Movies I Watched in July, Part 2

Here it is, the wrap-up of last month's movie recap which does not, for once, come at the last moment,  (Or after the last moment, as we saw recently.) As a bonus, the three movies were all movies I was seeing for the first time, and all of them were very good -- which might explain why I tended to ramble on a bit this month.  Read on, cinema junkies...


The story at the heart of "Experimenter" is a strange one, and Michael Almeyerda's movie does it justice by being pretty damned strange itself. In 1961 at Yale University, researher Stanley Milgram brought in two volunteers claiming he was studying the effect of punishment on learning. The first volunteer would read questions and, when the second volunteer got them wrong, he would administer a series of increasingly powerful electric shocks. No matter how much the "student" begged for him to stop, the "teacher" was instructed -- gently but firmly -- to keep pressing the button that delivered those shocks. Naturally, the experiment actually had nothing to do with punishment or learning but was really designed to see how far an average person would go in torturing a complete stranger when ordered by an authority figure. (The shocks weren't real, and the "student" was in on the experiment.) This was a timely topic in 1961, with the horrors of Nazi Germany not long past and the trials of the war criminals and their "I was following orders" defense even more recent. (And it would become timely again, unfortunately, with the Vietnam War and the My Lai Massacre.) What's exciting about "Experimenter" is that it doesn't treat Milgram's work as some dry history lesson. Instead, using frequent (but subtle) elements of surrealism, Almeyerda (who wrote, produced and directed) conveys the eerie vibe of the era and the unnerving implications of what Milgram was discovering. The film's secret weapon is Peter Sarsgaard, who brings his intelligence and cool demeanor to a role that makes the most of it. I'd had this one sitting on the shelf for awhile, not ever feeling the urge to watch it, until one night when nothing else seemed compelling. I'm damn glad I popped it into the Blu-ray player -- it's one of the best movies I've seen in awhile, and I'm sure I'll be visiting it again before long. There's a lot to unpack within its scary smart 98 minutes.


All those complaints about this being the third version of Spider-Man never made sense to me, because this was the first version that was going to be part of the, ahem, Marvel Cinematic Universe. As good as the first two Sam Raimi films were (and I’ll admit to having a perverse soft-spot for the oft-reviled dance sequence in the third), for me one of the most interesting things about the comic book Spider-Man is that he’s the average guy in a world filled with Thors, Hulks and Captains America -- and it's something I wanted to see translated to the big screen. That’s one reason I loved the airport battle in “Captain America: Civil War” and was looking forward to more in this film. Some people said there was too much Iron Man in "Spider-Man: Homecoming," but for me, the contrast between the heroes – even when they were wearing eerily similar costumes – was a big draw. The early scenes, where Spider-Man tries to fight crime but can’t actually find any, are some of the best in the movie and really capture what sets Spider-Man apart from every other superhero. Stan Lee once said something along the lines of “he’s the hero who could be you,” meaning that he doesn’t have any idea of what he’s doing, either. (Side note: This is something I really tried to capture in my long-ago DCU comicbook, “HERO,” especially in the first arc.) Spider-Man's learning curve essentially takes the entire movie to complete, which feels real, and in certain seems Peter actually seems in way over his head. (The ferry disaster is the obvious one, but I also like how he was genuinely scared on the Washington Monument.) Tom Holland was perfect for the role – he had charisma, sure, and the guy can act (note how I singled him out for praise in “The Impossible” way back in this post), but most of all he seemed young. He felt like an actual high school student (even if he’s not), and the school scenes, with his realistically diverse set of friends (including Tony Revolori of “The Grand Budapest Hotel” as none other than Flash Thompson) were some of the best things in the movie. Even better was the film’s villain. If the Marvel movies have a consistent weakness, it’s usually the badguys, who tend to be a little bland and lacking motivation. But Michael Keaton, who’s undergoing the sort of career renaissance you almost never see, brings a real sense of menace and humanity to the role of “the Vulture” (though he’s never really called by that name). You don’t merely understand why he’s committing those crimes, you even sympathize with him to a certain extent. And I’d argue Peter Parker does, too. Keaton’s speech about how the big guys don’t really care about the little guys seems to fuel his decision at the end of the movie. I’ve gone on longer than I planned to about this movie, but I really (really) enjoyed it, as if you can’t tell. One more thing: I won’t spoil the last line of the movie, but I will say that (a) it’s hilarious (b) it’s perfectly delivered and (c) it’s followed by the Ramones, who just like Spider-Man, hailed from Forest Hills, Queens. What the hell more do you want?

I liked “Baby Driver.” A lot, in fact. But I didn’t love it – and boy, did I go in wanting to love it. I consider Edgar Wright one of the few directors working today with a perfect batting average. Every movie he’s made so far, from the “Cornetto Trilogy” (“Shaun of the Dead,” “Hot Fuzz” and “The World’s End”) to his wildly imaginative adaptation of “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World” has been a feast, both visually and comedically, with the sort of wit and style you just don’t see much in these days of cookie-cutter, focus-grouped films. And “Baby Driver” has plenty of wit and style, too, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that, in the end, it didn’t quite add up for me. Maybe it's as good as your average very good movie -- or even better, really -- but it's not pretty much perfect way that Wright’s previous films are. (I also think it should have ended about five minutes before it actually did, say, when Baby was on the bridge – but I did enjoy the reveal of baby’s actual, hilariously fitting name). Still, like I said, it’s very good, and though this probably reads like a “bad” review, it’s not. So here, in the interest of encouraging you to see it, are some things I loved about it: The car chases are truly great, thrilling and funny, leaving you with an adrenaline rush that has you wanting to gun it as you leave the theater parking lot. The cast really brings it, with the standouts being Jon Hamm, whose performance starts strong and gets better as the movie goes along, and Jamie Foxx, bringing a real sense of menace and danger to his role. And, to no one’s surprise, Wright, the man who choreographed a zombie beat-down to Queen in “Shaun of the Dead,” pairs the action up with some truly inspired soundtrack choices. I need to see it again to check how close the visuals match the songs, but knowing Wright, I’m guessing it’s damn close. And, despite what I might have implied at the beginning of this review, I do want to see it again. It’s very, very good. It’s just not as good as Wright’s previous work – but trust me, that’s a damn hard target to hit.