from a fellow yakuza, and despite being told to avoid alcohol by Sanada, he indulges in the toast.  The hesitation and desire to abstain feels real, and it defies to fiery version of Matsunaga that we see earlier in the film. 

            The biggest issue with “Drunken Angel” is that Kurosawa splits the film into essentially two different storylines: one with Sanada and one with Matsunaga, and neither are allowed to gain enough momentum.  Split storylines wouldn't be an issue in and of themselves, as many great films employ the same device.  However, it is the fashion in which Kurosawa lingers on one of the characters for too long, to the point that we lose focus on the other.  For example, the first half of “Drunken Angel” is dominated by Sanada, and his day-to-day activities.  Inexplicably, the bulk of screen time shifts to Matsunaga for the rest of the movie, only briefly bringing Sanada back into the fold for the closing scenes.  It is a frustrating element that I have seen before in Kurosawa’s 1963 film “High & Low”.  Both Sanada and Matsunaga are compelling characters worth exploring, but their stories are cut apart in such a way that the end of the movie feels half-baked and you don't feel a sense of satisfaction with the film as a whole. 

            It is especially confounding because I feel that “Drunken Angel” could have been truly great, but it just wasn't put together in the right way.  On the one hand we have this weathered old doctor, with flaws of his own, nevertheless pursuing an honorable practice in the rubble of an immediate post-war Tokyo.  On the other, Matsunaga is a young yakuza that stands on the brink of losing his humanity to a toxic profession, only to be inflicted with tuberculosis and offered a path toward health a freedom by Sanada.  By the end of the movie we are anticipating something dramatic to occur in the way Matsunaga confronts his situation, and what role Sanada will have in that scenario.  However, this fantastic finish never occurs, and we wonder what exactly Kurosawa had in mind for the audience besides a very simple anti-yakuza propaganda message.  All said, “Drunken Angel” is still a fascinating period study; depicting a very different Japan than most modern audiences would be expecting, and coupled with stellar performances from Shimura and Mifune, there is plenty to recommended in “Drunken Angel” despite its terminally fractured finish.

"BlacKkKlansman" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

            “BlacKkKlansman” is a movie about a rookie cop named Ron Stallworth (John David Washington) who, after a boring assignment in the filing room, makes an ambitious call to the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.  Of course, it is worth mentioning that Ron is a black man, and given that it is 1979, the very first black police officer in his home of Colorado Springs, Colorado.  Ron calls the KKK and feigns a racist white alter ego, albeit using his own name.  The KKK takes the bait and gives Ron an opportunity to head an undercover operation to infiltrate the infamous terrorist hate group.  Since Ron is black, a white cop of Jewish descent named Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) is sent in his place to actually meet the Colorado Springs KKK members.  The amazing part of this storyline is that it is entirely based in fact, and could easily have been made into a fascinating documentary.  However, this is a movie by Spike Lee, a director known for his creativity and often-intense racial messages, so the story does not stop with just the facts to achieve its goals.

            Before Ron’s KKK call, he is first sent by his gruff Chief Officer (John Robert Burke) to spy on a rally held by the Colorado College Black Student Union, featuring Kwame Ture (Corey Hawkins) whom the white officers insist on calling Stokely Carmichael (his former name).  It is at this rally that Ron meets Patrice (Laura Harrier) a beautiful young woman who also happens to be the leader of the Black Student Union.  Non-coincidentally, she also happens to despise cops, or as she insists on calling them, “pigs”.  Despite Ron having to lie to Patrice, there is undeniable chemistry between the two, and their relationship is a key aspect of the story.  On the one hand, we have Ron who is a black man working within a completely white, and often prejudiced police department.  And on the other, a young black woman bent on breaking a system she views as entirely calculated and oppressive toward her people.

            As Ron and Flip work in tandem to penetrate the KKK, the stakes rise as each man encounters threats from the violent group.  One member in particular, Felix (Jasper Pääkkönen), proves to be especially mercurial and dangerous.  It is fair to say that Spike Lee’s KKK, just like the real KKK, does not stand a chance of actually outsmarting anybody.  However, just as a rabid dog might be stupid, it does not make it any less hazardous.  While Zimmerman works to gain the trust of the KKK in person, Ron continues to talk on the phone with different members.  And, in an effort to get his official membership approved, Ron chances to speak to “the Grand Wizard” David Duke (Topher Grace) when calling the head office of the Klan.  Ron, in his alter ego, becomes quite friendly with Duke over the phone, leading to some of the most comic bits of the movie.

            While “BlacKkKlansman” is in many ways a comedy, the overall tone of the movie takes on a particularly dark tone at the end.  This shock ending made many headlines, which many of you have probably seen, and serves as a kind of vindication for Lee’s more consequential comparisons to modern day America throughout the film.  And while the ending of the film is certainly alarming, and perhaps brings some legitimacy to Lee’s boldest comparisons, it skirts the central struggle at the heart the movie.  The meatiest part of the story is less about a group of moronic KKK members and their racist views than it is about a historic and ongoing discussion regarding the Black Power movement.  Do you create change within the current system, through integration and assimilation?  Or do you band together to create a new system based on independence and resistance?  Is your mantra “I Have a Dream” or is it “The Ballot or the Bullet”? These alternative strategies are far more complex than my summations, but in “BlacKkKlansman” we can see them play out between Ron and Patrice.  At the end of the film, the two cautiously march toward an apartment window, guns drawn, where they see a cross burning in the distance.  Ron’s mission is to combat these people and their ideas through his work in a flawed police force, while Patrice wants to condemn the entire system and work toward a separate strategy based in Black Nationalism.  The film does not champion either approach, but rather leaves it up to the viewer to internally debate. 

            Ultimately, “BlacKkKlansman” is a well-directed and entertaining film based on a stranger-than-fiction true story about a black man infiltrating the KKK.  John David Washington is delightful as the lead character, with a wry sense of humor that wins over the audience immediately.  However, despite succeeding as pure entertainment, I am hesitant to heap equal praise on the film as an effective political message.  I doubt that any modern Americans at whom Lee is aiming his sharpest criticisms will actually see the movie, so in a sense “BlacKkKlansman” is preaching to the choir.  A film like “Get Out”, with its far subtler but equally damning message is a good example of how a director might actually infiltrate his dissenters. 

"Isle of Dogs" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

            Here is a wonderful little interview in which Wes Anderson discusses the first screening of his 1996 directorial debut “Bottle Rocket”.  I wont spoil the funnier details from the video, but essentially Anderson talks about his confidence going into the screening, and how it was a total disaster.  People left early, wrote negative comments, etc. However, one positive takeaway was a single comment left by a girl who loved the movie because she understood the finer details.  If you like Wes Anderson, and you haven’t seen “Bottle Rocket”, then it is worth watching.  It is raw at times, and takes a while to warm up to, but the characters in it are unforgettable.  Walking out of “Isle of Dogs”, Anderson’s newest film, the interview popped into my mind, because it says a lot about the transformation of a director, and how something vital can be lost along the way.

“Isle of Dogs” is set in the city of Megasaki in a futuristic version of Japan, the film follows a clever plot in which the cat-loving Mayor Kobayashi (Kunichi Nomura) responds to a dangerous outbreak of dog flu by banishing all canines to Trash Island, the metropolis’ dumping ground.  While Kobayashi’s decision is met with widespread praise, a select few decide to protest, including Kobayashi’s adopted ward, named Atari (Koyu Rankin).  This assertive youngster is determined to find his beloved guard dog Spots (Liev Schreiber) and manages to crash-land a little plane on the desolate island.  Atari is found by a motley group of five dogs: Duke (Jeff Goldblum), Boss (Bill Murray), King (Bob Balaban), Rex (Edward Norton) and Chief (Bryan Cranston).  By the time Atari arrives, we have already been introduced to the dog squad, all of whom were formerly happy pets in Megasaki before Kobayashi’s banishment, with the exception of Chief, who was a stray.  Despite Chief’s objections, the dogs decide to help Atari on his quest to recover Spots.

            Of course, there are many twists and turns on this journey, with cameos from various dogs including a sage-like Great Bernard named Jupiter (F. Murray Abraham), and his seemingly omniscient Pug partner Oracle (Tilda Swinton).  Back in Megasaki, there are side plots including one with Professor Watanabe (Akira Ito), a scientist who believes he can create a serum to cure the dogs’ hazardous ailment, as well as Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig), a feisty American foreign exchange student who leads a student group to protest. They both inevitably run into trouble with the ideologically driven Mayor Kobayashi.

            Like any Wes Anderson film, there are many things to like about “Isle of Dogs”.  The voice cast is stellar, and the story glides along with plenty of crafty references and creative scenes.  My favorite is one in which a woman prepares a bento box from scratch, the camera hovering above the table where she works. 

            However, a big problem with “Isle of Dogs” is that it feels pre-assembled for the Wes Anderson template, rather than being something independent.  The story is weak, and acts as a vehicle for all of the telltale Andersonian signs: symmetry, an ensemble cast, richly decorated sets, and an overall whimsicalness.  An indication of the story’s faintness is that it doesn't beg to be set in Japan.  Sure, there are plenty of set pieces ranging from taiko drums to Boss’ Chunichi Dragons inspired baseball jersey.  But strip away those things, and you have a story that could easily be exported to China, Brazil, Germany, or any other non-English speaking country simply because many scenes rely on that fact that the dogs don't speak the native language of the humans.  None of the Japanese characters have any depth.  The two most prominent, Atari and Mayor Kobayashi, are both incredibly static, with the exception of one hasty transformation at the tail end of the movie.  Rather, all of the attention is on the English-speaking dogs, namely Chief and Spots.  This is another reason “Isle of Dogs” felt padded with Japanese aesthetics, rather than growing out of a Japanese inspired story. 

            However, a slight cultural flimsiness is not a good reason to condemn the entire movie.  My issue is not one of “cultural appropriation”, which is a bogus term and impossible for any creative person to avoid (how could anyone write/draw/film etc. anything beyond their sole personal life experience without drawing influence from other cultures?).  The main issue with “Isle of Dogs” is that it lacks memorable characters.  It lacks a soul.  “Bottle Rocket” had Dignan,  “Rushmore” had Max Fischer,  “Fantastic Mr. Fox” had Mr. Fox, and the list could go on.  “Isle of Dogs” has… Chief?  The stray dog starts off the movie as a embittered stray, believing that humans are the enemy.  What transformation could possibly occur?

            After watching “Isle of Dogs”, it seems that Anderson has stopped making movies for people like the girl who wrote the positive comment at the “Bottle Rocket” screening. Rather, he has turned toward an audience that knows what to expect, and don't want to be challenged by more complex narratives.  Anderson now has a “brand” of sorts and he has become too comfortable in that space.  The results are films like “Isle of Dogs”, which focus far more on checking the box on all the Andersonian trademarks, rather than the actual story and character development.  “Bottle Rocket” isn’t the best Wes Anderson movie, but it was made out of passion, and so were more refined greats like “Rushmore”,  “The Darjeeling Limited”, and even “Fantastic Mr. Fox”.  Indeed, “Isle of Dogs” is a meticulously detailed, clever movie. It has Wes Anderson written all over it. Cleverness only goes so far, even when it is incredibly fine-tuned.  Unlike Anderson’s earlier work, the film runs its course and leaves the viewer nothing real to chew on.

"The Wailing" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

        At its core, Na Hong Jin’s 2016 film “The Wailing” is a Christian movie focused on the idea of faith.  Christian movies are often overwhelmingly bad: they are preachy, self-righteous, and totally contrived.  These factors are partially because most Christian movies are supposed to be preachy.  However, no skeptical moviegoer wants to be preached to, especially if he/she were not already a convert before viewing.  And I will be frank with you all, I really dislike Christian movies.  It seems every year I am subject to a trailer for something in the wheelhouse of “Heaven is for Real” or “Miracles from Heaven” or “God’s Not Dead”.  The movies always look cheesy, and it is torture just sitting through the two-minute preview.  However, “The Wailing” is not that kind of Christian movie.  Rather, it is a far more effective examination of real faith, with a top-class horror story as the vehicle for such observation.

            The film begins with a quote from the bible from when the resurrected Jesus confronts his disciples in Luke 24: 37-39, “They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’”  This verse sets the tone for the possession-related plot of the movie, but also serves as a reminder that the bible is full of supernatural happenings, and moments of great doubt.  Unlike predecessors such as “The Exorcist” and “The Conjuring”, Hong-jin does not rely solely on a horror plotline. “The Wailing” blends many different genres and starts off with a basic detective-style mystery: a rural Korean village is subject to a series of strange murders perpetrated by people who have all developed the kind of blistering skin rash.  One of the detectives on the case is Jong-goo (Kwak Do-won), a pudgy, clumsy character who couldn't be trusted to change a light bulb.  His fumbling around is the cause for many moments of humor throughout the movie, another break from the typical horror flick.  However, Jong-goo begins to focus himself when his daughter Hyo-jin (Kim Hwan-hee) is infected by the abnormal rash and starts acting violently. 

            Around town, the gossip is that poisonous mushrooms are causing the abnormal rash and violent outbursts, but a juicier rumor suggests that the new arrival of an older Japanese man (Jun Kunimura) in the village is to blame.  Jong-goo investigates the desolate, mountaintop home of the Japanese man, and what he finds suggests evil activity.  When Hyo-jin’s behavior and health become critical, he is pushed to the limits of his reason and must rely on faith.  However, there are many options, and we never know ourselves that might help exorcise Hyo-jin.

            One of the greatest assets of “The Wailing” is its extraordinary complexity.  Almost every scene is doused in symbolism, whether that is Christian or Buddhist or Mythological.  I’m not sure I truly understand many scenes in the movie, and had to take a long pause after the credits rolled to retrace what happened.  This dynamic can ruin certain films.  If there is too much going on, then how can a movie properly approach one of its themes?  But, “The Wailing” seeks, and I believe succeeds, in exploring the question of faith in Christianity.  If the viewer were too easily led to any one conclusion, such as in Martin Scorsese’s faith-exploration “Silence”, then would the film really be about faith? True faith is brutal choice often drenched in doubt. 

            “The Exorcist” is the original great film of its variety and also has notes of Christianity.  But in “The Exorcist” we never doubt that Father Karras is good, while the demon inside of Regan is evil.  We don't have to question what needs to happen.  The film is shocking, and scares you into being wanting to be closer to God, but it doesn't force any big questions.  In the final few minutes of “The Wailing”, the question of who/what is good and evil is still up for grabs.  There is a local Buddhist shaman who has tried to help Hyo-jin, there is a mysterious woman who has confronted Jong-goo with timely information at various points, and then there is the Japanese man, who may or may not be innocent.  All of these questions lead to a thrilling finish, and a fitting conclusion to film that centers on true faith: which, as none of those sappy Christian movies would reveal, ultimately comes down to a gamble. 

Op-Rob 2018 Best Picture Nominee Rankings

9. "Darkest Hour"

Gary Oldman's performance is admirable, and the history behind the story is very interesting.  However, the film looks and feels like made-for-TV movie.  The scene where Winston Churchill rides “the Tube” nearly forced my eyes to roll permanently into the back of my head.  

8. "Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri"

Though ambitious, and well made and well acted, I did not like this film for reasons explained in my full review. 

7. "Dunkirk"

Reviewed over the summer, “Dunkirk” missed the mark in significant ways.

6. "Phantom Thread"

Daniel Day-Lewis is perhaps the most consistently great actor alive today, and Paul Thomas Anderson is a truly skilled director.  However, this movie covers such niche subjects, it is hard to care about the final product. 

5. "The Post"

An entertaining historical drama directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks: this film spent too much energy fawning over its themes of journalistic integrity and feminism. Had it used more tact and simplicity, this film could have been superb.  It is easy to see the film’s issues when compared with better journalism pieces such as “All the President’s Men” and “Spotlight”.  Nonetheless, Streep is phenomenal in the lead and should be a serious contender for Best Actress.

4. "The Shape of Water"

Although I do not much care for the Guillermo del Toro aesthetic, “The Shape of Water” is a very good film.  The story has beauty and dramatic gusto.  However, the film too easily boils down to brazen prejudice vs. heroic love, with no in-between.  There are not enough nuances to the characters, and the film suffers as a result.

3. "Call Me By Your Name"

Set in the radiant Italian countryside, this is perhaps the most beautiful scene-by-scene film in this crop of nominees.  The acting is superb, and the themes are deeply intense and realistic.  The film is not catered to a gay audience so much as it serves anyone who has loved and lost, in the same vein as last years’ “La La Land”.  One unnecessary and ill-natured scene involving a peach holds the film back from being truly transcendent. 

2. "Lady Bird"

Considering the academy’s bias toward films with cultural ramifications, “Lady Bird” would probably never win Best Picture.  Nonetheless, I enjoyed every minute, and every scene, of this coming-of-age comedy/drama.  Greta Gerwig is a gem to the film world, with acting performances such as “Frances Ha” and “Mistress America”.  Her directorial work is off to a fittingly excellent start.

1. "Get Out"

Reviewed earlier on Op-Rob, “Get Out” is the best picture on this list, and I don't feel the race is particularly close.  It is a seamless film from start to finish: great acting, momentous direction, and a gut-punch cultural message to boot.  Jordan Peele’s historical knowledge of the horror genre cannot be understated with this film.  It is a powerhouse directorial debut if there ever was one. 

"Black Panther" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

          “Black Panther” stars Chadwick Boseman as King T’Challa, who rules a fictional central African country called Wakanda.  To the naked eye, Wakanda resembles a tiny, desolate third world country.  However, a centuries old secret has hidden the country’s greatness.  Operating behind an invisibility shield, Wakanda is a small, but bustling kingdom far superior in technological advancements than any country in the world.  The key to their power is an abundance of a rare metal called vibranium.  The metal has extraordinary powers, working as a self-sufficient power source as well having super-strength on par with Wolverine’s adamantium in the “X-Men” series.  Vibranium allows Wakanda to thrive independently, while concealing itself from the outside world, for it is the power source for the shield.  Perhaps the coolest aspect of vibranium is its ability to turn the King of Wakanda into “The Black Panther”.  In a sacred ritual, the chosen king ingests a vibranium-laced flower, and emerges from an ancestral dream trip with superior physical strength and coordination.

            By all means, Wakanda has it all, but a controversial political debate threatens to tear the country apart.  This debate revolves around the living conditions of other black people around the world.  In many cases, including in America, blacks are struggling.  Wakanda could do more to help, but would taking action sacrifice the all-important isolationist shroud that has preserved their prosperity?  The film, directed by Ryan Coogler, has entertaining subplots: including one in which T’Challa travels to Busan, South Korea to hunt down a professional arms dealer named Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis).  Before embarking on this mission, he visits the Wakandan technology lab, headed by his quip-ready little sister Shuri (Letitia Wright).  The James Bond-like sequence is perhaps the comic high point of the film.

            Without revealing the intricacies of the main plot, it must be noted that Michael B. Jordan plays the villain, an American/Wakandan named Erik “Killmonger”.  As T’Challa learns some disturbing secrets about his family heritage, and struggles to address the question of globalism for Wakanda, Killmonger shows up to offer a clear alternative to the old Wakandan ways.  His character, while certainly hateful and villainous, it not necessarily wrong in his intentions.  An evil individual can be an effective ruler.  That idea is the potent aspect of “Black Panther”.  As T’Challa’s late-father, King T’Chaka (John Kani), tells him, “You are a good man. And it is hard for a good man to be king.”  Indeed, it is a relevant topic in America today. Few Marvel films deal with such lofty ideas.

            However, despite several positives, “Black Panther” feels too much like a typical Marvel movie.  The headlines from the past few weeks have been championing the film as a “masterpiece” and a “game-changer”.  However, that simply isn’t true based on its filmic qualities.  Strip away the contextual details of the film and it boils down to: hero must confront doomsday-esque villain while learning something about himself.  This same storyline can be found in a bunch of Marvel movies, most recently in “Thor: Ragnarok”.  Marvel consistently employs talented directors, but their best qualities never truly shine through.  There is a definitive Marvel branding that tamps down anything really unique. 

            “Logan” was Marvel’s most admirable attempt at breaking from the formula.  It didn't work, but it could in the future.  It would be interesting if Marvel could apply the “10 Cloverfield Lane” approach to one of their subjects.  Say, a movie about the Black Panther that begins frantically in media res, that involves a narrowly scoped mission with more details and directional finesse.  Ryan Coogler would be more than capable of creating such a sequel!  As with “Black Panther”, for some reason it seems Marvel insists upon rigidly structured adventure stories that spend so much time on background that little is left over for true character development. 

            Thus, even though “Black Panther” does not represent a major break from other Marvel flicks; it cannot be denied that it is a uniquely exciting film because of its influence in America and especially the black community.  I have a feeling that playgrounds across the U.S. will be stages for portrayals of King T’Challa for weeks to come.  For the first time, black kids have a mainstream superhero to look up to: one who actually shares their heritage.  That is phenomenal, and worth celebrating!  However, it would be bad criticism to elevate the film simply based on cultural implications.  Great films can be enhanced because of external factors such as an important time period, or social movement, or political cause, etc.  However, those films should also be able to stand on their own, regardless of context. 

            “Black Panther” is a truly solid film, and I would easily recommend it based on entertainment value alone.  I have seen too many Marvel films that were so dull and uninspiring, so suffocatingly average, that I couldn't muster up the enthusiasm to write about them either positively or negatively.  That is the worst kind of movie.  Anchored by a charming cast led by Chadwick Boseman, Lupita Nyong'o, and Danai Gurira, “Black Panther” is better than average.  However, it must expand beyond the Marvel “bumper rails” in order to be a truly great franchise.