Note: This entry is dedicated to my “cousin-in-law” Ryan (R.T.).

“It’s the most wonderful time of the year…” for film folks, anyway. The films putting their hands up for awards attention reach their greatest number in the last six weeks of the calendar year, and this season is no exception. What is different this year is that, of the three films above, the one I would have wanted to see on my television I paid to see in the theater, and the other two, that I would have been happy to pay to see, I saw for free at home on Netflix. A whole new world….

This entry is dedicated to my “cousin-in-law” Ryan (R.T.)

May December

May December is Todd Haynes’ newest film, and his third featuring Oscar winner Julianne Moore, whom Haynes worked with in Safe (1995) and Far from Heaven (2002). In brief, it is a wonderfully acted, precise piece of filmmaking loosely based on the case of teacher Mary Kay Letourneau , who raped a 12-year-old student, gave birth to his two children with him, and married him between prison sentences—and later legally separated from him. This might be seen as grist for a particularly lurid mill, but Haynes and the writers have other things in mind.

The fictionalized version of the tale features a TV actress, played by Natalie Portman, who, though a somewhat untrustworthy narrator, provides some distance and objectivity from which to view this unconventional relationship. Elizabeth (Portman) arrives to spend some time with the couple and their family ostensibly to get a greater understanding and appreciation of these people and their situation before taking on a role in the film version of the story. Structurally, the story is hers, but the film’s fascination is with Moore’s character and her much younger husband, played in a star-making role by Charles Melton.

The peeling back of the onion of story and characters is deftly done, both with Elizabeth on her path of discovery, and in the lines and performances of Moore and Melton. What could have been exploitative and smarmy instead becomes revelatory and insightful.

Much could be said about the three leads’ performances, which are worth watching the entire film for. Moore, who often is dressed and coiffed to look like Letourneau, rarely lets her proverbial hair down, but conversations with those around her eventually reveal a deeply disturbed woman. Joe (Melton) eventually grows up in more ways than one, but in a heartbreaking and touching way comes to realize the reality of the situation when he was not even a teenager.

As good as all three are, my favorite performance is a high-wire act from Natalie Portman. Portman, a great actress and an extremely intelligent woman, does the near-impossible in believably playing someone less intelligent and talented than she is. Her initial Hollywood superficiality gradually gives way to a more layered personality who is nonetheless not a hero. And her last scene as the actress playing Moore’s character in the film she was doing the research for is brilliant in its lack of artistic depth. Portman never once telegraphs to the audience (us) that she is actually better than her character in terms of morality or talent, and the performance is all the richer for it.

A deep dive into a story like this is not everyone’s cup of tea. But it is keenly observed, sympathetic to truth, and soars when it could easily have come crashing down.

Godzilla Minus One

This is the film that made me say, “I give up!” There are just some films that I am not going to appreciate in the same way as others, and my lack of connection with certain films is more about me than the films themselves. After getting three recommendations about the film—from a very intelligent friend familiar with Japanese culture, a brilliant college professor friend, and a former Asian student who went out of his way to recommend it to me as his former professor, I headed into the theater ready to be blown away.

I wasn’t, and while realizing that this particular genre is not my thing, I still wondered why it didn’t work for me as much as it did for others.

I asked my former student, Stanley Chan, who made the recommendation in the first place, what he appreciated about the film. Here is what he sent to me (permission to print here granted by Stanley):

“I felt like it was not your typical (western) monster movie. It was a Japanese post-WW2 story that could’ve been an enjoyable story with or without Godzilla. The main character, Koichi, struggles with abandoning his duty and the survivor’s guilt that follows. Despite the “obligation” to his country (dying in the name of it and for honor), he continues to live, (re)discover his purpose through Noriko and the orphaned child, and even thrives. Godzilla is what brings the story and characters together as the monster that needs to be defeated.

In a way, Godzilla stands out as a way to confront a past the characters would rather shun and move on from. This is actually in line with Japanese depictions of Godzilla, which was a metaphor for post-WW2 Japan. Themes of political/governmental incompetence and negligence are also represented; in Minus One, this played out by the press literally by misleading the public about the monster and then abandoning the Japanese people to fend for themselves.

Aside from that, it was a very fun film! The focus was more on the characters than Godzilla, where you care about their struggles and quest for resolution. It’s also worth noting that the film was made with a tight budget, demonstrating that the excessive Hollywood spending for blockbusters need not be so excessive to be successful. With the limited settings and tight sets, Minus One could’ve easily been a rather fun stage play.”

Thank you, Stanley!

What I agree with is that the film is all the stronger for its portrayal of how the public can be misled, and specifically, how the Japanese government can do that in dire situations. Also, the film has a great balance of epic monster movie and personal journey, and it weaves them together well, if not particularly subtly.

Something that did drive me a little crazy, a weakness in films from many countries, is this tendency to freeze characters for a dramatic moment instead of allowing them to run for their lives, as anyone would do in real life. (My personal least favorite is when a person is called up  front of a group or class, and they knows it’s coming, and they just sit there for a few supposed dramatic seconds.) This film does that several times, and each time I was taken out of the film (and wanted to stand up and yell “Run, for heaven’s sake! Your lives are in obvious imminent danger!”)

The film had more elements than the standard Godzilla movie, and that they were woven in relatively well. Though the film seemed a bit thin at times, I have to bow to the wisdom of my friends who enjoyed it, and respect it for what it is.

The Killer

Put director David Fincher together with actor Michael Fassbender, and it was only a matter of time before I saw this. It brought together memories of Locke (with Tom Hardy), Collateral, and a bit of Body Heat. Fincher goes very narrow and focused here with a tale of an assassin who (spoiler alert) has to “clean up” the mess he made by missing a target.

The style is clean and sleek, with lots of nighttime shots. Cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt (Oscar for Fincher’s Mank) is the second star of the film after Fassbender, providing slick and glossy images that literally and figuratively obscure the violence committed by the main character. The film moves along at a pace that works for the action and the lead character’s “arc,” if he has one.

Aside from Fincher’s steady hand and talent with images, the film rests on the casting of Fassbender, one of the better actors of our time. Fassbender easily plays with his character’s intense intelligence, his drive, and his limber physicality. But this is not your mother’s action hero. A Bruce Willis could have slipped into this role years ago, and it would likely have been a more fun crowd-pleaser. One can imagine the same film with Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves, Liam Neeson, Stallone, or Vin Diesel. But that would be a more star-driven role that would have changed the nature of the film, making it far more extroverted than it is.

Fincher seems to be more interested in the inner mental workings of a killer who majors in self-talk to keep himself on his own “straight and narrow.” Fassbender hides his star power, and plays things close to the chest, with little outward bravado. That makes this a headier action film that is less violent than it might seem. There are plenty of murders, to be sure, but this is not a gorefest by any means. The film opens a bit as it goes along, but it is always tied down by Fassbender’s concentrated characterization and performance.

Coming from a major director like Fincher (The Social Network, Gone Girl, Se7en, Mank, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), The Killer has the more direct focus of an indie film with a strong central performance. What’s different is that it is very competently and confidently directed. Whether or not this kind of film and/or villain is your idea of a good cinematic time, at least know you’re in the hands of a master.