Deadpool 2 (2018): Worthy Sequel

I love good Hollywood-style action/adventure movies. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Jurassic Park (1993) and Jurassic World (2015), Terminator 2 (1991), Die Hard (1988), The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and the like – they’re great. They make me feel like a kid again. And while I’m not a big fan of most comic book based, superhero/fantasy summer blockbuster pictures (and avoid seeing a lot of them), a few of these genre pictures rise above the tedious, clamorous, run-of-the-mill mass and approach greatness (or at least above average-ness). The first Iron Man feature in 2008 or The Dark Knight, also in 2008 and probably the best Batman movie, come to mind.

Deadpool (2016) is in this category. A movie about a guy who develops superpowers and fights bad guys, that also somehow defies all of the conventions of the superhero genre. For starters, Wade Wilson a.k.a. Deadpool is no hero. He’s a mercenary – a cynical, foulmouthed loner with few if any scruples, and certainly no interest in crimefighting, public service - or in helping other people really. Until he falls in love with the lovely Vanessa – a prostitute, naturally. Oh, and he has a great, dark sense of humor not to mention a clever, cute and witty use of language.

Oddly enough, I first saw Deadpool while strapped to an apheresis machine at a Red Cross donation center. The process takes a couple of hours, so donors get to watch movie dvds while lying here, and Deadpool was the only one in the fairly large collection on offer that was of any interest (and that I hadn’t yet seen). It sure took my mind off the task at hand. Funny, offbeat, thrilling, imaginatively filmed – most of all, this was a movie with attitude!  Even the story of how our protagonist got his superhero name is darkly comic.

I suppose I should warn the tender plants out there that Deadpool – the character and the film– is also vulgar and violent, albeit both characteristics are largely in the service of light entertainment, rather than salacious or prurient ends. The same goes for the new sequel.

Deadpool 2 is a sequel that doesn’t outdo its source, but nor does it underperform. Fans of the first movie will not be disappointed. At least I wasn’t.  Just like its predecessor, this picture starts a little way in and then backtracks, via voiceover narration by Wade/Deadpool and a flashback sequence that brings us up to speed. Although the plot is new and different, the tone, the style of wit and the action is of the same style and, more importantly of a similar caliber as the first film.  

And like the first movie, our anti-hero protagonist – who I’ll call Wade from now on so as to avoid confusion between the movie title and the character – is at the center of it all. Wade, played brilliantly by Ryan Reynolds [National Lampoon’s Van Wilder (2002), The Woman in Gold (2015)], has a smart-aleck attitude, a highly ironic wit, an imaginative, deadly fighting style, and many, many ups and downs – mostly downs. Having the ability to quickly heal from pretty much any injury, no matter how gruesome or deadly it may seem, certainly helps - and not incidentally, adds to the comic possibilities.  Reynolds is the cog that makes the whole Deadpool franchise work. This time around, in addition to bringing his character to life and charming the pants off us, he helped write the screenplay, and was a co-producer as well. 

Like the first Deadpool, the action sequences in Deadpool 2 are kinetically thrilling – in part because individually they are not overlong and thus not overdone, unlike so many other films of this type in which the so-called action, usually overburdened with great infusions of CGI, goes on too long and winds up boring us.  As I’ve mentioned, both films are loaded with violent scenes, but it’s a live-action cartoon-style of violence, which is too silly to be truly disturbing, much less appalling.

 Nevertheless, the film remains primarily a comedy. It does this in a self-consciously arch and/or ironic way, often sending up the whole comic book superhero genre of which it is very much a part, not to mention Hollywood itself. Deadpool 2 also maintains the conceit that Wade can narrate his own story, knowing that we are watching, moving back and forth in time, and periodically breaking the fourth wall to speak directly to us, usually to underscore the drollness of it all. Besides the satire, we’re also treated to verbal and visual puns, screwball dialogue, and even a bit of the old slapstick.

A number of characters return from the original movie, among them comedian T.J. Miller as Weasel, the danger-averse bartender and sometime friend to Wade, who may be even funnier on this go-round; and Karan Soni as Dapinder, the hapless cab driver to whom Wade took a shine in the first movie, and who now would really like to get into the action, despite a complete absence of qualifications. Leslie Uggams returns as well, playing Blind Al, who has little to do but provide occasional comfort to Wade, while sassing him in her vulgar, yet reasonable way. Her place is the scene, in the third act, of one of the best and funniest moments in the movie, a sight gag having to do with Wade’s regenerative powers. And Morena Baccarin [Homeland (2011-2013)], a high-ranking member of my onscreen girlfriend list, reprises her role as Wade’s true love, Vanessa, a key person in Wade’s universe, albeit with too little screen time.

But hey, there are new characters as well, who also help to keep the action and the comedy wheels spinning. On the action side, we get Cable, a seemingly invincible cyber-warrior tough-guy from the future, played with a good deal of charisma by Josh Brolin [No Country for Old Men (2007), Hail Caesar (2016)]. Cable is on a quest, following a time-worn plot device: he has travelled back in time to kill someone before they wreak havoc in the future. [See The Terminator (1984), Terminator 2 (1991), Twelve Monkeys (1995), Looper (2012)]. He’s dangerous, and he's cool.

My favorite new character may be Domino, an African American woman recruited by Wade to be a part of his new “X-Force”.  She‘s played beautifully by newcomer,  Zazie Beetz, an African-German-American.   What’s Domino’s superpower? “I’m lucky,” she says – and as it turns out this facility makes for some of the coolest action sequences in Deadpool 2. I expect we’ll be seeing a lot more of Ms. Beetz in the next few years.

There are also a couple of cute new characters. After playing Ricky, the orphan with a chip on his shoulder in Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016), Julian Dennison returns as Russell a.k.a. “Firefist” here, again an orphan with a well-deserved chip on his shoulder and a somewhat similar personality, except here he’s out for revenge against the evil masters of the “Mutant Reeducation Center” where he’s been mistreated; and he’s got a superpower of his own to help him to that goal. Surprisingly, Wade takes a shine to the kid and tries to protect him. Then there is Yukio (Shioli Kutsuna), a young, lavender haired ninja sidekick to the returning, pint-sized  Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) – herself an acolyte of the large, metallic Colossus. Yukio’s sole purpose in Deadpool 2 is to be cute. And she is.

There are also cameos by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. You may or may not spot them.

Directed by David Leitsch, the former stuntman par excellence, who recently directed Atomic Blonde (2017) starring Charlize Theron, it’s no surprise that the action is so well done in Deadpool 2. Turns out he’s got a knack for comedy, too. It’s all timing, right?

1 hour 59 minutes.       Rated R (for language and violence?)

Grade: A-

In wide release.

                                                             

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018): Who Needs the Dark Side?

Solo, the latest installment in the growing Star Wars catalog, is a PG-13 rated adventure story that offers us a lot more of the light side then the Dark Side. Indeed, this may be the most lighthearted of all of the Star Wars films to date, at least since the original film, now known as Episode IV, A New Hope. In its tone, though certainly not its plot, Solo more closely resembles the first Spielberg/Lucas collaboration, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This picture is a perfect summer entertainment. It’s got action, attractive characters, powerful (but not too scary) comic book-style villains and - between the chases, fights and space battles - plenty of humor, although not so much as, say, the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. Before its release, in fact, a lot of the news about Solo had to do with a drama in the midst of the production: the original directors, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller [The Lego Movie (2014)] were fired because of “creative differences” – they wanted to make an out-and-out comedy – and replaced by Ron Howard [A Beautiful Mind (2001), Apollo 13 (1995), Willow (1988)], who was more sympathetic to the nuanced mix of humor, character and action favored by the producers. Good choice, I think.

I won’t say much about the plot other than that it takes place in an interstellar world that has not yet come under the oppressive thumb of an overarching evil Empire; but one that is ruled instead by thieves, power-hungry schemers and vast, amoral mega-cartels. And as I am sure you know, Solo is a prequel to the primary Star Wars saga, kind of an origin story about the young Han Solo. Not that it goes all the way back to his birth or childhood; rather, it begins with Han as a very young man, perhaps twenty or so.

[Quiz: Before we go any further, what is the correct pronunciation of Solo’s first name? Is it Han with an ă as in ‘man’ or ‘Dan’? or with an ŏ sound as in ‘swan’ or ‘gone’?  Answer below.]

The big question, of course, is does the new Han Solo make the grade? In my opinion, Alden Ehrenreich [Hail Caesar (2016)] was a terrific choice to play the young Han, despite the fact that he doesn’t much physically resemble Harrison Ford - even the young Harrison Ford, who was just 34 years old when the first Star Wars film was shot in 1976. Ford had that trademark smirk; Ehrenreich, just 27 during the filming of Solo, doesn’t. (Ehrenreich also is 4 inches shorter than Ford – although I didn’t notice this discrepancy until Mick LaSalle pointed it out in his review of Solo, after I’d already seen the movie; and I doubt most other viewers will notice either.)

None of this matters. The production folks gave Ehrenreich the right haircut and clothes (vest, tight pants, western-style blaster holster); and screenwriters Lawrence Kasden [The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), The Big Chill (1983)] and his son Jonathan Kasden provided good, character-appropriate Solo dialogue. Mostly, though, it’s because Ehrenreich has got the acting chops and screen charisma to recreate the swagger, the brash overconfidence and the roguish charm that is Han Solo. He may not have Harrison Ford’s leer, but Ehrenreich has the knack to deliver the goods.

But there is more. We also get to meet the young Lando Calrissian. Narcissistic, flamboyant Lando - appealingly played by Donald Glover (Atlanta), channeling the winsome Billy Dee Williams - has got money, an extravagant lifestyle and a reputation as a high-stakes gambler and trader. He’s also got something that Han wants: a hot rod light-freighter called the Millennium Falcon. What about the Wookie, you ask?  I know you’ve always wondered how in hell Han Solo met Chewbacca and how they become friends. Well, Solo has got answers for you; and we get to see Chewie as a (slightly) younger, more svelte Wookie here.

There are new characters too – led by the ubiquitous Woody Harrelson as a tough intergalactic thief called Beckett. I’m not sure how he does it but Harrelson, reputedly one of the most laid-back actors in Hollywood off-screen, is always interesting and frequently commanding on-screen. Here, too. Han falls under his sway (like the rest of us). 

There is also Thandie Newton as Beckett’s girlfriend-partner, Val; and Emelia Clarke as Han’s love, Qi’ra – both good. The chief villain of the piece, the evil, organized crime boss Dryden Vos, is coldly and capably played by Paul Bettany [The Da Vinci Code (2006), Master and Commander (2003), voice of J.A.R.V.I.S. in the Iron Man series etc.]. Meanwhile, Phoebe Waller-Bridge is the voice of the wonderful robotic creation L3-37, a hard-ass female robot pal of Lando’s, who makes you forget that C-3PO and R2-D2 are not around. Not that she’s a cutesy comic relief robot; no - more like a feminine action hero with sass, verve and (literal) nerves of steel.

Thankfully, no Jar Jar Binks and no Ewoks, nor any similar irritations. Also, only a few small snatches of John Williams - just enough to be evocative, yet far short of annoying. At 2 hours 15 minutes, it is about fifteen minutes too long, but other than that Solo is a fun and entertaining addition to the Star Wars empire - a nice mix of action and humor, and a story that answers a few 40-year-old questions.

Solo may not satisfy the most obsessive of SW addicts or the most serious art house cinephiles, but for the rest of us, it’s a pretty darn decent summer movie.

135 minutes.    Rated PG-13

Grade B+

In general release.

[As to the correct pronunciation of ‘Han’, it has been confused for some time. George Lucas apparently used the ă version, rhyming Han with pan or man. But in his very first appearance in 1977, Harrison Ford’s Solo pronounced his first name to rhyme with swan, gone or bon bon. Luke Skywalker followed suit, but Princess Leia went back and forth and Lando Calrissian persisted in rhyming Han with pan (perhaps to make sure his own name was not pronounced as Londo). In Solo, Han tries to clarify the issue, but Calrissian is apparently a slow learner – as evidenced by this clip.]

On Body and Soul (2017): Quirky and Meaty

On Body and Soul, a quirky Hungarian comedy/drama/romance, was a finalist for this year’s best foreign language film Oscar. It’s a picture that moves along at a relatively slow, contemplative pace, which in this instance counts as a virtue. I found it was interesting and increasingly absorbing through all of its almost two hour length. And it’s available for home viewing exclusively from Netflix (streaming and on dvd).

In a nutshell, the story is about two people who, unbeknownst to one another have the same repeating dream - not a dream about the other person, but literally the same dream as the other person – and what transpires when they discover this. And, it’s about what it’s like being or feeling as if you are an outsider, different from other people. Perhaps you experience social ostracism; perhaps you make excuses or justifications for your otherness; but inside, you still ache, you hurt and feel alone - wanting to belong if not to the group, at least to someone. Ultimately, On Body and Soul is about the universal need for connection – and for intimacy.

How has it been received?  Quite well, both by critics and the movie-going public. According to review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes , the movie has a critical approval rating of 91%, summarizing its appeal thusly: 'Tender performances and a strong sense of style combine to create an eccentric, dreamy portrait of love and loneliness.'  In addition to the Academy Award nomination, it won the top prize, the Golden Bear, at the prestigious Berlinale film festival in 2017; and the picture’s lead actress, Alexandra Borbély, won the European Film Academy’s award for best actress of the year. IMDb (the Internet Movie Database) gives On Body and Soul a score of 7.7 out of 10, based on ratings by nearly 14,000 filmgoers. 

So here’s the set-up:   Endre is the CFO of a beef factory, which is to say a slaughterhouse or abattoir, on the outskirts of Budapest, Hungary.  Essentially, he seems to be the on-site manager of the place. Endre is an older man, near retirement age, with a placid attitude and a world-weary look that says he’s seen it all. His left arm is lame, a condition he self-consciously tries to conceal; he mostly keeps to himself to the extent he can.

But the factory’s quality control lady has taken maternity leave, and a new young woman, Maria, has taken her place. Maria is not liked by the other workers. She is stand-offish, doesn’t socialize, and has an odd manner. Nor is it appreciated that she grades the beef 100% by the book, which is to say very strictly. At the same time, she is a nice looking blonde, and along her aloofness this attracts Endre’s interest.  

Interspersed with the scenes setting up this situation are other scenes set in a stunningly beautiful wintry forest. In that forest lives a magnificent stag deer, not unlike the noble creature Helen Mirren’s Queen Elizabeth saw (or imagined she saw) in the 2006 picture The Queen. In one of these arboreal scenes the stag meets a doe, and thereafter the two of them roam through the snowy woods as a pair. This lovely imagery is mysterious at first, but we come to understand that we are glimpsing a bit of Endre’s dreams.

One day the police arrive at the workplace, based on reports that some of the plant’s cattle “mating powder” has been stolen. As part of the internal investigation which follows, a psychologist comes in to conduct interviews with all employees who might have had access to the powder. Her interview technique is unusual and also rather amusing, focusing a lot on personal stuff that would certainly be off limits in this country, such as the interviewee’s sexual habits and about about their most recent dream. She is startled to discover, in interviewing Endre and later Maria, that each describes an identical dream about the two deer (he identifying with the stag, and she with the doe). It’s through the disbelieving psychologist that these two first discover that they are sharing the very same dream!

The movie takes off from there, as these two quiet, diffident, yet very different folks tentatively explore what this phenomenon might portend; and a quirky love story seems in the offing.

What makes the movie so good?  For one thing, the cinematography is creatively moody and frequently gorgeous. More importantly, though, the performances of the two leads are exquisite and memorable.

Borbély in particular, as Maria, is captivating. If you’ve seen the excellent Swedish TV detective series The Bridge you’d recognize the kind of character she plays as quite similar to that of Saga, the brilliant, quirky detective with Aspergers syndrome. [As an aside, that show was so good, it was copied and made into an American detective series also called The Bridge, starring Diane Kruger as a similar type; and copied a second time as a British/French series called The Tunnel, but I haven’t seen either of those.] Like Saga, Maria is on the spectrum, extremely competent at her job, but largely incompetent in social interactions. She also has an almost superhuman memory. Unlike Saga, she’s quite shy, extremely modest in demeanor and dress. The combination of these qualities makes her both fascinating and endearing. 

Meanwhile, Endre (played by Géza Morcsányi) is a bit eccentric himself - a very private person, almost reclusive, with the thoughtful, cautious manner of a guy who is more observer than participant in the social world. Having long since given up any hopes of being romantically connected to another person, Endre is bemused by his attraction to and his mysterious connection with Maria.

In the hands of these two, the odd circumstance of the shared dream is not just an interesting premise, but the basis for an unusual, delicate, increasingly absorbing relationship.

Also interesting is the peek this movie gives us into the workings of a commercial abattoir (something I, personally, have never seen – nor want to think much about) – and just as interesting, the glimpse we are afforded of the psycho-social world of the humans who work there – the matter-of-fact way they go about their grisly business, the physicality of much of it, and the suggestion that the omnipresence of death, inherent in production of meat from live animals, winds up being an earthy environment for widespread flirtation and sexual liaisons.

Borrowing from and highlighting the movie’s premise – that two strangers could share the same dream – the picture itself is somewhat dreamy. The interspersed scenes of the stag and doe in their snow-covered woodland are divine. The inevitable contrast between these wild creatures and the doomed cattle is pretty striking, a not so subtle subtext to the human story in the foreground.

Which leads me to a cautionary word:  As I’ve suggested, On Body and Soul contains scenes in the slaughterhouse that may be disturbing to the faint of heart. While the film kindly avoids depicting the literal death moment of any steer, we are not spared much else. To be blunt, there are some brutal and bloody scenes of the so-called meat processing. Although these are thankfully quite brief, but I nonetheless found them unsettling. I guess it’s good to be reminded from whence our food derives. But consider yourself warned.

 

That said, On Body and Soul is a worthwhile, oddly touching, thoughtfully absorbing motion picture.  I recommend it.

1 hour 56 minutes.  Not rated.

Grade B+

Available both streaming and on dvd from Netflix (exclusivel

The Seagull (2018): Hope and Despair

The Seagull is a star-studded cinema adaptation of the classic tragicomic play by Anton Chekhov, the first of his four major theatrical works (the others being Uncle Vanya, Three Sisters, and The Cherry Orchard). I saw a pre-release screening a few weeks ago, and really liked it.

Given the status of the play, which Chekhov, who must have had a weird sense of humor, referred to it as a comedy, it’s rather surprising that there have not been more attempts to bring it to the silver screen. As far as I can tell there are only two films directly from the play: There’s a Russian movie also called The Seagull (aka “Chayka”)  from 1970 that’s available on YouTube (with English subtitles), and a British-American version from 1968 called The Sea Gull, directed by Sidney Lumet, that’s reputedly pretty awful, notwithstanding a fine cast featuring Vanessa Redgrave, Simone Signoret, James Mason and David Warner. 

The new version, opening in select theaters on Friday May 18, and somewhat more widely on May 25, also features a top-notch cast headed by Annette Bening, plus Saoirse Ronan, Corey Stoll, Elisabeth Moss, Brian Dennehy, Billy Howle and Mare Willingham. Having followed up my viewing by reading the play, I can say that the screenplay, by the Tony Award winning playwright Stephen Karam (whose brilliant 2015 drama The Humans was one of the best contemporary plays I’ve seen in years) follows Chekhov’s text pretty closely, which makes it too pretty great. As is the acting. The Seagull - play or movie - is very much an ensemble piece, with between four and six principal characters (depending how you count), so it is key that everyone holds up their end – which is pretty much the case here (with one possible exception).

While the Chekhov’s play, first produced in 1896, is widely regarded as a masterwork and one of the seminal works of modern theater, movie-critics so far are divided on the quality of the new motion picture. Most agree that the acting is terrific, and that theThe Seagull is worth seeing on that score alone. Folks like David Edelman of New York Magazine, Jordan Hoffman of The Guardian, and Gary Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times have praised the film. Others have been disappointed for various reasons.

A.O. Scott of the NY Times, whose reviews I usually like, acknowledged the solid underpinnings  and the superlative acting, but felt that the camera work was too busy, disrupting the rhythm of some important scenes. I respectfully disagree. One of the scenes Scott disliked involved a key moment when Bening’s character, Irina, launches into a hurtful argument with her adult son, the sensitive Konstantin. The way this was shot seemed to enhance rather than impede the drama and emotion of that moment for me.

Other critics wrote that the movie was superficial, not as deep or nuanced as the play. Such an assessment may depend, of course, on which production of the stage version one has seen, if any, and when.  One reviewer acknowledged this, saying that the picture seemed a little flat compared to one of the several stage productions he had experienced, adding that everyone who has seen the play probably has a favorite moment, and nothing in the movie will quite rise to that level. As I’ve said, Karam’s screenplay is remarkably similar to Chekhov’s text. (The film does a bit of tinkering with the order of things, commencing with a bit of the first part of the final act, then doubling back to the beginning of the story, following that straight through to where we started and continuing straight on to the end. I found that this worked pretty well and gave extra meaning and context to the repeated part.  None of the reviews that I’ve seen, even the tepid ones, took issue with this.)

It should go without saying that film and dramatic theater are different mediums, but it bears repeating that any comparison must take this into account. There’s an immediacy in the experience of watching good live actors performing a dramatic scene on a stage right in front of you which can’t be duplicated on film (or video) in the same way. On the other hand, movies can enhance an actor’s subtle, often wordless expression of emotion and/or interiority through closeups, zooms, soundtracks, and so forth in ways that plays can’t. Just as one can’t directly compare a movie qualitatively to the novel it’s based upon (or vice versa), it’s neither fair nor apt to rate a movie by equating it the play on which it’s based. The same is true respecting the relatively new phenomenon of  stage musicals - such as Frozen, Kinky Boots, Mean Girls – derived from movies; they are just different animals.  One can prefer one type of rendition over another but a movie needs to be judges as a movie, a play as a play, a Broadway musical as a musical, each on its merits in the chosen medium.

This is easy for me to say here, since I have not had the good fortune to see a stage production of The Seagull. And as I’ve said, I quite liked the movie. Yes, the movie remains rather stagey, even though the picture undoubtedly opened things up in a nice way - scenes in a rowboat on a lake actually take place in a rowboat on a lake, for example. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Denzel Washington’s Oscar-nominated drama Fences feels stagey in the same way – for the same reason. As does Sleuth (1972), the terrific mystery-thriller starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine (based on a play by Anthony Shaffer), and numerous other cinema adaptations, I’m sure.

For those who haven’t seen it in any form, The Seagull is about the tangled relationships of the various folks hanging out in and around a lakeside summer dacha, owned by the famous actress Irina (Annette Bening), and her recently retired, civil servant brother Sorin (Brian Dennehy).  While Sorin is a modest, regretful sort, Irina is a vain prima donna, anxious to hold on to her star status and her fading beauty. These qualities, among other things, alienate her adult, mid-twenties son Konstantin (Billy Howle), an aspiring but so far unsuccessful playwright, who has grown up on the estate, largely ignored by his mother. Irina has brought her younger lover Boris Trigorin (Corey Stoll) there this summer. Boris is an accomplished and very popular writer, albeit somewhat self-effacing.  Konstantin is in love with Nina (Saoirse Ronan), a lovely local girl, who longs to become a successful actress like Irina, and who admires and falls in love with Boris (who is not unreceptive). Meanwhile, Masha (Elizabeth Moss), daughter of the estate’s managers Shamarayev (Glenn Fleshler) and Polina (Mare Willingham), can’t help but love Konstantin, even though he despises her. Masha drinks, takes snuff, and generally goes around dressed in black, like a a 19^th century goth, feeling sorry for herself, while spurning the guy who loves her, the impecunious schoolteacher Medvedenko (Michael Zegen). Polina, it turns out, actually loves the beloved country doctor, Dorn (Jon Tenney), but then Dorn has had affairs with pretty much all the local ladies over the years, Polina and Irena included.

Got that?

The Seagull wouldn’t be the classic it is if it was just about unrequited loves. The play is stuffed with dialogue, and the movie is talky too. The storylines and the dialogue touch on many themes – most obviously the sometimes absurd sometimes tragic complications of romantic love in its many flavors, not least the misplaced, unrequited variety; as well as unrequited familial love. The Seagull is also self-consciously about the meaning of and value of art and artistic endeavor, about beauty, vanity, self-delusion and other human follies. Then there are the related themes of ambition (including the unfulfilled variety), accomplishment and disappointment. At one point, a gravely ill Sorin laments, “In my youth, I wanted to become a writer – I didn’t. I wanted to speak well – I spoke atrociously. … I wanted to marry – I didn’t. I wanted to live in town all the time – and here I am ending my days in the country and so on.”

A story like this lives or dies on the quality of the acting.  As already noted, the performances here are generally quite lovely. Annette Bening is terrific as the egocentric, sometimes shockingly cruel Irena. One cool example is a scene in which she confronts Boris about his infatuation with Nina, persuading him to stay with her instead, then winks at us, seemingly channeling Richard III’s wooing of Lady Anne (“Was ever a woman in this humour won?”). It is    as if Bening was born for this part; and perhaps she was, considering that she first played middle-aged Irena over thirty years ago at San Francisco’s American Conservatory Theater when Bening herself was in her mid-twenties.

Stoll, as Boris, is also at the top of his form, charming, philosophical, and while initially flattered and amused at the attentions of the much younger Nina, eventually besotted with an amour fou. Ronan brings the character of the naïve Nina to life in her growing infatuation with the great writer and her fantasy-ambition of becoming famous. Moss, although rather too old for the part at 35, is somehow just fine as Masha, the a black-clad romantic Eeyore. Tenney is engaging and wise as the handsome Dr Dorn; and Dennehy is world-weary and perceptive as Sorin.

The only weak-link, kind-of, is Billy Howle as Konstantin. The character is a difficult one to be sure – an idealistic young guy whose talent doesn’t appear to rise to his ambition, an ambition built on a desire to compete with his uber-successful mother. He’s also a man-boy who has got both an infantile love for and an equally strong adolescent resentment bordering on hate for his inconsiderate mother; as well as yet another despairing victim of unrequited romantic love. As portrayed by the 29-year-old Howle, 25-year-old Konstantin acts like he’s 15. Even if that’s the way the part is written, something else is not quite right: Howle  doesn’t muff his lines, but he doesn’t quite inhabit them either. Or so it seemed to me.

That just drops my grade for this movie from A to A-. I still recommend it. Great story, great screenplay and wonderful acting makes The Seagull a film well worth checking out. It’s that rare  meatier movie you can think your teeth into as we enter the cotton candy season of superheroes, action flicks and puerile comedies.

99 minutes.  PG-13

Grade: A-

In limited rolling release. Opens in San Francisco and several other cities on Friday May 18, 2018. Opens in Berkeley, San Rafael and Pleasant Hill California and other cities around the US on May 25. Check your local listings.