Christie’s famous play has never been adapted for the big screen—more on that later—but director Tom
George is trying to sneak it past the ushers and the ticket takers. In theaters now, George’s British-
American comic mystery “See How They Run” swoops in on London’s West End circa 1953, where “The
Mousetrap” is being celebrated by its cast and crew for staging its 100 th consecutive performance, the
play having opened the prior year.

Saoirse Ronan and Sam Rockwell play a pair of detectives on the hunt for a murderer who is terrorizing
cast members of “The Mousetrap.” The story follows the plucky duo as they find clues, pursue leads,
and interview suspects in the theater world. Meanwhile, a “Mousetrap” film adaption is being
considered by real-life movie producer John Woolf (of “The African Queen” fame), but would-be
Hollywood director Leo Kopernick (Adrien Brody) wants to jazz up the movie version with a fiery, bloody
ending that will be sure to put American butts in the seats. The brash, arrogant director drunkenly flirts
with the play’s female lead, Sheila Sim, whose husband Dickie Attenborough defends her honor in the
traditional way (fisticuffs).

Brody’s exaggerated features make him look like a caricature of a real person. In fact, as we learn (or are
reminded of by Brody), the first victim of a murder-mystery is usually a sleazy scoundrel. There will be
no shortage of suspects with reasons to kill Brody, who narrates the story even after his own death at
the beginning of the movie. I’ve heard of unreliable narrators, like Rachel Watson from “The Girl on the
Train,” but dead narrators? Yes, they exist, because movies make their own rules. It worked for sardonic
Lester Burnham in “American Beauty,” and for “Sunset Boulevard’s” Joe Gillis. That blew me away. Even
the exploits of the Desperate Housewives are made known to us by a deceased housewife.

Compositionally, this movie smacks of a Wes Anderson picture, with snap-zooms, hyper-frequent use of
symmetry, split screens which are often used during flashbacks, a few title cards (one of which is directly
referenced on-screen by foppish playwright Mervyn Cocker-Norris, played by David Oyelowo), and a
jaunty score consistent with the times.

If I was forced to write a one-word review, it would be: Cheeky. This meta-murder mystery might make
for a smashing good time, if you are in the mood and in the know. This movie is overstuffed with so
many winks and nods it will make your head spin trying to keep up.

Ronan plays the eager, young trainee Constable Stalker, doe-eyed and bursting with enthusiasm as she
is assigned to work with a world-weary lush, Inspector Stoppard (Rockwell). The two are assigned to
investigate Kopernick’s death, whose desired film version of the play would bear little resemblance to
the play, but is that a sufficient motive for murder? Much of the comedy is mined from Ronan, whose
love of cinema and the arts cannot be contained, and she helpfully explains to her partner (and by
extension, us) who the main players are and what other plays they were in and why they are important.
She also has the quirky but critical habit of writing everything down.

Although fictional, much of the story within the story is true. Agatha Christie notoriously disliked film
adaptations of her work, and decreed that “The Mousetrap” could not be made into a movie until six
months after the end of its theatrical run. Fast-forward 70 years, and “The Mousetrap” (except for a
brief respite during the Covid-19 Pandemic), is the world’s longest running play. The production’s
apparent endlessness has left more than a few hopeful moviemakers in its wake. Will it ever be allowed
a proper film treatment? This is where the “meta” comes in. “See How They Run” is the closest possible
thing (for now) to a film adaptation of “The Mousetrap,” as all the characters in this movie know about
“The Mousetrap,” are starring in, writing, or producing it, trying to twist it into a Hollywood production
or are anxiously watching performances of it. The meta-nature is many-layered, as “The Mousetrap”
itself is allegedly based on a real murder, and this movie knows that, and then another real murder
occurs among the cast. As to whether Dame Agatha herself makes an appearance, it shan’t be spoilt by
me.

Now, for my opinion.

Did I like it?

Sure.

But be warned: What may be to some people a fun, fast-paced, clever whodunit full of witty one-liners
may for others be an exhausting exercise in indulgence, perhaps too clever by half. I suppose that if you
are a fan of murder mysteries, especially British ones, and most especially those of Christie, you will
understand the references, asides, throwaway lines, and even the significance of the names of the
players. Consider the following: In one scene, Inspector Stoppard is called a real hound. Now, how many
people know that famous playwright Tom Stoppard wrote a one-act play called “The Real Inspector
Hound”? Not me, at least not until I read it online after seeing the movie. This is the type of movie that
likely has the 2019 smash hit “Knives Out” to thank for its greenlighting. But “Knives Out’s” popularity
was due primarily to its populism: It’s a charming, thrilling, funny well-written crowd-pleaser that
required almost no a priori knowledge to enjoy it wholeheartedly.

This is not to say that “See How They Run” cries out for a scholarly mastery of the genre, nor that one
must be well-versed in the works of Christie. But, I could definitely see how it would help. The movie is
forgettable but pleasing escapist fare for its 98 minutes on one level, but I suppose a deeper
appreciation requires the aforementioned depth of knowledge. I’m guessing the deep cuts will be a
bridge too far for most.

I likely fall into the former category. I’m not an especially astute student of the genre it both spoofs and
adores, and I haven’t read more than one Christie book. Having said that, it mostly worked okay for me.
I’m certain that some of what I suspect was supposed to be uproariously funny elicited a chuckle. The
biggest laughs came from the detective duo’s banter, with Rockwell’s pauses, sideways glances, and
other reactions to Ronan’s earnest over-explanations of nearly everything.

If you fancy classic whodunits, you will be happy to hear that, yes, there is a murder (or two?), an
investigation of various suspects, a surprise reveal and a delicious twist. Maybe you will be smart
enough to not only get the references but to discover the culprit before it is revealed on-screen. Or
maybe you will be like me, having a laugh without being fully immersed, always being reminded that
you’re watching a movie that not only knows it’s a movie, but knows it’s a murder mystery while it is also spoofing murder-mysteries, and, even knows that it would like to be faithful retelling of “The
Mousetrap,” but blimey, Dame Agatha has spoken, and it simply cannot be. But, this is the next best
thing.

Although if you have a chance to see “The Mousetrap” live, do take it. I promise I won’t spoil the ending.

By Mark R. LaRocco, 9.23.2022

The post Mild Cheers for this Cheeky Meta-Murder-Mystery appeared first on Utah.Film.

For the “Thor: Love and Thunder” soundtrack, director Taika Waititi uses Guns ‘n Roses the same way he used Led Zeppelin for “Thor: Ragnarok” in 2017. Guns ‘n Roses was a great band, far superior to most all its peers, but it was no Led Zeppelin. And “Love and Thunder,” for all its zany chaos, is no “Ragnarok.”

“Love and Thunder” picks up in the aftermath of 2019’s “Endgame,” which left the titular demigod hero teaming up with the Guardians of the Galaxy for some outer space adventures. When we catch up with the gang, a cheeky voiceover from rock monster Korg (still voiced by Waititi) tells us how Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has shed his post-“Infinity War” beer gut and now acts as a literal Deux ex Machina for the Guardians whenever they find themselves overmatched against some interstellar foe.

The story gets going once the crew decides it’s time to part ways, and the Guardians set off on what will presumably form the plot of their third movie. Thor, for his part, has a more personalized foe to deal with. A mysterious villain named Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale) has been slaughtering Thor’s fellow demi-gods, and even kidnapped some of the Asgardian younglings. So our blonde-locked hero recruits some old friends—like Korg and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson)–to face the new threat.

In the process, he meets up with his old girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who has taken up Thor’s old hammer Mjolnir and transformed into a new hero dubbed The Mighty Thor. What Thor doesn’t know is that Jane is dying of cancer, and only using the hammer to postpone the inevitable.

In the meantime, everyone is getting in on the weapon game. Thor is still swinging his Stormbreaker axe, and to take on Gorr, he and Valkryie conspire to get a magic lightning bolt from Zeus (Russell Crowe) when their appeal for the Greek god’s help falls on mocking ears. Even Gorr is weapon-dependent. He’s only able to slaughter demigods because of a magic sword that came to him when his own deity let his daughter die of starvation.

What’s strange about all this underscores one of “Love and Thunder’s” weaknesses. One of the main points of “Ragnarok” was to show Thor that his powers weren’t rooted in his hammer, or any other weapon. The power was in himself. Yet throughout “Love and Thunder,” the fixation on Stormbreaker, Mjolnir, and the others—while it lends plenty of opportunity for laughs—seems to ignore that point.

The bigger issue is the way the humor—which reinvented (and arguably saved) the Thor franchise in “Ragnarok”—feels so jarring against the attempts for serious moments in “Love and Thunder.” Maybe it’s just because those “serious” moments try to carry more weight this time around—the mourning Gorr is substantially more imposing than “Ragnarok’s” megalomaniacal Hela (Cate Blanchett) on an emotional level—but the back and forth clashes awkwardly.

Even with those shortcomings, “Love and Thunder” still stands as an example of why Waititi and the Thor franchise loom head and shoulders above so much of what Marvel is producing in its post-“Endgame” meanderings. There are still plenty of references to other characters and situations, but witty dialogue and narration go a long ways toward keeping the audience on board, and the result is nowhere near the encyclopedic mess we just got with “Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness.” Waititi still seems to be having a great time taking the piss out of the superhero genre, while simultaneously offering some of its most triumphant and outrageous moments. Even if “Love and Thunder” feels more like a sequel than a revelation, fans should enjoy the ride.

“Thor: Love and Thunder” is rated PG-13 for chaotic superhero mayhem and violence, as well as some sexual content (Hemsworth’s bare backside, played for laughs).

The post ‘Love and Thunder’ is a step down from ‘Ragnarok,’ but pretty good for post-‘Endgame’ MCU appeared first on Utah.Film.

5. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

I think an important part of the viewing experience is where you go. For this one, I went to the Utah Theatre in Logan. It is such a neat location that is supported by locals, and it is a great location for viewing classics and live performances. For this movie, specifically, I loved being there with a crowd who was anticipating their favorite moments from this incredible classic. The response and the energy was so contagious and memorable. It goes to show how “Raiders” is the perfect movie for new and old fans alike.

The Utah Theatre has great deals for date night and family night, so be sure to check it out if you’re ever in the area!

4. Cinderella Man (2005)

I mean, who’s going to watch this movie and not be touched, right? As we were gathered for our Sunday family movie night a couple months ago, “Cinderella Man” hit me hard. Financially, 2021 was really challenging for us. My husband suddenly lost his job in May, so I began writing reviews hoping that I could potentially find some way to get paid. Employment struggles have been a rampant issue for so many people during the pandemic, and we were no strangers to that. It is still a struggle for us, but this movie made me feel a wide range of emotions from desperation to hope that was very needed and extremely cathartic at the time. 

3. First Blood (1982)

I believe this was the first movie I watched in 2021. It had been on my mind, and watching it again, I realized why. It is very interesting to revisit considering the current social and political climate regarding law enforcement, veterans, mental health, etc. It is also an interesting era to dive into, which is why “Kong Skull Island” was another great rewatch for me this year. “First Blood” is such a captivating, visual story that features, in my opinion, Stallone’s best performance (no disrespect to the masterpiece that “Rocky” is). The biggest take away for me this time was the conflict escalation and the importance of seeing another’s point of view. I highly recommend this one, mostly for the potential conversations we should have about it today. 

2. Beyond the Sea (2004)

I had not seen this movie before and I was blown away by the showcase of talent. It may be a little controversial to talk about with all we know about Kevin Spacey now, but a good movie is a good movie. It is a little unconventional in the way it tells the story of Bobby Darin; although purposefully staged and whimsical, it still pulls you in with its strong, emotional beats. I didn’t realize how many Bobby Darin songs I knew until I started singing along, which also enhanced the immersion for me. This movie further put me in the right headspace for my top pick that has a similar style and quality that I watched during the final days of the year.

1. tick, tick… BOOM! (2021)

Yes, I’m cheating since this did come out in 2021, but I didn’t watch it when it first came out because I didn’t have any interest initially. I am so glad I was talked into watching it. Also unconventional, it combines a staged performance and the real world in a way that would make original writer, Jon Larson, proud. It’s artistic, emotional, gripping, and entertaining. Andrew Garfield killed it in this role, as did the rest of the cast. It also really struck me personally because it touches on a sort of feeling that can’t be expressed in words. It’s this anxiety over a need to create something that you haven’t discovered yet. I feel that way all the time but hadn’t really articulate it like I did when watching this film. This movie encapsulates the core of who I am: the joys, the obsessions, the stresses, and the goals. I never had a viewing experience speak to my soul in this way and I may never experience anything quite like it again.

This basically sums up my 2021. I hope it puts good new/old films on your radar! Comment below if you had any meaningful viewing experiences that tied to your year. Here’s to a new start with new movie experiences! Happy viewings!

The post Dani’s Five Best Viewing Experiences of 2021 appeared first on Utah.Film.

About an hour into “Encanto,” my five-year-old niece leaned over and started asking me if the movie was almost done. This could mean a lot of things, and it could mean absolutely nothing, but it does support a gut feeling that the latest Pixar movie is geared toward adults a little more than to kids.

There’s one thing I really like about “Encanto,” though, and it’s almost enough to carry what is otherwise a so-so entry into the Pixar canon.

The story follows a young woman named Mirabel (voiced by Stephanie Beatriz), who holds the distinct honor of being the one member of her family who is not special. But let me back up a bit. Mirabel’s family is steeped in history and tradition, having escaped persecution decades earlier to establish a special home–an “Encanto”–in a new land. This home is more than a metaphor for the heart of its residents; it seems to possess a special magic that is disbursed to the different family members in the form of super powers during a sacred ceremony. Pepa (Carolina Gaitan) can influence the weather with her emotions. Luisa (Jessica Darrow) possesses great strength. Isabela (Diane Guerrero) can make things grow.

Mirabel has no special power, and partway into the movie, we relive the terrible moment where she steps up to receive her gift, and is denied. This alone is what won me over to “Encanto.” After decades watching the exploits of the uniquely gifted “chosen ones” of so many super heroes and franchise protagonists, from Harry Potter to Luke Skywalker, I loved the focus on the character who wasn’t special…at least on the surface.

Of course, Mirabel is plenty special, as the film goes on to explain as she steps up to help her family when the house’s magic seems to falter. To do so, she must recruit the family’s pariah Bruno (John Leguizamo), whose prophetic gift caused a lot of grief in years’ past.

The messaging is what carries the film, and the conflicted messaging at the end is what made it stumble for me, at least a little bit. But by that point, my niece wasn’t paying as close attention (word is she enjoyed the film just fine when she went again with her sisters a couple of weeks later, for what it’s worth). It’s also worth noting that “Encanto” is a musical, though not being a musical fan, I can’t say much more than to acknowledge that “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” was the only song that stood out to me.

Overall, “Encanto” is a sweet story that feels appropriate in that sub-genre of animated Disney/Pixar movies like “Coco” and “Moana,” that sets out to celebrate the beauties of cultures while they shoot for that critical balance between kid-pleasing and parent-pleasing. “Encanto” isn’t the best of these movies (“Moana” is my current favorite), but it’s still comfortably in the “worth seeing” tier of family animation.

Even if it seems to be shooting for an older segment of the family.

The post One thing carries Disney’s ‘Encanto,’ and it isn’t the music. appeared first on Utah.Film.

A month or two back I re-watched the original “Ghostbusters.” Re-watching a favorite movie from your childhood can be a tricky thing, but I was happy to see that my memories of greatness weren’t just soaked in nostalgia. “Ghostbusters” really is a fantastic movie, with a swagger and a charm all its own.

I wasn’t nervous going into “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” earlier this week, but I was well aware of the track record for long-awaited comedy sequels. As much as I enjoyed movies like “Zoolander” and “Anchorman”—and I’d put TV’s “Arrested Development” on this list, too—their follow-ups rarely amounted to more than glorified reunion specials.

“Afterlife” looked like it was going to be more of a passing of the torch, like “Force Awakens,” focusing on a new group of up-and-coming heroes to carry the story into the future. I make a point of avoiding as much of the spoiler-filled pre-publicity I can for these kinds of movies, but what little I did see didn’t suggest much participation from the original cast.

So I went in with cautious optimism.

What I found wasn’t perfect, but it was genuinely fun. It also tugged at the heartstrings and played the nostalgia card, though not quite in the way I expected. I would have re-written the hasty and clumsy third act, but overall, “Afterlife” is one of the rare movies from the last two years that I’d be happy to watch again. And for a lot of people, that’s really all you need to know.

But for the sake of everyone else, here’s a little more detailed breakdown:

“Afterlife” picks up in our present day, almost (cough) 40 years after Manhattan first fell under the trance of a paranormal infestation and the witty quartet of heroes who rose to fight it. This time, though, we’re far from New York City, though some spooky happenings at a rickety old farmhouse in Oklahoma hit some familiar chords.

After a mysterious opening scene, a single mother and her two kids arrive in town to inherit the farmhouse, which, since they’re down on their luck, will be their permanent home for the forseeable future. For teenage Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), that isn’t so bad, once he scopes out a pretty girl at the local drive-in. For his kid sister Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), it might mean a ticket out of social isolation. For mom (Carrie Coon), it could even mean a new relationship, in the form of Phoebe’s summer school science teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd).

At a steady pace, the scenes to come reveal what has really been going on at that old farmhouse, and that the previous owner was none other than Egon Spengler, brainiest of the Ghostbusters, and apparently a delinquent dad. Separately, Phoebe and Trevor manage to dig up Egon’s proton pack and the original Ecto-1, and the more they learn about their grandfather’s work, we realize they’ve come along at just the right time.

What results is a charming balance of nostalgic callbacks and clever storytelling, powered by likable new characters and sharp direction from Jason Reitman, whose father Ivan directed the original film. Again, the foreboding build of the first two acts becomes a little rushed once everything goes crazy in the third, but no one should walk away from the theater unhappy.

Movies like this always go out of their way to offer up a strong dose of nostalgia for longtime fans, and “Afterlife” is packed with plenty of knowing nods to its past. But what makes this one different is its very conscious effort to memorialize Harold Ramis, the actor who played Egon, and who passed away back in 2014. “Afterlife” could have a whole host of technical problems, and still be forgiven for the way it is determined to embrace its fallen hero. When you roll in the real-life relationship between Ramis and Bill Murray, then consider how even the original film acted as a kind of memorial for writer/actor Dan Aykroyd’s buddy John Belushi, the “Ghostbusters” films really take on a special and unexpected quality.

Altogether, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” won’t make the short list for Best Picture at the Oscars, but it will be remembered as one of the best movies of 2021.

The post ‘Afterlife’ isn’t perfect, but it is the ‘Ghostbusters’ sequel you’ve been waiting for. appeared first on Utah.Film.