artmania90 Reviews

Inside Out (I) (2015)

The best movie of the 2010's

[10/10 · 24 March 2019]

As the decade rolls to a close I have been thinking about what was the greatest movie of the last 10 years. I remember movies like "Boyhood" or "Whiplash" or "Roma" or "Social Network" but in the end I can't stop thinking about INSIDE OUT, the crowning achievement of Pixar (a high bar considering they also made Wall-E). It's a beautiful story in the most simple ways, but tackles ideas that are so complex and intertwined that I'm amazed the filmmakers were able to so perfectly find a balance. It's Pixar's most heartbreaking (Bing-Bong, the climax with Sadness...) and probably their most universally relatable. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking this looked like the next total miss for the company... How wrong I was. This movie is a masterpiece.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

A classic "New Hollywood" recipe!

[2/10 · 24 June 2018]

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM Try this new and improved Hollywood blockbuster recipe on your own to experience that zing of nostalgia your life has been missing! A great recipe for a beautiful summer day that will surely dampen your spirits - or - to gently remind you how painfully inept Hollywood films have become. Enjoy!!!

Ingredients:

1 Hollywood hack script that lifts most of its material from an original, better film (in this case, "The Lost World." If you are running low, even "Jurassic Park 3" will suffice) 1 director with limited experience in making a big-budget blockbuster. Preferably one known more for quirky indie flicks. (If your film begins to feel like it's using CGI to mask a lack of story, then you are on the right track) A heaping cupful of references to the original, more successful trilogy (mainly "Jurassic Park") to remind audiences that nostalgia is an adequate substitute to originality Characters who constantly fight for dinosaur rights (but make sure that 99% of the dinosaurs are soulless blood-thirsty monsters that murder humans like flies! It's a monster movie, after all!) One painfully thin love story because, well, you gotta have that in there.. One annoying character who screams too much and whose purpose is entirely unneeded (consider also adding a child in your film to raise the stakes when your dino's attack) One cameo from an original cast member (Jeff Goldblum, if possible). Even if it's just for 15 seconds, it's exactly what your fanboys will want! A newer, biggerer, more lethal dinosaur (who wants an Indomidus rex anymore?? BORING). Give it laser tracking and vampire claws to make it more scary. Oh, and it should be black, because black is scarier. A hack villain who is only concerned with money, regardless of 4 previous films proving that dinosaurs can't be contained. Recipe: Preheat your youtube trailer to at least 25 million views. Take the basic plot line from "The Lost World" and filter it through 2-3 untalented screenwriters. Make sure your heroes spell out the movie's themes in broad, emotional monologues. This is important. Shoehorn your characters back together no matter how unlikely the reasoning. Remove all craft behind the camera. Also remove all talent in front of it. Disregard all sense of logic and reason. (Remember, this is science fiction! Don't be afraid to put your heroes within 5 feet of an exploding volcano, or performing dino-blood transfusions in the back of a moving ship, or narrowly escaping the jaws of a lethal dinosaur several times per scene. Audiences don't expect logic! They want hungry-hungry dinosaurs!) Remember, audiences don't want a simple action movie with well-written characters and clear action. Make sure to incorporate lofty plots about the weaponization of raptors, selling dinosaurs to wealthy foreign buyers for sport, etc. Make sure the scientists are still trying to genetically engineer more deadly animals!!! That's what audiences want! More plot points = good. Use editing to cut back and forth between drastically different scenes (ie, a girl playing games in her house and a woman performing surgery on a velociraptor. Repeat as often as possible). More editing = good. Continue tacking on ingredients in no discernible order until the film is over 2 hours long. Longer runtime = good. Make the ending scary so that the audience won't remember how boring and awful the rest of the movie was. Preferably in a big mansion with no lights and long, narrow hallways and screaming little girls. Yeah, that. Conclude with the little girl spelling out the overall theme of the movie in one or two sentences. Reshoot until her acting makes your eyes roll back in your head. Top it off with a voiceover by Jeff Goldblum that is nearly verbatim to the final lines of "The Lost World." Voila!

Remove from oven once box office reaches $300 million domestically! Excited for the sequel? We didn't think so, either. Happy cooking!

Deadpool (2016)

I know I'm the minority...

[4/10 · 1 February 2017]

Deadpool comes from a place rooted in Marvel-mania and geekdom. The entire premise seems like one born from the want of fans to have it so, and in fact much of the content of the movie suggests it by winking at the camera at every possible opportunity. It has already been a massive box office success, and as of February 17th it has nearly a 9.0 on IMDb. I didn't enter the film with high expectations (similar to my feelings about Guardians of the Galaxy) so I can't say I was surprised to realize the film is an utter let-down.

It seems like Marvel is making a new movie every few months or so, and it seems like an easy chore for them to dish out a movie, throw in a couple recognizable characters, and watch the cash come rolling in. The wackier the story, the 'bigger chance' it was to make, but have they ever had a true flop? The comic book world has impregnated our psyche, whether you have read them or not. Everyone wants to be in the 'know.'

Deadpool seems to be a response to Guardians, following an unlikely 'superhero' (Ryan Reynolds) as he casually jokes through a plot that would otherwise be full of immense peril. When Chris Pratt challenged the evil galaxy-ruler guy to a dance off at the climax of Guardians, it felt funny and fresh. When Deadpool stops in a battle to look at the camera and mention a joke about Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, I just sighed. There's a self- awareness throughout the film that simply removed me from the movie. At one point, Reynolds remarks "don't make my costume CGI" as he begins his superhero transformation (a painful reference to his Green Lantern stint). This is like a grown-up Airplane parody, where characters know they are acting and the good guy never misses his target no matter how far away he is with the gun. Most people I have talked to describe this movie as a fresh comedy. I saw it as a parody a bit too on-the-nose.

Knowing nothing about Deadpool/Wade going in, of course we had to trudge through a backstory filled with sex and jokes and throwaway characters that all culminate in the creation of his costume, stitched at home of course (red hides the blood better). We learn that though he fell in love, Deadpool was diagnosed with cancer and left the woman he loved in order to find a cure. What he found as well was a new power of rejuvenation, strength, and witty one-liners.

Let's be honest: Ryan Reynolds is an attractive guy. Ladies love him and guys want to be him. Besides this, his role in this film just falls flat. Through narration, breaking the 4th wall, voice-over, and cutaways, all I wanted was for him to shut up. Sometimes, a simple action scene is cool in itself without being littered with gags and humor and comedy, oh my! Playing the comedian, of course the rest of the cast (a couple of X-Men I have never heard of that were apparently the only ones available for the shoot) plays it straight, gawking at the absurdity of Deadpool's light-heartedness and trying to convince him to just shut up and focus on the task at hand. The task at hand (defeating the villain – what else?) is a cookie-cutter plot that is as predictable as we would expect. I mentioned he is aided by some of the X-Men, so it should come as no surprise that Deadpool comments on the fact that studios couldn't afford more recognizable actors for some quick cameos…

You can tell the filmmakers were trying to be original (an opening credits scene that is nothing but puns and in-jokes: "directed by someone who was paid too much," "starring the sexist man in America," etc. If that's comedy, then I'm sorry I didn't laugh. If the fanboys are happy with the film, then I'm sure the Marvel Studio is pleased. Perhaps in a year or two when they release Deadpool II, they can work out the kinks that weighted this film down. For a movie so highly regarded as a hip romantic comedy, boy was I bored.

Sully (2016)

A missed opportunity

[5/10 · 1 February 2017]

Clint Eastwood has nothing to prove to anyone anymore. Having won a handful of Oscars and directed two Best Picture winners, we are only so lucky to have such an esteemed veteran behind the camera (he just turned 86 this past year). His repertoire covers a wide range of subject and setting, from westerns to historical pictures to modern fiction. He has hit's and misses. It's unfortunate that such an inspiring story as the Miracle on the Hudson could wind up so flat on the big screen.

It wasn't but a few years ago, and I know we all know the story - how Captain Sullenburger successfully ditched his US Airways flight into the river just outside of Manhattan and miraculously kept everyone on board alive and well. It was a 1 in a million landing, all the more spectacular and alarming for taking place so close to Ground Zero. The world proclaimed him a hero, but (you guessed it) some had initial doubts.

The story itself follows Sully in the immediate aftermath of the landing, when he and his copilot (Aaron Echart as Jeff Skiles) are hotel-bound while a hearing is underway to investigate the cause of the crash. Sully frequently calls his wife Lorraine (Laura Linney) at home to assure her that he is okay and will be home soon. The hearings proceed simultaneous to an endless barrage of news coverage and late night appearances. In the same day, Sully met with both Katie Couric and David Letterman.

The trailer promised a somewhat suspenseful story with a crash scene that would rival that of the movie "Flight." We flash back several times in the film to the actual incident, when birds struck both engines and caused the plane to lose forward thrust. The entire incident was so quick (200 seconds or so) that Eastwood devotes several scenes to show the crash in it's entirety from various perspectives. It's a Rashomon approach in many ways, and the effect is a powerful testament to the quick wits of not only Sully but the flight crew and the Coast Guard and even passersby watching a plane descend into the frigid Hudson River in disbelief.

Tom Hanks, of course, plays the titular character. He is barely there, so steadfast in his beliefs and quiet in his doubts, I don't think any other man would be as suited for the role. One would think that this would be a sure bet for an Oscar nomination (and well overdue: Hanks hasn't been nominated since Cast Away in 2000) but his performance is as muted and subtle as anything he has done. From crash to court hearings, Sully is played as a man you understand to be a real hero. He is quiet, determined, scared of being wrong but persistent when he knows he is right.

The villains (the National Transportation Safety Board who scrutinize his every move) are often laughable and there for the obvious reason of creating more cinematic drama. I don't know how factual the film is in regards to the final scenes, but we are led to believe that Sully is on the cusp of being fired for having endangered the lives of everyone on board. Flight simulations (and we see no less than 4 entire flight simulation sequences, mind you) prove that the plane could have landed safely at LaGuardia, and it comes down to a simple speech by Sully in which human error ultimately would have made landing on a runway impossible.

When the movie is good, it's good, but when it's not, it's apparent. There are many sequences of PTSD and such from Sully's perspective that feel taped on and hasty. A dream sequence in which Katie Couric presents a news story about Sully being a fraud is forced to say the least. Clint Eastwood has never been a meticulous director known for precision edits or immaculate framing. Sully simply feels like a rough cut that required a few more trims to make it feel concise. Hanks is great, of course, and the story is inspiring. The film itself leaves a bit to be desired. Still, for a man closer to 90 years old in age, I doubt you will find a more assured director working today.

Blair Witch (2016)

Total trash. Almost unwatchable.

[2/10 · 1 February 2017]

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. Though the odds are slim, it has a chance. I would wager, then, that in half the time it would take to reproduce a great play, a monkey could easily draft a screenplay with more skill and subtlety than "Blair Witch," easily one of the worst films I have seen in a while. I don't know if that's a compliment to the simple odds of chance or an insult to the skill and brainpower of the filmmakers behind this slosh.

In 1999, "The Blair Witch Project" began what has been dubbed 'the shaky-cam' style of filmmaking. It's borderline documentary, and the film did it with such skill and art that many people believed the three actors to be truly missing persons. Even today, rewatching this film is a powerful testament to structure, psychological horror, and growing suspense. I wouldn't say that I still find the film scary, but it does what great horror always has done: it burrows deep into our psyche. I'd even go so far to say that the final 5 minutes of the original film are some of the most genuinely-horrifying and eerie moments I have ever seen in a movie.

It's almost 17 years later, and we find Hollywood churning out work like this; a movie so riddled with inconsistencies and jump scares that it's a wonder it was ever at all greenlit. The plot is so thin that it's barely there: a young boy tried to find his sister (Heather, the girl from the original film) who he believes is still alive in the woods based on footage he found online. Why he would assume a girl missing for over 20 years (don't forget, the original was footage found from 1994) would still be alive is one thing, but he convinces 3 of his friends to journey with him to find out the truth. At this point in the movie, he should have become concerned at seeing his friends are all attractive teenagers who fit the standard slasher lineup: a couple who is more interested in sex than anything else, a single and beautiful brunette, and a single teenage boy. Perfect.

In the woods, they quickly begin a camp out and are joined by a local couple who originally discovered the online footage. In the night, many of the iconic 'stick-figure' voodoo dolls are mysteriously hung up. I wonder who's to blame? So forth and so on, the characters find themselves stuck in a loop as in the original: unable to find their way out of the woods. The local couple admits to stringing up the figures to conjure up fear, and yet the next night when they return, the group is again terrified of the mysteries of the woods.

Where the original found horror in the unseen (I think the most horrifying moment is hearing a baby laughing in the distance while the campers sleep in the safety of their tent), this movie throws it all at the screen, with mutilated bodies and scary naked monsters roaming free at any given moment. There is no suspense, no build up, and justly no pay off. What the original mastered, this isn't even a pale comparison. It is garbage.

I give the film 1/2 a star as opposed to zero based solely on the performance of Callie Hernandez (the single, attractive brunette) who in the final minutes of the film gives one of the most authentic performances of panic I think I have ever seen. The quiver in her voice, the inconsistency with her breathing. For only a moment, I found myself actually understanding the horror meant to be felt by the characters on screen. Too bad for me that I only began caring in the last 30 or 40 seconds of the entire film. What a mess.

The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016)

Like watching milk mold

[2/10 · 1 February 2017]

It's astounding how bad "Huntsman: Winter's War" is. From the preposterous title (it would appear that the story occurs in springtime, and that the one battle in the film is a tiny 10-person battle in a throne room) to the absolute lack of reason, sense, or skill, this coldly-received sequel to an already flawed film (Snow White & the Huntsman) is like finding a diamond in the rough in terms of bad movies. In a way it's almost good how bad it is. Almost.

The movie is narrated by Liam Neeson with empty phrases like "lands to the North" and "the Good Queen built a fortress around her heart." We meet the Evil Queen from the first movie (the absurdly over-the-top Charlize Theron who is the only fun role in the film) and her sister, Elsa -- I mean Freya, a woman who's heart was broken and uses her ice powers to turn her hair white, adopt an icy wardrobe, and reign in an ice castle on top of a mountain. Her ultimate character arc is the discovery that love can ultimately be a good thing. She didn't even have to sing "Let It Go" to figure it out.

Simultaneously we have a remake of "Braveheart" occurring, as we meet the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth reprising his titular role) and his love affair with fellow huntswoman, Sara (with an off-again on-again Scottish accent). Declaring their love for one another in a forbidden encounter, the Huntsman all but states that he "wants to raise crops and God- willing a family" with his new lover. A stroke of misfortune leads him to believe Sara is brutally murdered, and thus the war is launched. I mean the battle that takes place in the last 3 minutes of the movie.

In reality, the plot seems to be about the group of heroes (the Huntsman, some of the dwarfs from the first film (whoever wanted to come back, I guess), and some other female dwarfs) on the hunt for the Magic Mirror, hoping to find it before Evil Queen Freya reclaims it for herself. Like the ruby slippers, it's said to have dangerous powers, but I am sure as hell unaware of what those powers could be (aside from being able to judge the hotness level of women like a caddy bitch). Why this is so important is never explained, nor are any of the plot details seemingly relevant at any one point. The story is vapid, lifeless, thrown together. As I was watching this film, things kept happening, but overall nothing was occurring. I began to doubt the reasoning for this movie's existence other than an attempts for a cash grab (the original made over $400 million in sales... This one barely made $160 million against a budget of $115 million. Ouch).

If you need an example of what is wrong with the Hollywood system right now, then "Huntsman" seems to be a textbook example. From the overly-choreographed fight scenes, Lord of the Ring's-inspired mythology (which seems to be the standard for fantasy films nowadays), and the rehashing of characters both living and dead with no regard to story (how many times can Charlize Theron come back to life without absolutely flushing brain power down the toilet?), the film churns along from one predictable beat to the next, and by the time it ends it's hard to remember that there are actually decent movies made anymore. To watch "Huntsman: Winter's War" is to lobotomize a part of your brain. Movies can be art, and they can be moving, and they can be thrilling. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of expired milk.

Don't Breathe (2016)

Has one of the all-time great horror movie scenes

[8/10 · 1 February 2017]

It's rare for a movie to have me on the edge of my seat, genuinely curious as to what will happen next. In a genre where clichés are now the running gag, to make a film that is full of original ideas and creativity is a relief to say the least. I had heard a lot about "Don't Breathe" mainly through word of mouth, so I decided to finally see it without having so much as read a brief synopsis. I was skeptical about how a movie like this could sustain itself for a feature runtime. I was pleasantly surprised by how effective it is.

The movie borrows major ideas and elements from some of cinema's best thrillers, and I mostly recalled "Panic Room" and "Wait Until Dark" as antithesis versions. The plot is almost laughably simple: 3 small-time burglars are hoping to strike it big when they hear a retired war veteran has won a settlement over the death of his daughter for upwards of $300 million. They assume the cash might be in his house, and even better is that they realize he has gone blind. These are barely kids in their 20's. Alex (the logical one of the group) uses his dad's spare keys from his security companies to disarm these homes, quietly loot various goods, and rearm the home and stage a fake robbery. Money, the wild one, is head-to-toe tattoos and carries a gun even though this could lead to a longer jail sentence should they be caught. Rocky, the heroine, sees the money as an opportunity to relocate her and her daughter to a better life. The plan is so simple.

The director, Fede Alvarez, is known for making "Evil Dead" in 2003, but this is a clear exercise in tone and suspense. With each new moment, he adds a new layer to the dread, and the camera floats through the house to remind us where spare guns are hiding, which windows have bars... It's a technique that someone like Alfred Hitchcock might appreciate: showing the audience more than the characters know. When they first enter the man's home, there is a steady shot of a hammer hanging on a rack of tools. Nothing becomes of it, but our minds begin racing with ideas of how this will come into play or what it might be used for. Later, we see a spare gun strapped to the underside of a bed. Only the audience knows what dangers are in store.

I won't spoil too much more of the film, only to say that the robbers' tour of the home lead to nearly every room of the home and some in between. A dark discovery in the basement finds them trapped with the blind man amongst rows and rows of shelving units, and as casually as he begins hunting them, he turns the fuse box over and leaves them in utter darkness. This scene (about midway through the film) harkened back to the chilling climax of "Silence of the Lambs" and yet raises the stakes tenfold from what Clarice Starling encountered with Buffalo Bill. We know his basement can only be so big, and we see the man wandering through the darkness touching familiar landmarks to remind himself the path he needs to take. Both Alex and Rocky are blind, shaking, barely moving forward. The scene is photographed in a smoky black & white, and the quiet breathes of the victims move in and out of earshot. Rocky moves down a hall, at the end of which slowly materializes the blind man, quietly waiting.. Listening. It's without a doubt one of the most effective horror scenes I have ever seen and the crowning achievement of the film.

The film finally sees it's own form of climax, and for me this is where it began to drag. From the old man's dog (a vicious Rottweiler with an apparent taste for human flesh) to chases back and forth inside and outside the home, I have to admit the finale of the movie became an exhausting chore to keep up with. There were many moments when it felt like the story was coming to an end, and the 'shocking' moments were realizing that it was still going. This movie requires a great suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy (the logics of this movie have to be taken with a grain of salt or I would guess one's appreciation might be somewhat lessened), and with each new "twist" I felt the movie losing it's claustrophobic feel and moving more towards a standard slasher flick with it's own set of rules and horror clichés.

Regardless, I will honestly admit this was a very fun film to experience in a theater. The photography is closed in and haunting, and the performance by Stephen Lang as the blind man is sure to become a classic in the vaults of iconic horror villains. For a movie with such a simple idea as a robbery gone wrong, boy did they get it so right. I only wish they would have pushed it further instead of drifting back to the standards a typical Hollywood revenge flick might take.

Goat (2016)

At times it's intolerable

[6/10 · 1 February 2017]

There is one review that describes GOAT as "Full Metal Jacket meets Animal House," which might be true if this movie were at all a comedy, or even a movie that examines the long-term effects of psychological abuse. There is a lot that Andrew Neel tries to say from the director's chair, but aside from a few interesting moments here and there, it seems like he may have bitten off more than he can chew.

The story follows Brad (Ben Schnetzer), the older brother of an all-around popular college boy (Brett, played by Nick Jonas). The film opens with Brad offering a ride to a set of strangers in the dead of night. He offers only because he believes they are coming from the same party. Right away the suspicions are tingling. A 20-minute ride down a deserted road finally has Brad come to terms with his situation: that he is mugged, beaten, and left for death in the middle of a field on the outskirts of town. His face is scarred, bruised, and his ease with strangers is never the same.

The movie is something I was not expecting, an odyssey into the mind of fear along the lines of a film Harmony Korine might admire. Where I was prepared for an dark yet entertaining film like Whiplash, we delve into the bowels of a film that more closely resembles "Spring Breakers," another hypnotic story with similar themes of the recklessness of millennials.

As the story falls into place, Brad finally decides to start college (we assume he took a year off after high school, since his younger brother is already well into his degree). Even before classes begin, Brad attends a Fall party at Brett's fraternity. The house is run- down, jammed, full of empty plastic cups and vomit in every corner. It's not so much a symbol as a right of passage: to belong to this house is to have a brotherhood that always has your back. James Franco (a producer on the film) has a brief but memorable scene as a former classmate who seems to hang around at the house a couple hours too long. Stuck in the past, he nonetheless shows Brad that this is an institution to which you can belong and be protected.

And so begins the odyssey. "Hell Week," as it's notoriously dubbed, is the hazing process where Brad, his roommate, and others, attempt to win the trust of the fraternity and eventually get "pinned" before the school year is out. The name is aptly given. Pledges are brought down to the basement where they are stripped, tied up, urinated on, and made to drink to the point of nausea. They drink cups of hot sauce. They are slapped. This is only day one.

The comparison to "Full Metal Jacket" would seem appropriate on a surface level, but the film rarely dives into the psyche of Brad, a boy who is torn between fear and commitment to pleasing his brother. Just as he allowed strangers to abuse him in the film's opening, so does he (poetically) allow it to happen again, this time for acceptance. In fact, maybe the abuse comes to represent a window into the connected world. Life is full of people who come and go, but what's the true test of a friendship if you literally go to hell and back.

The abuse, of course, is the highlight of the film, and the vivid scenes of torture are at times a bit overwhelming. We know going in that this is a movie based on actual events (events in which the death of a student was the culmination of the abuse), and as such each new scene comes with a heightened sense of dread: will this turn deadly? The violence is so relentless that I doubted I would even end this film with a positive thing to say about it. Filmmaking and production is one thing, but if you are making a movie about violence solely for the sake of violence, then what is the point?

I found Schnetzer's performance something that was both fragile and determined. While I at times failed to see motivation in certain scenes, his portrayal of Brad is fully-realized and the basic moral compass of the movie. From beginning to end, the story can be simplified to that of a boy who learns to no longer be afraid. It's a small arc, muddled in with a plot of hazing that does very little for the cause of the overall picture. On an intimate level, this was a story I could get behind. Everyone likes a happy ending, don't they?

Denial (II) (2016)

Had so much potential - like watching a trainwreck

[4/10 · 1 February 2017]

"Denial" attempts to bring to the screen two of the Oscars' favorite genres: courtroom & Holocaust dramas. The story is prime: that of a woman who was taken to court over her statements about a Holocaust denier, claims that allegedly tarnished his reputation as a notable historian. The woman in question, Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), an American, was brought to an English court in the late 1990's to prove her case: that the denier, David Irving (Timothy Spall), knowingly altered the facts to support his own beliefs. In America, the defense is innocent until proved guilty. In England, the burden of proof in fact falls on the defendant. Stuck in court with years of preparation, Lipstadt simply has to prove one thing: that the Holocaust actually happened.

Thus is the set up for what could have been a brilliant movie about thinking minds and the the nature of historians and differing views. In a time when the Holocaust is in danger of becoming a clichéd topics to garner awards and praise, the trailer for "Denial" looked nothing short of eye-opening.

History is a broad topic, breathtaking when captured effectively and dreadfully dull when it goes wrong. This is a movie where they got it wrong. Lipstadt (played by Weisz with perhaps the worst American accent we have seen on film in years) is the heroine this movie doesn't deserve. We meet her as a professor who teaches passionately about the nature of World War II and the losses it accrued. A Jew herself, the Holocaust is a passion of hers. People who refute evidence as candidly as David Irving are simply not worth her time. When faced with Irving, Lipstadt freezes, becomes argumentative, can't prove her point. The next time they meet is in court, where she promises that she will not testify. In order to win the case, she must remain impartial.

Her defense team is made up of a team of lawyers and scholars, the leader of which is Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson), who is a calculated criminal lawyer who knows his facts but can't grasp the emotions of the case itself. Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) is the would-be villain who wants to win the case but in the process loses all sense of respect for the survivors of such tragedy. It's a crack team, indeed.

The problems with the movie are vast, but they are rooted in the simple fact that Timothy Spall as David Irving is simply the more compelling character, regardless of him being the villain. How wrong it is for someone to so plainly deny the events of the 1940's that led to millions of deaths, but Irving is played as a man who still lives honestly, presents plain facts, and seems to truly believe that he is in the right. Weisz on the other hand plays her role like a whiny girl who can't get a word in and is simply a hindrance to the plot. For a movie so devoted to this one woman's story, boy is she an annoying person to get to know.

The court scenes themselves are small fragments of the 8-week trial that offer little insight into the actual arguments themselves. A brief snippet here and a tiny sentence here. The movie is padded so vigorously with fluff that by the time the verdict is read we are truly too tired to care and too distracted to have any real reaction. There is a good movie in here somewhere, and many will recall this case making the international news no more than 10 years ago. It would start with a new writer, a new cast, and a new director... In fact, with so many garbage movies being remade nowadays, here's a worthy candidate.

Patriots Day (2016)

Was this necessary?

[8/10 · 1 February 2017]

To make a movie about a terrorist attack that happened no more than 3 years ago is questionable in many regards. When studios made 'United 93' five years after September 11th, I seem to recall the uproar of disbelief; statements of "it's too soon" and "this is disrespectful to the victims." With the Boston Bombing, I'm not sure it's too soon, but there are questionable aspects about the movie itself that might raise a few eyebrows.

Director Peter Berg has found himself a curiously specific niche by telling real life tragedies with Mark Wahlberg as his hero. He did it with 'Lone Survivor' and in 2016 with 'Deepwater Horizon.' Whether or not I believe Mark Wahlberg as an everyman (I don't), there is clearly something that the actor does that Berg believes in. In the first two instances, they were real-life characters. Here, I was surprised to learn, is a police officer written solely as a fictional resource to progress the plot. Why we even need a hero is another story, since the film is told as an ensemble, flashing back and forth between 5 or 6 stories. We meet a local police chief who does little in the story until the end when we find out he was the one that actually shot one of the terrorists. We meet a security guard who has a crush on a college student but then later realize his ties to the bombing.

It's a faithful retelling of the incidents, beginning the morning of the marathon and concluding when the final suspect was found hiding in a small sailboat in a stranger's backyard. The interweaving of stories is probably necessary to cover an adequate amount of facts, and yet I still found myself wondering why they needed to fictionalize a police officer (Walhberg) when the city was littered with real people who acted as heroes in these horrific conditions. We meed Ed Davis (John Goodman), the Commissioner who worked to release the photos of the attackers to the public swiftly, and we meet the Federal Officer in charge of the case, Richard DesLauriers (Kevin Bacon) who wants to break the case but doesn't realize the passion of the citizens of Boston who also want to lend assistance. It was great police work that went into the capture of the Tsarnaev brothers, and yet the film would have us believe that Mark Wahlberg single-handedly worked out all the riddles and clues.

I've felt this many times before, but in a lot of ways a documentary might have been better suited to serve the material at hand. Why we need to fictionalize something so fresh in the public's mind is a debate that has been going on for years. It's not surprising that it only took 3 years for the film to come out (and would you believe it that there is a second Boston Bombing movie coming out this year starring Jake Gyllenhaal?). The extraordinary thing about the attack was the way the city rallied together to help, and in fact the most emotional parts of the film come at it's conclusion when we see the real people via real footage talking about the way their lives were forever changed. Hollywood can certainly work magic, but there's sometimes nothing more powerful than the truth.

Split (IX) (2016)

With any luck this tour-de-force will get Oscar buzz for McAvoy a year from now

[6/10 · 1 February 2017]

It shouldn't come as a surprise that M Night Shyamalan continues to make films. Regardless of critical opinion, he somehow manages to build an impressive box office draw no matter how unimpressive his films turn out to be. In 1999 when he debuted with 'The Sixth Sense' there were people who said he would be the next Steven Spielberg. Looking back at that idea, there have got to be some pretty significant people rolling over in their graves to think that such a comparison was ever made. Regardless of my thoughts, and regardless of past works, it must be said that 'Split,' as silly as it is, still works on many levels as an intriguing thriller.

The movie begins with the kidnap of 3 girls (Haley Lu Richardson, Jessica Sula, and Anya Taylor-Joy) from a parking lot in broad daylight. When they wake up in a windowless room, they soon begin to see the danger of their situation. Not only are they being held by a man (James McAvoy) with vague intentions, but he displays one of many personalities; some helpful and some dangerous. The chances of escape are slim.

Right away, we have a flawed concept. We identify the hero of the story, the shy girl named Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy, who also appeared in 'The Witch' earlier in the year). Through endless flashbacks we see her tortured childhood, scene after scene of a small girl and her deranged uncle. Shyamalan attempts to draw sympathy with Casey and leaves the other two girls as little more than props with no clear character or motivation. Why have 3 girls at all? Kevin, as we learn the real kidnapper's name is, is in constant communication with his psychiatrist Dr Karen Fletcher who treats his split-personality disorder as though she is diagnosing a witch in the 16th Century.

There's a novelty that comes with the film and Kevin's personalities, and it's with a surprising amount of conviction that McAvoy pulls off a difficult task: making us believe him regardless of the silly script and silly words they speak. We learn he has 23 personalities (ranging from a sort of kinky nun named Patricia to a small boy named Hedwig) that come in and out and communicate to the kidnapped girls through locked door. Hedwig is a fan of Kanye West and is curious about kissing girls. Another personality named Dennis has obsessive-compulsive disorder and keeps a close eye on the cleanliness of the bathroom.

Yes it's Shyamalan so there is a twist of sorts. Whether or not you buy the ending is up to you. It comes in the final moments of the movie as patrons of a diner watch the news and react to the idea of a man living with multiple personalities. In the theater I saw it, most people didn't understand what happened. I don't blame them. The twist requires an audience's prior knowledge and history of the director's films. It's a preposterous setup and makes little sense in the context of the film, and yet die-hard fans will say they are now excited to see what M Night Shyamalan does next. That's a twist in itself.

I can only praise the film for McAvoy's performance, which is unbelievably clever and worked out. The movie overall is a rough cut of something that could have been much more effective, perhaps with a different director or a tighter screenplay. When we see McAvoy on screen, it's almost makes up for all the other issues. When he's absent, the story falls apart. If that's not great acting I don't know what is.

Snowden (2016)

An apt biopic

[7/10 · 1 February 2017]

Oliver Stone's SNOWDEN does exactly what a film about a whistleblower must do in order to be an effective thriller: sets up the story, sets up the motivation, and presents an opinion of the subject. It's still a fairly hot-topic situation, as Snowden's massive leak to the press regarding NSA surveillance only happened a few years ago. Though the film has a few flaws that surely hamper it's overall effectiveness, the general thought presented is that "Ed" Snowden is our generation's Karen Silkwood; a hero of unlikely background.

The film is structured in a sort of flashback, with Snowden's initial leak to the press in a small Tokyo hotel room lending itself to flashbacks of his life to this point. It's hard to imagine most people not knowing who Edward Snowden is at this point, especially considering a documentary surrounding his espionage just won an Oscar not 1 year ago. The film seeks instead to provide a backstory and shade the infamous man in a more human light - painting a portrait of what would lead a patriot to betray his beloved country.

Joseph Gordon Levitt, I'll admit, has felt miscast in the past. He falls into roles greater than himself and fails to disappear into the character we see on screen. Surprisingly in "Snowden," he actually succeeds. Deepened voice, loose-fitting clothes, and the slightest stubble, Levitt all but transforms in the role (all the more compelling when the film concludes with footage of the actual man and we barely notice that it is a new person). It's hard to classify his performance as someone who is sympathetic, but overall he does an effective job playing a man who finds himself in between a rock and hard place - that is to say the internal struggle he faces seems genuine.

The backstory we follow finds Snowden meeting his long-time girlfriend, first seeing her chat on an online dating site while in military training, and finally meeting in Washington after he begins working for the CIA. Played by Shailene Woodley, the girlfriend role oftentimes falls into the category of "emotional obstacle" and in several scenes she and Snowden fight only to keep the story juicy and the plot flowing. While good in the past (The Descendants, The Fault In Our Stars) Woodley is given very little to do in this film and tries her hardest to make the role her own.

I was very much impressed with the front-half of this picture, and I found the setup and introduction to our characters to be very effective. Snowden is initially hired on to work for the CIA and has some great scenes getting to know his supervisors and teachers (one of which is Nicholas Cage in a curiously-small role). We learn about who he is, how smart he is, and how his early work with the government would ultimately shape his story. It's too bad that the rest of the film fails to match the energy. Overly-clanky with flashbacks and flashforwards, it becomes fairly tedious to journey back and forth between present- day Tokyo to Hawaii or Europe or any variety of places in the States. Oliver Stone (co- screenwriter) had a lot of material to sort through, but it seems like the structure of the story was flawed slightly along the way.

I still praise the film, with it's strong leading performance and intriguing (albeit biased) account of this decade's most notorious government leak. Yes, the film makes it clear that Edward Snowden should be regarded as a saint - someone who uncovered mass conspiracy within our government and worked only to protect the USA's citizens. The movie serves as a supplement to the real man, and perhaps can help in forming opinions of whether or not his actions were ethical. Though Oliver Stone has made better films in the past, "Snowden" is still an effective biopic that warrants a viewing.

Lo and Behold: Reveries of the Connected World (2016)

A flawless documentary about our times

[10/10 · 1 February 2017]

WERNER HERZOG is a world class director who seems to keep his projects revolving around the constant thought of dreams. What could have been, what will happen, what are we thinking, and ultimately who are we? To make a documentary about the Internet, which would seem so rooted in science, and then use it to explore humanity and all our flaws and desires, made for a movie that is both eye-opening and reflective. For Herzog, I would expect nothing less, but the documentary still surprised me in more ways that one.

It's a slow-churning story told in 10 chapters. The familiar voice of Werner himself narrates the action, through interviews and questions that attempt no less than to determine the progress of humanity with the dawn of the technological age; the age in which we are all connected and information is both limitless and ever-growing.

In a small room in a science classroom in California, the very Internet was born in the 1960's, and the first transmitted message "LOG" was cut off midway through. As one man explains, the importance and simplicity of that first message ("lo and behold what man has achieved") is the thesis on which Herzog explores the topics. We see how information grew, how newspapers were first programmed for people to view on their home computers, how emails began to document business needs at almost instantaneous speeds. What a marvel, indeed.

Smartly, Herzog also explores the darker shades of our brilliance: of hate mail and the lawlessness of the online community. From hackers to a family who received spam emails of their daughter's mangled body, nearly decapitated in a car wreck... The tapestries of any invention are countless, but as the documentary begins to explore, no man made invention in history has ever grown at such an exponential rate. A wide-eyed woman with a Stepford Wife's sensibility declares "the Internet is Satan."

In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, Lo And Behold would be a bore of talking heads and the breakdown of important dates and times. Herzog seems to relish the bore, asking his subjects questions that often throw them off ("do you love this robot?"). It's oftentimes quite funny, but when we explore the darker implications just below the surface, it could also be one of the scariest films I have ever viewed. With our reliance on the internet so thoroughly engrossed in our lives, one scientist speculates that potentially billions could die were a large solar flare to wipe out electricity as we know it. Nature give and nature take away, but has humanity moved beyond the point of simple survival without technological help?

With a haunting score that recalls precious Herzog themes, the movie is nonetheless a fascinating and endlessly entertaining journey through modern times, with Herzog's deliciously German accent piercing through the bland images of computers and wires. There seems no better director to tackle this subject matter, and in fact I doubt many other filmmakers could achieve something so remarkable from something so apparently average as the Internet.

I left this movie, looked around, thought about life. There's an existential theme at work which forced me to think about how my life is wholly dependent on machines. They make life easier. I need them for daily support and connectivity. At this point in society, 2016, what is life if not the reliance on technology?

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Quintessential 21st Century Horror

[10/10 · 1 February 2017]

The Witch (VVitch) is one goddamned scary movie, and it's not because of cheap thrills and jump-cuts galore. This is a movie that buries itself deep into your psyche, slowly builds up as a monster movie as well as something along the lines of a psychological thriller. In an era when it seems like horror has little more to contribute, here comes a movie that packs a punch comparable to great modern films like The Babadook.

It's an undated time when America is barely colonized. A small family is banished from the city for religious betrayal or some such thing. It's hard to know for sure especially as the opening shot is of the magistrates of the town sentencing the family to leave at once. We see the reactions of the father's children. They are young, confused, willing to follow their parents and yet unsure of what the implications are. With little more than a wagon loaded, the family departs and sets up a small farm on the edge of a dark forest. Al is well.

If you have seen the trailer, you know the general feel of the film. What surprised me was how quickly the film jumped into the thick of the terror, as the infant baby is kidnapped before their oldest daughter's eyes. Perhaps it was a wolf, and through frantic searches, they give up hope as the baby is known to be dead by either animals or hunger. The next- youngest, a set of twins who playfully run throughout the farm, claim to know stories of 'the witch of the wood.' It's laughed off.

When I recall to mind great horror movies, I think of moments that catch you off guard, where you as an audience member are generally frightened for what is about to happen. These movies follow no clichéd plot lines nor are they predictable by any means. In The Witch, I was led on a journey that was so terrifying if only because the audience knows something that the family does not: there is a witch, indeed.

Our first introduction to her is a scene so disturbing and eerie that my mouth hung open the entire scene. It's not long after the baby goes missing. There are a few shots as we see the witch mostly in shadows, as she goes about business that takes fear to a new level. The imagery coupled with some extremely Kubrick-ian music (think 2001: A Space Odyssey), this becomes a film so drenched with tone and darkness that it draws your attention even in the quietest of scenes.

I really don't want to say too much more about the story, except that the family grows to suspect the eldest daughter for a variety of coincidental reasons. Though we know there is a satanic force lurking in the trees, the majority of the films turns inward as we watch a family devoted to God unravel with suspicion and fear. It's a believable family, with the father a kind and compassionate man, his wife God-fearing and unhinged, and children that are raised to know little more than good versus evil and His Holy Word.

Robert Eggers directed and wrote the film in an astonishing debut as a filmmaker. There is a confidence in his style that already feels like it comes from a master. The performances he draws out of his small cast (especially the children) are remarkable, and at times this feels like a movie that is already a classic in the horror genre. My sole concerns (and deductions in the rating) come from the film's ending, one that feels cheap and unneeded for a movie so layered with style. It's a film that uses no special effects until the very last moments, and even then, was it really necessary? The final moments also contain a reveal that shows the truth hidden throughout the entire film, and even then, perhaps a bit of ambiguity wouldn't have hurt.

The Babadook. It Follows. The Witch. Year after year we have seen a select group of films that simply redefine psychological horror, and they are few and far between. The trailers beforehand included two or three movies billed as being scary yet appear to be little more than slasher films with buckets of gore and fake blood. When will filmmakers learn that it isn't blood that frightens an audience, it is the unknown. Do not miss this movie.

Hardcore Henry (2015)

Unwatchable. Perhaps the worst movie I've yet seen

[1/10 · 1 February 2017]

It takes a very special kind of movie to warrant a zero star rating: one that lacks any semblance of artistic endeavor or passion. Hardcore Henry is that movie, and assuredly one of the worst movies I have seen in my life. The plot is laughable, the characters undefined, the visual look of the film something The Blair Witch Project would have turned down for being too confusing.

The film itself is borderline unwatchable due to it's first-person camera technique, putting you in the viewpoint of Henry, a man who may or may not be the most boring cinematic character to ever roam the silver screen (despite blowing up people's heads like most people might pop a roll of bubble wrap). The shakiness is to the point where I found myself completely lost in a blur attempting to discern who is fighting who and what exactly the purpose of my life to this point has been. The gunfighting, bloody as can be, was tedious and beyond all levels of taste.

Strapping a camera to the face of a stuntman who clearly has no idea how to film a movie, I found myself bored to the point of wandering out to the theater's bathroom (an AMC chain in downtown Chicago). I was surprised to discover a fully remodeled washroom with a warm, inviting glow and beautiful wood detailing on the bathroom stalls. The bathroom was unoccupied aside from me (most peope don't go to the movies at 1:45pm on a Thursday), so I had time to enjoy the quiet and hum to myself quietly while doing my business. Even the faucet was full of amazing detail and practicality. After using the soap dispenser, I realized the sink itself had a hand dryer installed directly beneath the flow of water. It was quite literally one-stop-shopping for my hand washing. No more dripping hands while I clumsily attempt to walk across the bathroom to some paper towels. Genius.

What was I talking about again? Oh yeah, the movie sucks.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 (2016)

cinematic equivalent of a garbage disposal

[4/10 · 1 February 2017]

The gang is all back in the surprisingly-delayed and unrequested sequel to one of the most successful independent films of all time (My Big Fat Greek Wedding still remains the highest-grossing romantic comedy of all time, 5th highest grossing film from 2002, highest grossing film to never be #1 at the box office, and is quoted as being one of the most profitable films ever with a 6,150% return on budget). It's a wonder it took them so long to milk this cash cow a little further.

The plot, as the title suggests (though isn't there a funner way to title the movie? I thought long and hard and came up with "My Bigger, Fatter, Greekier Wedding." Not bad, right?) follows our protagonist, Tula (Nia Vardalos) 17 years after the original. A lot has changed, but not too much. The punchline of the first film showed the newly-weds moving into the house next door to Tula's parents. In this film, nearly the whole block is occupied by the Portakalos clan. It's a wonder the local gawkers haven't been asked to relocate yet.

You may remember Tula working as a travel agent, but given the current economy, we learn there is no need for such luxuries in the current Chicago market. Low and behold, she has retreated back to the family's restaurant. Talk about coming full circle.

The titular wedding comes from Tula's parents, Gus and Maria, who find out through a bit of digging that their marriage 50 years ago was never certified by a priest. Cue wedding dress shopping montage. The additional drama comes from Paris, Tula and Ian's daughter, who is deciding whether to go to college in Chicago or flee to New York to claim sanctuary from her looney extended family.

Tonally, the film is very much identical to the original, which is surprising given how little I enjoyed this film. Where the original found humor in the observations of a stereotypical Greek Orthodox family and an outsider's introduction to such a culture, the sequel lags and lags on jokes we already know. Windex cures all, the root of every word is Greek, and Aunt Voula is as zany as ever. Nia Vardalos in the leading role (and returning as screenwriter (the original earned her an Oscar nomination, no less)) is absolutely lost and a clunker of a star. Originally playing it relatively straight amidst the humor, here she gives way to potty humor and overacting galore. In the original, the film was charming and found humor through it. Here, she has written a weak comedy that she thinks will have the same effect.

For being a sequel 14 years in the making, the production felt very rushed, and editing down to camera work is noticeably lacking. The script throws everything but the kitchen sink at us, including a tacked on bit where Joey Fatone reveals himself as gay on the morning of the wedding. Why, I am not sure. John Stamos was billed as a new addition to the cast (fairly genius casting given the film) but phones in a performance of about 5 minutes and promptly is never seen again.

After the flop of the TV show (remember the season run of My Big Fat Greek Life?) and the poor reaction to this year's sequel, I think it has become clear that the 2002 hit was simply a flash in the pan, a film that stood on its own despite the studio want to squeeze every last nickel out of it's teat. Hollywood today is driven largely by sequels and reboots and cinematic universes. Maybe in 5 or 10 years we will see a remake. Sometimes though, lightning can only strike once.

The Lobster (2015)

Might be the best movie of the year

[10/10 · 1 February 2017]

The Lobster is about as quirky as they come; a surreal deadpan depiction of some alternate universe or perhaps our future (I'm not sure which the filmmakers were leaning towards) in which partnership is a legal requirement and to be alone is to be a lesser being. It's a story billed as dystopian, but with the complexity and sophistication that this civilization is run, perhaps our heroes who work to fight the system are merely traitors.

The opening scene depicts a woman driving down a country road and then exiting her car to calmly shoot and kill a donkey in a field. Having completed this movie, one wonders what this donkey could have possibly done done to deserve it. We learn the processes and meanings later. In the simplest description, this is a society in which people who are single (whether due to death or divorce) must refuge in a sort of resort for loners, a large hotel in which newly-single folk must meet like-minded people in order to mate and return to society. Assuming you can't find a companion within 30 days of arriving, you are turned into an animal of your choice and released into the wild, forever doomed to be mute and alone.

David is our protagonist (a deadpan Colin Farrell, he's fantastic) who enters the resort with his brother (a yappy dog, transformed by the same resort 4 years prior) after his wife leaves him for another man with glasses. He is given a single room, 4 complete suits, shoes, and instructions to never use the volleyball or tennis courts. Those are reserved for couples. He eats all 3 meals at an individual table (curious since socialization is the key to meeting others), attends stiff formal dances catered by the building managers, and regularly goes in groups to the nearby woods to hunt loners who have escaped the grounds.

The story indeed makes for one of the most unique pieces of cinema I have ever seen. The tone is that of a black comedy, and humor is found not in actions or situations, but rather the curious nature of these characters. They speak in a simple English, and there is a bleak sound to it. David speaks with a textbook-like vernacular. He never laughs, never yells, and seems content with living out his remainder as a human in relative peace.

Not only do our characters require a mate, but they also must settle down with someone of a similar trait. A fellow exile picks a woman who frequently gets nosebleeds and insists that banging his head on the table to cause a drip from his nose will make them a perfect couple. Another unsuccessfully tries to find a woman with a similar lisp to his.

One thing leads to another, and David escapes to join a band of loners in the nearby woods (the loners hunted every night). There he falls in love with a short-sighted woman (Rachel Weisz in one of her best roles). How curious that David is also short-sighted, and how deeply sad that these foresters forbid relationships as a form of rebellion to society.

Yorgos Lanthimos is the director and co-writer, Greek in descent and with a decidedly European sensibility to his film. His work, while challenging, concludes on a note that will leave some audiences confused and others amazed by the simplicity of it. Along with "Her," here is another modern film that works to dissect love and relationships in a way that we have not yet seen before. There is much to discuss about the film, and there is even more to debate. It's one of the very best films this year.

Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)

Forgettably simple

[5/10 · 1 February 2017]

There's the old joke that goes something like this: "Pardon me, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?" "Practice, practice, practice!" It would seem that the origins of this joke (who many attribute to Jack Benny) might also ring true for a woman like 'Madame Florence,' as she is affectionately called throughout the titular film. A run down New York socialite with a flair for camp, Ms. Jenkins' story is presented with heart and restrain.

Stephen Frears' film follows in the footsteps of his recent work to examine the life of a woman (remember how marvelous "The Queen" was with Helen Mirren, or "Philomena" with Judi Dench) in extraordinary circumstances. I suppose with this third film, he has made a sort of trilogy examining the place of elderly women in an ever-changing society.

It's 1944 in the midst of war, and we get to know Florence; a quiet type with a retired husband (Hugh Grant, and how marvelous he is). Together they have founded the Verdi Club, which seeks to be in the ranks of high society and serves potato salad like it's going out of style. St Clair Bayfield, her husband, supports her every will and only wants to make her happy. We realize that since Florence contracted syphilis in her youth, they don't share the same bed. In fact, they don't share the same house. St Clair sees a woman on the side, and to those who seem concerned, he explains "there is so much love to give."

Inspired by a performance while in the audience at Carnegie Hall, Florence decides to start up vocal lessons again. Hiring a meager pianist and taking lessons from no less than the greatest vocal coach in all New York, she sets out to prepare for a live show. Here's the catch: she couldn't sing to save her life. In her inner circle of friends, they praise her charm and powerful pitch. To the outsider (as the pianist soon realizes), it's all a farce.

I admired the way the film broke away the mold to reveal the softer side of a marriage that is anything but conventional. The relationship between Florence and St Clair, while at times a bit like mother and son, never feels quite like that of a marriage, but I suppose that's the way it goes. As crazy as the story is (as a true story, no less), the film is still structured in a way that becomes a bit predictable and perhaps a bit too long. Her first vocal performance on screen is one that will surely make audiences laugh, but by the time we hear "Queen of the Night" in the final performance, it's funny yes, but perhaps a bit monotonous.

Meryl Streep delivers a capable performance as the 'rough around the edges' socialite, but I think Hugh Grant is the man who steals the show. Returning to film out of a semi- retirement (who knew?), he makes a large splash on the screen as a charmer who is both mysterious and good. It's a fun role that is exciting to watch. As for the rest of the cast, it's hard to remember a single name or face. The two leads simply take over the show.

I thought the film was apt but perhaps not alongside the great work that both Frears and Streep have delivered in the past. The story is a quirky bit of historical trivia that will perhaps ignite a bit of interest to the life of Mrs Jenkins, who knows. Like the few recordings of the real woman singing that remain, maybe all we will remember is that there once was a bad singer who sold out Carnegie Hall. That's interesting enough for me.

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

I thought it was better than Zootopia

[7/10 · 1 February 2017]

KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS is the fourth film from the production company Laika, the same team that released movies like ParaNorman and Coraline. Based on that resume, one would expect Kubo to be a dark and eerie storie full of strange visuals, and you would be right in that assumption. The key difference one might find is that this is more so a story about a family. It's sad they didn't get it quite right.

There is some controversy surrounding the casting of an all-white cast to play Asian characters, but we can look past that. The story is a fairytale of sorts about a little boy who washes ashore as a baby with his mother. In her possession is little more than a shamisen (the Japanese equivalent of a banjo). Kubo grows and raises his mother (who is lost in a haze of confusion and distance) and earns his keep by using his mother's magical instrument to perform origami shows in the nearby village. He has heard stories about his now deceased father and how he was a great warrior. Like all kid heroes, he dreams of one day living up to his memory.

We learn that it was his two aunts and grandfather that ultimately killed Kubo's father (kind of heavy for a children's movie, I admit) and that in order to prevent them from killing Kubo, he must remain hidden from the sky when the sun is down. I'm sure you can guess what happens next.

The visual tapestries that weave together the story are simply remarkable, and the look of this movie will be unlike anything you have seen in quite a while. At times it became mirky whether or not I was looking at stop-motion animation or computer imagery, but the blurring of these lines worked in harmony to make a movie that would surely suffer had it been strictly one medium or the other. This is a movie that would be equally as stunning (if not more so) while watched with the volume off, allowing you to get lost in the framing of shots or the colors on screen.

The film's absolute first lines are spoken by Kubo: "If you must blink, do it now." I had hoped this was a sign of a wonderful film to come, and by all means I tried my hardest throughout the screening to drink in as much of the film as possible. What was disappointing was the rest of the movie, the aspects of characters and plot that felt both boring and clichéd. Kubo finds himself alone and tasked with finding a suit of armor to defeat the final villain (you guessed it, his grandfather). He must procure a sword, a helmet, and a breastplate. Along the way, he makes friends with a beetle-man (quite literally a cursed man stuck in an in-between state) and a monkey that was once a charm Kubo kept in his pocket. Like The Wizard of Oz and all the other films like it, we know the hero must adopt some friends for his travel. The unfortunate part is that these characters just don't gel as a group and are reduced to simple comic punchlines to keep children entertained (I assume). Where the movie started out with a mature and brilliant setup, the back half of the story was simply a different, less sophisticated tone. There is also a significant twist near the end of the film that puts these two characters in a new light. The sad part is that the filmmakers didn't work to set them up properly or structure any sort of meaningful payoff. We find out this detail and simply go "what?"

Compared to other animated films this year (Finding Dory, Zootopia) I will still tip the hat to Kubo, a wholly original concept with a remarkable look. In a time when movies are nearly 100% sequels or reboots or any combination there of, Kubo is a unique movie that I know the general moviegoer will enjoy and children will find thrilling. It's not a bad movie by any means. I only wished it could have been that much better.

Don't Think Twice (2016)

Beautiful human dramedy

[10/10 · 1 February 2017]

We meet an improv troupe called "The Commune." They are based in a small New York theater, perform nightly to a small crowd for $5 a ticket. Though they don't have much, and most work the odd job on the side, we know that this is their passion. They are best friends who stay in on weekends and dream of being cast on "Weekend Live" (an obvious play on Saturday Night Live, the ultimate goal of most comedians in their 30's). What this movie does so well is try to figure out what would happen if one of these friends actually hit it big. In a tight community of struggling actors, what would happen when it becomes apparent that not everyone is bound for stardom.

DON'T THINK TWICE is about as good of a movie as I have seen all year. It's directed by Mike Birbiglia (who also has a costarring role as an improv instructor who just can't seem to catch a break in anything besides romance) and has all the makings of a classic exploration of the human condition. Keegan-Michael Key plays Jay (you may recognize him from MadTV, and I wonder if this at all echoes his rise to fame over the past decade), the most recognizable of the troupe and one who is known to break out a Barack Obama impression when talent scouts are nearby. He is one of the group, but secretly dreams of breaking away. While the other members of Commune feel safe amongst numbers, Jay knows there is much more he is capable of.

Jay dates Samantha (Gillian Jacobs is absolutely incredible in this role), a quirky girl who is nearly the exact opposite of him. She is shy in front of large groups but performs improv with ease every night. Both her and Jay get asked to audition for Weekend Live (to the frustration of the rest of the cast) and yet on the day of her audition, she chickens out and decides that maybe it's not for her. Jay is cast on the spot following his audition. He tries to talk to her that night about what went wrong, and already we know that this relationship is doomed to fall apart.

The ensemble cast is all around remarkable. In a group of six performers, each is fleshed out and given a soul. Allison is the tiny girl who dreams of publishing a graphic novel. Lindsay comes from wealth and yet still collects unemployment checks to save her from having to find a real job. Bill is arguably the funniest of the bunch, awkward with glasses, trying to cope with the fact that his father is near death.

The fun with the movie comes from their performances on stage. Filmed hand-held and constantly circling the cast, comedy seeps through the screen as though we were watching the intimate comedy routine in person. We start to understand the ins and outs of improvisation, and yet this is in no way a movie about improv in general. It's an honest, timeless human drama that simply uses live television where a classic story might have just used a knife in the back.

There is such heart in the story, in the characters, and by the end (as clichéd as it may sound) it really felt as though I was beginning to know these people in and out. As Jay becomes more famous, the audiences begin taking requests for him to play some of his TV characters (though he is now cast on TV, he still returns to the Commune to help his friends and perform more casually alongside them). The rest of the cast becomes frustrated while Jay just soaks his fame up. Eventually it builds to the point where they perform a skit in which Jay has finally died and they circle his coffin, remembering him for the airhead he was. Everything they say is true, and the audience laughs and laughs. Amidst the realization of failure, maybe the movie is trying to tell us that the best thing to do is just laugh. It seems to work.

Sausage Party (2016)

Actually shopping for food is a more thrilling experience...

[4/10 · 1 February 2017]

SAUSAGE PARTY is a good movie in the same way someone might describe McDonald's as being a satisfying meal. There are laughs, you get what you paid for, but in the end you leave feeling a bit sick for enjoying it and vow to change your eating habits before next time. I mean viewing habits. Seth Rogen's stoner homage to Disney & Pixar is surely filled with moments that will make audiences gasp and laugh, but if we are going to watch an R-rated animated film about talking food, is it bad for me to ask for better quality?

When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was unaware it was an adult-themed movie until about midway through. We see a hot dog weiner flirting with a feminine-looking bun, and I recall thinking this was a bit risqué even for a kid's movie. Then came the carnage and I understood. The basic premise is that food is alive. When we purchase it at grocery stores, they know little of the horrors that are soon to come. Humans are merely gods who are here to take food into the glorious afterlife. They even have a song welcoming our arrival each morning.

It's the Fourth of July so Bun and Weiner (I forget their names, but wouldn't that only confuse you?) are excited to finally get to spend time together. They are packaged near one another, and dream of the day they are finally selected to go to the great beyond. As plot would have it, they are purchased, but by a strange twist of fate, they esape their packaging and roll away in a deadly two-cart collision. The rest of the hot dogs go home to discover the true horrors of dinnertime, while Bun and Weiner meet some friends at the store (a Jewish bagel (complete with Woody Allen's accent) and a Middle Eastern flatbread, complete with beard). Their plan is to return to packaging to be sold tomorrow.

Remember "The Interview" and the buzz that was built up prior to its Netflix release? What a disappointment the film ended up being, and in many ways this movie measures up just as well. A sort of passion project for Seth Rogen over the past 10 years, it's sad to think this is the end result. The plot is meandering and the situations these foods find themselves in uninteresting. The dialogue is a barrage of the "f" word if for no other reason than the film is rated R. There's also an extended sequence where Weiner and some other non-perishables get high (what can we expect) and an ending that is quite literally a grocery store orgy.

There are laughable parts (a piece of chewed up gum as Stephen Hawking was brilliantly done) and some unfortunate parts (the film spends a large chunk of time joking about the political and global status of Israel), not to mention a barrage of racial jokes that are at times off-putting. The movie is an admirable effort to make animated features more for adults. Apparently adults can't get enough potty humor. Watch the trailer - the funny parts are there. The rest of the movie is fluff.

Little Men (2016)

One of 2016's few masterpieces

[10/10 · 1 February 2017]

LITTLE MEN is the story of two boys who become friends in the twilight year of their childhood: a time when they will move on from elementary to high school and begin to take the first steps into their adult lives. The title itself hearkens back to Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women," a similar concept in which young girls come of age amidst personal and emotional struggle.

The story of these two boys is one that is at times extremely intimate and wholly universal. I was reminded of my times during childhood when the summer days couldn't stretch on long enough and the only concerns in the world were whether or not I could have dinner at a friend's house. Maybe you don't know what you have until it's gone. That is definitely true in a story like this, where the consequences of actions are not that of the children, but rather their parents, and the stirring drama that unfolds through the generations as a result.

Jake is an artsy boy, shy with long hair, who keeps his nose in his sketchbook when his teacher lectures other kids on being quiet in the class. He hears word that his grandfather has just died (on his father's side, who is played by Greg Kinnear) and soon they form a small wake at the deceased's apartment in Brooklyn. It's here Jake meets Tony, a street- smart kind of kid with a heavy accent reminiscent of a bowery boy and an attitude to match. Despite their apparent differences, the two boys quickly become friends. Simultaneously, Jake and his family move into his grandfather's building and inherit the shop at street level, a dress shop owned by Tony's mother.

Two stories begin to unfold: that of a carefree summer amongst boys, and the turmoil of legal battles over the ownership to the shop. Jake's father, Brian, claims legal ownership and requires a rent hike in order to make ends meet. Tony's mother, Leonor, a Spanish- speaking woman with a firm head on her shoulders, both refuses to give up the shop and also pay the rent at 3 times the price. We hear stories of her good relationship with Brian's father, and how he wanted Leonor to stay in the shop when he died. She only needs what's best for her family. So does Brian.

Between Jake and Tony, we learn that both seek to apply to a prestigious art school in Manhattan for the fall. Jake for drawing and art, and Tony for acting. While Jake's art is never fully seen (and in fact I can't recall a single drawing that is fully framed at any given time), we have a marvelous scene where Tony takes Jake to an acting class for children. Here, a balding teacher with thick accent instruct the pupils on how to use improv, how to react, how to interact. A long shot between Tony and the teacher sees both calling back and forth repeated lines of dialogue with different inflections. Even for a simple audience member, we can tell that Tony has what it takes.

The drama, at times heavy-handed, guides the boys through the maturation of their personalities and in turn becomes a story about the intimacy children share with each other, secrets hidden from parents and shared in private conversation. This is done through masterful mise-en-scene, where a parent's resolution with his son seems to end happy until we realize they are framed on separate sides of a room. When Tony is rejected by a girl at a dance and later we see Jake lean his head into frame to share the space with his saddened friend. There are ways one could interpret this movie as a love story, but in no way one that leads to romance. This is the love that friends have who are kindred spirits despite differences.

I applaud the director, who clearly knows how to photograph a film and stage his actors. Watching "Little Men" makes one feel like they are in safe hands, and as such there is never a time that we doubt the motives or actions of the people we watch on screen. The movie ends several months later with Jake now long-haired and dressed more in-tune with an artist. He travels a museum with some classmates and in the distance hears the distinctive sound of Tony's voice. It's clear that in the end Tony and his family move out, and their friendship quickly dissipates in such a large city. This voice is the first time Jake has seen Tony since. Looking across a gallery exhibit, he sees Tony from behind, still in a Catholic school uniform. He is friendly as ever, but he quickly leaves with his friends and Jake is left alone. There is no "hello" or catching up. There is barely resolution. We are left with two thoughts: that Tony's family was unable to send him to the high school he wanted, or that Jake is just reminded of his old friend at the sight of the old school uniform. I'd like to think that the second is more plausible, if only because we want a happy ending for these two boys. It's unfair to picture a life where the actions of our parents can forever change the next generation's future.

For a movie about a summer friendship, this surely left me with a lot to ponder. This is about as limited a release as movies come, but if you manage to find a screening near you I implore you to check this one out.

Toni Erdmann (2016)

blink and you'll miss it - great cinema

[9/10 · 1 February 2017]

'Toni Erdmann' is a wild farce of a movie that twists and turns for nearly 3 hours down roads you wouldn't expect. It's a straight-up comedy except for the fact that it's also a very moving and sad portrait of a relationship between father and daughter. In retrospect I can't think of many moments that seem funny on paper. I think it's just the fact that a wig and fake teeth just trigger an instinctual chuckle.

This is a German production by Maren Ade (the director and writer) who drew inspiration from her own relationship with her father in this story. With such an original voice it's clear to see real-life ties. We all must know that relative or friend who will stop at nothing to put a smile on the face of others - a sort of selfless act that reveals more about a person that you might believe. That is Winfried (Peter Simonischek) who lives alone with his dying dog, detached from his ex-wife and estranged from his daughter Ines (Sandra Hüller) who spends her time working in big oil in Bucharest. We meet Winifried at the beginning of the film trying to fool a delivery man by donning fake teeth and pretending to be making a pipe bomb. Later, we see him visit his elderly mother with face paint like a skeleton. He's a clown that works to only get a laugh. Outwardly, you wouldn't think his life was that spectacular.

After seeing his daughter during her Birthday, Winifried begins to see that Ines is not as happy or successful as she is leading on. She takes long phone calls and thinly masks a sense of terror that nobody can recognize besides her father. On a whim, he decides to travel to Bucharest to spend some time with her. She puts him on the pull-out couch and is generally dismissive of his presence, instead working to impress her CEO and try her hardest to impress the corporate heads who might finally give her the promotion she wants.

The relationship between these two characters is endlessly interesting and carefully strategized. At a cocktail party, Winifried brings his fake teeth (always tucked in his breast pocket - just in case) and Ines rolls her eyes. When she fails to charm the CEO, she is mortified to see her own father becoming chummy with him over small talk and vulgarities. She is weakened by the fact that even though she is more successful, her father will always have the upper hand. She never says this, but it's clear through her actions.

After a few days, Winifried leaves to head home and leave his daughter be, and yet no sooner is she back at work than a mysterious figure appears: a tall man with an obviously fake wig and dentures named Toni Erdmann. The rouse is so clearly fake and yet Ines makes the choice to accept her father as this clown - a life coach with a knack for wearing the same velvet suit over and over. To her coworkers and friends who don't know Winifried, they see Mr. Erdmann as a real man who is larger than life. Ines, reluctant at first, ever so slowly comes to see her father in a new light.

I don't think that's really an accurate description of the plot if only because the movie feels much more spontaneous. The staging of scenes and the way dialogue progresses helps greatly in setting the tone for this indescribable movie. There is a scene in which Ines and her supervisor are on a rooftop garden discussing plans for a business venture, and in the out-of-focus background we suddenly see a man taking a phone call and fiddling with a whoopie cushion. If you don't pay attention you won't see it. Another wild moment sees Ines throwing a small Birthday party at her house and finally letting it all go... Quite literally.

The run time in itself is the main talking point for this movie: a 3-hour German comedy. Who knew? What I came to see after is that this time is so focused on developing the relationship of these two people that any shorter running time might have had a lessened impact. By the time the final scene rolls around and Ines jokingly puts her father's teeth in, it's a reward of patience and a complete fulfillment of the arc of such a crazy story. In retrospect that last scene in particular has so much more weight when we see the roles change and Ines slowly step into the role of sympathizer to care for her father. It's easy to miss, but in a movie where a man uses a cheese grater as a source of euphoria, such a quiet conclusion really speaks wonders.

Deepwater Horizon (2016)

The best disaster movie ever made

[9/10 · 16 January 2017]

DEEPWATER HORIZON is about as good of a disaster movie as I think I have ever seen. Recounting the tragedy in 2010 in which an oiler rig caught fire and claimed the lives of 11 men on board, the movie follows the events in sequence as an ensemble cast brings to life one of the most horrific events I think I could ever imagine. Stuck in a fire is bad, but imagine being stuck in a fire 45 minutes from land, with the ocean 3 miles deep below you? That's terror.

The movie is told from the perspective (mainly) of one man, Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg), who is now regarded as a hero for his quick-thinking and rescue of several of the crew on board. We are introduced first to his family. His wife, a stunning Kate Hudson, and his whip-smart daughter who wants her dad to find a fossil at sea for bragging rights at school. Before Williams leaves at work, the daughter demonstrates the way an oil rig works using a can of soda and a metal straw. Like that scene in Titanic where a computer generation simulates the entire sinking of the ship so that the audience knows what to expect, so does this throwaway scene give us a rudimentary knowledge of the happenings on the rig later on. When they are talking about cement and pipes and negative pressure, we have less cause to question what is happening. It's brilliant filmmaking.

On board, we meet the rest of the crew, captained by Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell), who argues constantly with the BP executives on board about cutting corners. The construction of the pipeline leading to the ocean's floor is already 43 days behind, and construction is abruptly finished to cut corners and save the multi-billion dollar company a little money. BP is, of course, the villain of this story since their actions led to the largest oil spill in US history. The face to the company is John Malkovich playing a conniving investor with a Cajun accent and knack for time saving. His dialogue with Russell is great, and we see the rival sides of two arguments: the crew is trying to work in the safest environment possible. BP wants the job done on schedule.

The events on board play out in the course of 24 hours or so. We meet the workers on board, all chummy and casual with each other. They practice songs with each other, joke, work like friends... The atmosphere is that of comfort, and there is lots of clever writing in the way small talk turns into startling character development and the candor of speech places these characters so specifically in southern Louisiana.

All the while we see bubbles slowly rising from the ocean floor, an omen of what is to come. When performing a standard 'negative pressure test' to gauge the strength of the newly-built pipe, a surge of pressure forces mud and natural gas to erupt into the Horizon with the force of a bomb. The facility fills with gas, and the overdrive of engines causes an explosion. In the darkness, we see massive amounts of black oil rise into the sky thousands of feet above the platform. With a spark, it is ignited... The entire ship is a floating firebomb.

Luckily many survive, and the action once the flames start is less plot driven and more or less a fight to escape. With Mark Wahlberg's character, he is knocked unconscious in his bed chamber and must work through the darkness to find safely. Kurt Russell, caught in the explosion in the shower, is nearly blinded and impaled by shards of glass and metal. It's utter chaos.

The most effective aspects of this film (and there are many) is the set piece of the Deepwater Horizon, itself. It has been called the most expensive movie set ever built, and watching the movie I would never have second-guessed that this was not a real rig that has been long weathered and worn. We learn it is not anchored to the oceanbed but rather a floating raft of sorts that uses propellers to center it constantly above the delicate pipeline bringing oil to the surface. Without propellers, the craft shifts off-centered, risking the pipe bursting and oil flowing freely into the ocean. In a moment of absolute startle, we are with the pilot in the control room when suddenly all power goes out. The silence is matched in terror by the instant knowledge of an oil spill unlike anything they had seen before and the dire need to regain power of the motors.

This is surely an intense film, but it is matched equally with heart, which is an aspect I think many disaster movies gloss over in the end to create a cookie-cutter ending with a bow on top. Here, when the survivors are rescued and brought to safety they are not happy and cheering to be alive. Mike Williams breaks down on his hotel room floor and is unhinged by the horror he had just lived. Families become angry in an attempt to locate their son or daughter on board. Yes this is a true story, and the filmmakers respected the subject enough to give it a bit more weight that a typical blockbuster might have bestowed.

It's hard to rate movies on a scale since it's purely objective and driven by emotion. Deepwater Horizon may not be a perfect movie, and it may have slight flaws, but the feeling of immersion into the story and the characters left me breathless from opening to the final credits. The visual effects add to the story and create images that I won't soon forget. The final moments brought a tear to my eye. From the movies I know are currently playing in theaters, this is the one movie I would want to go back to a second time.

Elle (I) (2016)

The performance is the redeemer of this confused story

[5/10 · 16 January 2017]

ELLE is a confusing movie, filled with inconsistencies and characters that feel flawed from the script level. Their motivations are at times unclear, and the plot wanders in and out of reason. Watching the trailer, one might expect a thriller of the highest order. Instead, Paul Verhoeven's latest film feels like a jumble.

The film has been generating significant buzz since it's debut at the Cannes Film Festival, and I am genuinely curious about the film that I apparently missed. Here's what I gathered: a woman (Michele, played by Isabelle Huppert) is raped after a home invasion. She is in shock, but quickly recovers and moves on with her life. She does not report this incident to the police, and she only casually tells her close friends about it over dinner days later. Michele is apparently unaffected by the act, and is only curious to find out who the man is. She works as the boss for a video gaming company, currently working on a new fantasy game for PS4 consoles. She receives calls from the rapist, mysterious emails, videos, all indicating that the man knows who she is. She suspects a coworker.

At the same time we learn about her biological father, a man locked away for life for unspeakable crimes he committed when she was a child. When it happened, she was looked at as a sociopathic little girl. Growing up, we see the hardened woman she has become, closed off to everyone (colleagues, lovers, her mother, and her son). On the outside, she has all the resemblance of a successful woman. Inside, she is a complete mystery.

I will admit that while the plot had me curious, the ultimate message of the story was a complete turn-off: that a woman who is raped would be so intrigued by her attacker that she would lure him back time and again to continue his assault against her. I will tell you that she finds out who committed these crimes against her, and yet she does nothing to end his violence. In fact, Michele later goes to his house willingly where she is subjected to further abuse in his basement. It's presented as a two-way relationship in which both parties require torment in order to feel a connection. Passivity is not enough, these two get off on control.

Verhoeven is no stranger to such topics, having directed English-language films like Basic Instinct and Showirls. Here, there is craft on display but very little to show for it. Even without the "thrilling" aspects, there are funny moments in the film, particularly around Michele's son and his relationship with his vile girlfriend. She gives birth to a black baby and the son is blissfully unaware that he is not the father. Michele meets with her mother frequently who is dating a man nearly 40 years her junior. In a world where crime is around every corner, Michele is unable to escape the madness in her own life.

Though I am not familiar with Huppert's career as an actress, I will admit she gives a mesmerizing performance. With deep voice and piercing stare, she becomes a woman who is both fearful and yet able to instill fear on those she oversees. There's a commitment to her performance that is never "over-acted" and yet hits all the right notes perfectly. Were it not for such a spectacular show of acting I don't think I could have brought myself to rate this film so high.

At this movie's core there is an ugly story. I can see the appeal of such a story, but with overly-gratuitous sexuality and shock value simply there for shock, I can't understand the final message. Who are we meant to root for, and who are we meant to hate? A movie can be well-acted and well-directed, but without characters that intrigue us even in the slightest, it makes for quite a bore in the theaters.