Nathan Liu

When I was little, I was diagnosed with Stargardt Disease, a rare form of macular degeneration. I didn’t know what any of those words meant, but my parents explained that my life would be different. I wouldn’t be able to drive, play sports, or serve in the military. I wouldn’t be eligible for most jobs. I wouldn’t be able to read without help. And because my condition was degenerative, the day would come when I wouldn’t be able to see my own face. Imagine hearing all that as a 7-year-old. It was terrifying. It was heartbreaking. But, as I soon found out, it wasn’t the end. What I quickly learned was that, despite my disability, I was still me. And I could still do great things. And it was Christopher Reeve who taught me that. Not only did he raise millions of dollars for research, and even get legislation passed, but his courage in being so open with his condition gave a face to the disabled community. This was exactly what I needed to hear, and it motivated me to keep going. I came to look up to Reeve. So much so that when he died at the all-too-young age of 52, it didn’t feel like just some celebrity passing on. It felt like I’d lost one of my heroes. Like Superman himself had ceased to be.   So, knowing all of that, you can imagine how excited I was to hear that they were releasing a documentary that specifically focused on his activism. And when I saw it, I wasn’t disappointed. This is a sweet, and honest, look at a man who was sometimes neglectful, but who was always loving, and who managed to find a new purpose after a tragic accident. The doc features interviews with his family, his friends, his former partner, actors he’d worked with, doctors, and people with disabilities he’d helped. The latter really sold the film for me because, most of the time, when Reeve’s story is discussed, the focus is on his film career. But this doc really emphasizes what he meant to people with disabilities, and even goes into how he wasn’t always loved by them. As an example, he appeared in an add that showed him walking again, which, as you can imagine, hasn’t aged well. And his frequent desire to find cures occasionally rubbed people the wrong way, as it implied that disabled people needed to be fixed. Even so, the interviewees make it clear how much they appreciate what Reeve did. He gave a face to the community. And there are literally people walking now because of the research done by his foundation.    My point is, the documentary is good. It’s honest, moving, and superbly edited. Even If you’re not a fan of comics, or have never seen Reeve’s films, I think you should check it out. It’s guaranteed to make you cry.

I’ve never seen the show or read the original novel. So I didn’t have any expectations going in. I obviously knew about “The Wizard of Oz,” having watched the Judy Garland film and played the Scarecrow in a stage production as a kid. And I knew that this was a revisionist take on the material. But that was pretty much it. I was hopeful, of course. I like the cast, and I enjoyed what the director, Jon M Chu, did with “Crazy Rich Asians” and “In the Heights.” So I had reason to believe that the movie would be enjoyable, if nothing else. And having now seen it, yeah. It is. The songs are catchy, the musical numbers are well-staged — my favorites are probably “Dancing Through Life” and “What’s This Feeling?” — and the cast is great. Cynthia Erivo, who I’ve been a fan of since seeing her in HBO’s “The Outsider,” gives a truly star-making performance here . Jonathan Bailey, whom most viewers will probably know from “Bridgerton,” is great as an empty-headed but good-hearted prince. I found out later that this character is actually supposed to be the Scarecrow, and something about that made me smile. Call it game recognizing game. The effects and visuals are more or less spot on. And as a disabled person myself, I’m glad that they actually cast a paraplegic actor to play Erivo’s sister, as opposed to having someone pretend to be in a wheelchair. So yeah, if you’re looking for a good date movie, or something to take your kids to, this is a fun ride. It’s not perfect, of course. Much has been made of the movie’s length, and the fact that it only covers half the play. Personally, neither of those things bothered me. There aren’t any sections where you feel like the story is dragging, and Erivo’s character does have an arc that’s fully realized by movie’s end. So you do feel like you’ve gotten a complete narrative. What I had a problem with were some of the performances, and the tone. No one is bad, but certain people, like Jeff Goldblum, Michelle Yeoh, and Peter Dinklage, aren’t really known for their singing abilities. And when they have to carry a tune, it can sometimes sound strained. Thankfully, Chu doesn’t force them to sing for too long. As for the tonal issues, it’s mostly a result of this being a musical. What I mean by that is, musicals are all about spectacle. Everything about them, from the emotions to the choreography, to the belting solos, is big. So even though this is a film that’s trying to teach nuance — what makes a person evil? What even is evil? — the way they go about it is pretty on-the-nose. And the unabashed sincerity of certain goofy lines can make one cringe a bit. Even so, none of these issues are glaring enough for me to not give this film a recommendation. It’s fun, andI think you’ll have a good time.

While it’s too long and has some tonal whiplash, the movie is, if nothing else, an earnest, (mostly) well-acted, beautifully shot melodrama. Based on the August Wilson play of the same name, and featuring several actors who appeared in the stage production, the film tells the story of two siblings, Bernice and Boy Willie, fighting over what to do with their family’s piano. Boy Willie wants to sell it so he can buy a farm, while Bernice can’t bear to give it up, as It has far too much pain and history attached. Ohh, and she’s also being haunted by a ghost. If that feels random and out of place, well, that’s only because it does in the movie too. The central dynamic is compelling enough, and what the piano symbolizes is very powerful. But the movie never quite comes together. For starters, there are scenes and plot threads—like an impromptu sing along—that don’t really go anywhere or add up to anything. Some of the supporting characters, like a former piano player who’s friends with Bernice’s uncle, feel totally irrelevant and like they could be cut. John David Washington, who plays Boy Willie, projects and gesticulates in a manner more appropriate for the stage than the screen. And as I said, the inclusion of ghosts and horror imagery feels jarring with a mostly grounded domestic drama. I understand that the supernatural stuff was in the play as well, and I know what the ghosts represent—the past, generational trauma, racism—but the way the spooky elements are incorporated into the movie feels heavy handed and distracting. Then again, big tonal swings juxtaposed with domestic drama is kind of an August Wilson staple. In addition to reading several of his plays—“Fences,” “Seven Guitars,” “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”—my parents are good friends with Scott Bradley, the man who designed most of his sets. As such, I’d consider myself pretty well acquainted with his work, and I’ve definitely noticed some quirks of his writing; Pittsburgh, working class characters, a period setting, verbose dialogue, a sudden, usually violent, death in the third act—that I’m not too fond of. One could argue that all his plays are variations on the same narrative and characters. Particularly the characters. It doesn’t take much to see how “Fences’” Troy, “Ma Rainy’s” Levee, and “Piano Lesson’s” Boy Willie are cut from the same cloth. All are braggadocios, talkative men, determined to get rich quick, while ignoring the women in their lives. And after you see this a few times, you start to wonder if Wilson only knew one way to write. It’s the main problem I have with Amy Tan. All her books are essentially the same—immigration, generational trauma—and it gets tiring after a while. To be clear, I don’t think Wilson is a bad writer, and I don’t think this is a bad movie. But it’s got flaws. So if you decide to watch it, go in with both eyes open.

Full transparency, I’m not a fan of the original “Gladiator.” I know that many people love it. My uncle, as an example, is a devotee. But, for whatever reason, it never quite clicked with me. So I wasn’t itching for a sequel, and I didn’t have any big expectations for this film. As far as I was concerned, the movie was an unnecessary add-on, made decades after the original, and created solely to profit off name recognition. And having now seen it, I do think that’s a fair assessment. BUT, and this is the key but, it’s an unnecessary sequel made by a brilliant director with a huge budget and an A-list cast. So even if it doesn’t break any new ground, it’s still entertaining. The movie looks incredible, with gorgeous locations, elaborate sets, and thrilling action, with two sequences in particular, a siege at the beginning, and a naval battle done inside the Coliseum, getting my blood pumping. The cast is giving it their all, even if the melodramatic material does, occasionally, render their performances a bit silly. Much praise has been heaped on Denzel Washington as a scheming, swaggering slave trader looking to take control of the Roman Senate, but my personal MVP is Pedro Pascal, who plays a sympathetic general that Paul Mescal’s hero initially wants too take revenge on. I also really liked Alexander Karrin, who plays a doctor that treats the gladiators’ wounds. And as stated earlier, the pic is never boring. All that said, the film is pretty silly. Every emotion is turned up to 11, and certain sequences, like when Paul Mescal sees his wife getting on a boat to the river Styx, really push the film into camp territory, with people shouting in hilarious slow mo. The characters also aren’t that well developed, with Mescal’s wife only getting one line before she’s killed, and the twin emperor’s being 2-dimensional and over-the-top. I also think the ending is a bit rushed. For context, I got up to pee, was only gone for about a minute, and when I got back, the movie was over. Yes, the movie is long, but I do think it needed a bit Moore time to breathe. And if you're looking for something historically accurate, look elsewhere, because this flick throws fact out the window. In short, this film, while silly and predictable, is about as good as a late sequel to “Gladiator” could probably hope to be, with the scale, spectacle and committed performances you’d expect from the heir to a Best Picture winner. I didn’t love it, but I didn’t hate it either. So if you do decide to go see it, you might have a good time.

It’s a sweet enough little movie, with some good jokes, a really great cast, and an interesting premise. Yet, when I finished watching it, I couldn’t help but feel somewhat frustrated. Between the inconsistent mechanics of the central concept, to the underdeveloped supporting cast, to the extremely brief runtime, this is a film that probably could have used another draft or two. The dialogue also kind of annoyed me. It consists of characters talking over each other, constantly swearing, and interrupting each other in what I’m certain were improvised exchanges. And while improv can absolutely lead to some great bits, here, it just felt chaotic and irritating. Like the writer wasn’t entirely confident with what they had written. There’s also quite a bit of telling, rather than showing, like the fact that the main girl supposedly doesn’t get along with her brother or her mom. But we never really see that. She just tells us that. And, finally, there are a few things that just bugged me, personally, like the fact that Aubrey Plaza, despite being in all the marketing, is only in two scenes, that I never once bought that she and the main girl were the same person, or that all the sex scenes take place in really uncomfortable looking places that I doubt anyone would want to do it in. Specifically, the bottom of a boat, and the concrete floor of a lighthouse. But like I said, those are just personal taste things. At the end of the day, this is a teen rom com about a girl’s summer flings before she heads off to college. One could argue that such a story doesn’t require a long runtime, or a super developed supporting cast, or air-tight story mechanics. What matters is if you found it funny and engaging, and for the most part, I did. Even though it annoyed me how they never really explained why or how Aubrey Plaza can appear to her younger self, when she appears at the end and reveals certain things, it got to me. That’s both a testament to her as an actor, and to the writer for being able to tap into a very real strain of emotion. So, for all its flaws, I do recommend you all go out and watch “My Old Ass.” After all, it’s right there on Amazon. There are worse ways to spend 80 minutes.

Earlier this year, I discovered an animated short film called “Harvie Krumpet.” In case you’ve never seen it, it’s a claymation tragicomedy about the life of a Polish immigrant. There’s very little plot, meaning the characters don’t have a clear goal or objective, and it’s pretty much all exposition. Meaning the film is basically just Geoffrey Rush narrating the main characters life and quirks, with no one onscreen ever talking. I found every aspect of the piece—from the almost storybook like narration, to the lumpy, somewhat ugly appearance of the characters, to the poignant combination of tragic and comedic elements—fascinating, and wondered what else the director had done. And then last night, when I went to a screening at the Chicago International Film Festival, I got an answer. Turns out, “Harvie Krumpet” isn’t the only thing the filmmaker, Adam Elliot, has made. In addition to several other shorts, he’s also directed two features, including this latest effort, “Memoirs of a Snail.” And I’m so glad I watched “Harvie Krumpet” first, because it really helped me process this flick better.   Like “Harvie Krumpet,” “Memoirs of a snail” is a mostly plotless tragicomedy about quirky people drifting through life. That’s not to say that nothing happens. They just don’t have a clear goal or mission. In this case, the film follows two siblings as they grow up, lose their father, get separated by the foster system, experience various losses, and try to find purpose and meaning. And just like “Harvie Krumpet,” there’s a surprising undercurrent of humor to the proceedings. Even when things get sad, there’s usually a joke lurking about. I found the film delightful, and my audience just adored it. And while I don’t know if this movie is necessarily for everyone—there are some gross moments, like a fight where one kid gets his tooth knocked out, and there’s a somewhat superfluous coda involving a judge and a rollercoaster—I still believe you all should check it out. Because there isn’t a clear plot, the film has time to really sit with the characters, and give them rich back-stories and quirks. And unlike “Harvey Krumpet,” there’s dialogue this time around, and the animation is more fluid.   Watching this film really made me rethink my own approach to storytelling. You don’t need a high concept or an elaborate plot to grab people’s attention. Audiences will sit for 90 minutes and just watch people live, provided those people are interesting and relatable. And the characters here most certainly are. So if you get the chance, check this flick out.

If I were to describe this movie in one word, it would be “stately.” From the stacked cast of pedigreed actors, to the elegant costumes and precisely composed shots, to the subject matter, and serious, restrained presentation thereof, everything about the film projects an air of dignity and refinement. Add to this the fact that the film was directed by Edward Berger, whose excellent update of “All Quiet on the Western Front” won 4 Oscars, and you’ve got yourself the recipe for an admirable, adult drama. Which this film most certainly is. But is it good? Overall, I would say “yes.” The acting is terrific. The central mystery is engaging, with the final twist legitimately throwing me for a loop. And Berger really knows how to compose a shot, with several images really giving you a sense of depth and scale. I also appreciated the fact that, despite this film taking place in the Vatican, and every character being a member of the clergy, it’s not a faith-based flick. That is to say, it’s not a film that tries to get you to believe in God. Instead, it’s a movie that’s concerned with the politics of religion. How these structures operate, and how the people operating them are still human, with greed, ambition, lust, and envy. Even characters who you’re supposed to like, such as Stanley Tucci, who plays a more progressive candidate for Pope, are shown to be scheming, and seemingly more interested in screwing over their opponents than making real changes. Now, with all that said, the film isn’t perfect. For starters, it’s got a few shocking scenes, like an explosion that just happens midway through, which completely come out of nowhere. No explanation is ever given as to who the bomber was, or why they decided to carry out this attack. It honestly feels like the filmmakers just threw it in because they were worried that the audience was getting bored. Or, who knows? The movie is based on a book. So maybe that was in the novel as well. But it feeds into another, larger problem, which is that the film basically has no humor or levity in it at all. I can’t think of a single joke, or non-serious moment, in this entire movie. Given the subject matter, I guess that makes sense. But humor is a great way to help audiences get into a story. It shows viewers that the characters aren’t just likable, but like them as well. There’s nothing like that here, and I wonder if that might hurt the film’s prospects in the long run. As good as the movie is, it’s still a drama about old men sitting in a room talking. There’s no sex, profanity, or action. And I can imagine that younger people may not feel the urge to go out and see it. It just might not seem “fun” to them. Still, “Conclave” is good, and worth a watch, especially if you want more serious, adult entertainment.

A few years back, a movie called “All My Life” hit theaters. In case you’ve never heard of it, it tells the story of a couple’s future getting cut short by cancer. I, along with most other critics, didn’t care for it. Not because it was badly acted, or made with bad intentions, but because of the manipulative, cliche storytelling, which reduced someone’s real life to a series of tropes. And while no story told is truly original, it’s harder to care or feel invested when you can predict everything that’s going to happen. Why do I bring all this up? Well, a lot of the issues I had with “All My Life” are also present in “We Live in Time.” Not only do both focus on losing your spouse to cancer, but, in both films, the person who dies is a chef, and a large part of the plot centers around getting married before it’s too late. Now, to be clear, I do think “We Live in Time” is a better movie than “All My Life,” if only because it has a more unique story-structure—the film is told in a nonlinear fashion—and the characters are more fully developed here. Not only do we meet both the leads’ families, but they have more clearly defined back-stories. Still, the tropes are all present here. And by the end, I found myself rolling my eyes at the extremely manipulative score, and a rather melodramatic sequence at a cooking contest. And bear in mind, I LOVE sincerity in my storytelling. I’ve gotten into arguments with other writers over the merits of wearing your heart on your sleeve, and how you shouldn’t hide behind snark and nihilism. But even I found some of the scenes annoyingly maudlin. And while I commended the movie for its nonlinear structure, there are moments where that actually works against the story. In one scene, Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh get into an argument about having kids. But by that point in the movie, we’ve scene flash forwards to Pugh being pregnant, and the pair playing with their daughter. So the drama of the scene is lessened, because we already know where everything is going. And there are some sequences that just end super abruptly. Like, after Garfield and Pugh argue over kids, he comes to her house to apologize and confess his love, but the scene actually ends before he says either thing. Which makes me wonder why either the argument or the reconciliation was included. Let me be clear; this is not a bad movie. Pugh and Garfield have great chemistry. And there are some moments that got me to laugh, and even a few that hit me in the feels. I don’t regret watching it. But the simple fact is, the story is very cliched and manipulative. Maybe you’ll be able to look past those things and enjoy it. But if you do decide to watch it, I wanted to give you fair warning.

It’s kind of hilarious how much controversy this flick stirred up, because when you actually sit down to watch it, you realize, “Oh, this is just a post-apocalyptic movie that has nothing new to say.” All the hallmarks of the genre—highways littered with empty cars, bombed out buildings, roving gangs of armed marauders—are present. If you replaced the titular war with a zombie outbreak, the story would be impacted in no way whatsoever. Honestly, a zombie outbreak would make more sense, because, in this movie, liberal California and conservative Texas somehow form an alliance to overthrow a third-term president. No explanation is ever given as to why this war is happening, or what the rebels’ goals are. In fact, the movie pretty pointedly tells you to not think about the how’s or why’s in one scene where a guy calls Wagner Mora an ableist slur for asking which side he’s on. “They’re trying to kill me. I’m trying to kill them.” And that’s pretty much the thesis of the entire film. Now, on their own, unoriginal plots and absent back-stories aren’t dealbreakers. Plenty of post-apocalyptic and war films don’t bother to tell you why certain things are happening. You just need to accept that they are. What matters is the filmmaking itself, and it’s pretty lackluster here. The music is atrocious, with it vacillating between a-tonal wallpaper and needle drops that seem to have been chosen ironically. The song that plays over the final shot and end credits is laughably bad. There’re also quite a few scenes that don’t advance the already paper-thin plot, such as an interlude where the main characters go clothes shopping in a small town. In some cases, I get the sense that the writer-director, Alex Garland, is trying to establish character, but everyone is so thinly sketched that it just feels like wasted time. And speaking of character, no one is written consistently. You’re told over and over again how these people are professionals and veterans. Yet they do so many idiotic things—like bringing a random girl on their extremely dangerous journey because she asked nicely—that it becomes hard to take them, or the film’s, claims about journalism seriously. There’s also some clunky dialogue, like when Caliee Spaney points out how Kirsten Dunst’s character has the same name as Lee Miller, and then explains, for anyone in the audience without access to Google, just who Lee Miller was. It legitimately made my eyes roll. Now, to be fair to the movie, it’s not all bad. There are some interesting stylistic flourishes, like a sequence where Kirsten Dunst is photographing a battle, and the action gets cut up by still frames from her camera. And Stephen McKinley Harrison gives an all-around solid performance. If you like post-apocalyptic movies, you might get something out of this. Just go in knowing that it’s seriously flawed. And don’t let the title or the hype fool you into thinking that it’s any smarter than it is.

Briskly paced, terrifically-acted, and boasting both brains and brawny action, “Rebel Ridge” is a solid little thriller that deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. This is easily Jeremy Saulnier’s most mainstream, accessible effort. Sure, it has violence, but it’s nowhere near on the same level as “Blue Ruin” or “Green Room.” And unlike his most recent film, “Hold the Dark,” which I found to be both needlessly grotesque and narratively nonsensical, this film’s plot is both straight-forward and structurally sound. It’s basically a remake of “First Blood,” with a veteran going into a small town to see someone, the police harassing him, and a violent clash ensuing. Of course, this film has a great deal more on its mind, as it seeks to tackle the inequities of the legal system, including systemic racism, police corruption and accountability, cash bail, and civil asset forfeiture. As good as the action is, my favorite scenes in this movie are the charged interactions between Aaron Pierre’s ex-marine hero and Don Johnson’s corrupt, villainous police chief. The dialogue is great, and the actors are giving it their all. Pierre, in particular, really shines in the lead role, and his work is made doubly impressive when you realize he wasn’t Saulnier’s first choice. In case you don’t know, “Rebel Ridge” is a film that’s been in development hell for almost four years. It was supposed to start shooting in 2020, but got pushed back because of COVID. And then, when it did start shooting, the original star, John Boyega, dropped out of the project. The official reason given was “family issues,” though there were rumors that Boyega didn’t like the script and felt he wasn’t getting enough attention. I’m not sure what the truth is, and I don’t want to speculate. But having now seen the film, I definitely think Pierre is better suited to this material. He’s so good that you’d never guess he wasn’t the first choice all along. Honestly, the whole film is good enough that I can’t help but wonder why this flick got dumped onto streaming with basically no fanfare. I genuinely think that if an indie distributor like A24 or NEON had picked this up and given it a theatrical release, it could’ve been a hit. Either way, the film is on Netflix now, where you all can see it, and I definitely think you should. It’s a good time.