Change Your Image
SenorLengua
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Prey (2022)
A Worthy Reboot
By now, you probably already know that this movie is a prequel, or more, of the original "Predator." Before getting into my review, I will say two things about the movie. First, this is a fun movie and moves along at a pace which is enjoyable. It is a recommended watch. Second, if you have not seen "Predator," go watch that first. There are some references, including *that* scene, and besides, "Predator" is a great 1980s action film.
On to the review...
First, the cinematography and setting. If you have seen "Dances With Wolves," you will get the understanding of the vast space and breathtaking beauty of the land. Dan Trachtenberg, the director, does a great job of getting the feeling of the tribe being alone yet not lonely. The over head shots, views from mountain cliffs, the expansive forests all give a sense that they are in a natural world with all the plethora of nature that they are part of.
Next, there is Naru (Amber Midthunder). We have seen this role before. The young woman - teens to early 20s - in a society that does has her role defined by gender, yet she wants something more. And, yes, she makes mistakes along the way trying to prove herself. But Naru was introduced to us as from the start as being smart and inventive in a respected way. And when she tries to be more - a worrier in this movie - she is not just allowed to try, but treated as an equal (the fight is even somewhat jarring). Yet, every time she fails, she learns. But never full successfully. Credit given to both Midthunder and the script she was given that this is done well. It is said that Tom Hanks has eyes. In this case, Midthunder acts with her face and body. And while it is not perfect, as a first-time actor, Midthunder is far and away the best of the cast.
A couple of critiques, this being mostly with the script. The first I say as a history teacher, but the introduction of the French trappers is good, but overkill. In 1719, there not nearly the number presented, and they did not easily group as is suggested. Many worked alone or in pairs, often building relations with the indigenous (mostly for trade). The second critique is the rate of learning Naru experiences. She is introduced to ideas which would have been very difficult to imagine in her time. Yet she learns them at almost the first experience. Convenience, sure, but I'd have liked a slightly slower journey to understanding.
With all of that said, if you have seen Predator, as I said this movie does nicely to do a few references. I won't spoil them for you, but I did enjoy the restraint of Midthunder to the over the top of Schwarzenegger - one who knows she has to out smart as opposed to win by brute force. It was a thoroughly enjoyable film.
It is not an academy level film, in my opinion, but very worthy. I give it 7.5 (scored a 7).
Parents - it is quite violent, and would likely have an "R" rating because of that had it been released to theaters.
Se, jie (2007)
Delicious
This is one of those movies which is not well known from a major director (Ang Lee) in part because this was early in their career, and/or it is in a foreign language, and/or it was not widely released in the Western world. (And in this case, it received an NC-17 rating in the US.) This is a shame.
How many times have you seen a movie where there are plenty of supporting actors, but none stand out? Yeah, me neither. But this is the case here. The story, if you don't already know, centers around the relationship between Wong Chia Chi/ Mrs. Mak (played by Tang Wei) and Mr. Yee (played by Tony Chiu-Wai Leung). Everybody else is trivial, at least in terms of acting. Don't get me wrong, Joan Chen (Mrs. Yee) and Leehom Wang (Kuang Yu Min) are very good, but such is the excellence of Wei and Leung that everybody else is more or less feels like a placeholder.
But even then, Wei far outshines Leung. It is mentioned often that Tom Hanks acts with his eyes. In this case, Wei takes that idea, and raises it a level. It is so obvious when every time she plays Mahjong that her speaking part is interrupted when she actually speaks. The first trip to the jewelers is also there. And many, many moments in between. But, when she does speak, she is controlled until...just watch the voluntary confession about her relationship with Mr. Yee and how she changes from soft control to...near madness? Or something like that.
And the same time, there is the ever increasing tug, sometime literally, between the characters of Mrs. Mak and Mr. Yee. The daring and suddenness, the risk and reward, the safety and threats, are all there in every seen between them. We know Mr. Yee has to have some kind of mean streak, but Mrs. Mak is so soft and pleasant that surely she will bring that part out of him. Or does he know more about her than she thinks?
Ultimately, this is a movie about an affair during World War II in China. That the war is going on is in consequential. The real part of the movie, as you know form the trailers, is whether Mrs. Mak can kill Mr. Yee. Because Mrs. Mak is not Mrs. Mak. Or is she?
The acting of Tang Wei and Tony Chiu-Wai Leung aside, the movie is luscious with what we see on camera. Time and again, it is wonderful how moments are portrayed. My only problem with this movie is the reason it is rated NC-17. The sex scenes between Wei and Leung, while important, feel like they exploit Wei and could be done in a way that does not need the excessive nudity (to be clear, it is not that I am objecting to the nudity. I am objecting to the way it was filmed). Watching those scenes strongly evoked the recent declaration by Keira Knightly that she won't do a sex scene unless it is directed by a woman.
This is one not to miss, but definitely not to watch with kids. In addition to what has been mentioned about the nudity, there is one scene of rape (but that scene is important). It is also a longer film at over 2 hours 30 minutes.
My rating is 7+ of 10, rounded down. There are a couple of plot holes, and the supporting actors are mostly unremarkable (Leehom Wang is good, but hit or miss), but if for no other reason, watch it for Tang Wei. Her performance is delicious.
The Umbrella Academy (2019)
Underwhelming - review of season 1 only
I remember hearing about this show a couple of years ago as being worth my time, and took particular note of Elliot Page (then Ellen) being in the show. Then I watched the trailer...
When I want to watch a superhero show, I look for 5 things. 1) The inventiveness of the plot; 2) How dynamic the characters are written; 3) The writing overall; 4) The acting; 5) Special effects. Thus, there will be 6 paragraphs coming up addressing each area, and a conclusion. Keep in mind, this is only for season 1.
The Plot
As with any decent show, there are going to be multiple overarching plots. In this case, there are two which are primary. The first is the family dynamic in which they have to come back together and deal with what drove them apart. The second is the reason they were brought back together. Both are quite clichéd. There is a subplot to the second reason which is interesting, and I'll address that a bit more in The Acting section. But overall, this was nothing I had not seen before. And the climax was clear to me by end episode 3, if sometime during episode 2.
Dynamic Characters?
This is a superhero movie, but the kids are adopted and the family is dysfunctional. It is a nice set up, and one with a lot of potential. But the biological parents are never brought up, and they are never even discussed apart from a function of origin. This is a huge miss, and really takes away from the internal turmoil that the characters should have to work through. Yes, that is a lot to deal with in terms of writing, but it would have been nice to see it even touched on, or even have some greater depth for one or two characters, while the others could be for upcoming seasons. Sadly, it was not.
The Overall Writing
To this point, my tone is probably pretty clear. That is not unjust, but it also is incomplete. The idea is neat, though an obvious similarity to Heroes, Season 1, can be drawn. That is probably one of the most inventive superhero shows in the recent past (though Heroes is a unique, The Umbrella Academy already has material). The Umbrella Academy is a bit of a darker version of Heroes, and there are plenty of misses and clichés. Yet there are ideas and moments which are fun. Number Five and his "girlfriend" are a fun and strange aspect, yet endearing. Klaus is also fun, and the things about his which were invented were almost as if a writer had direct knowledge of that/those behaviors. I also enjoyed the philosophical banter between Hazen and Cha-Cha, though as the season progressed, it became more clichéd. Still, enjoyable moments.
The Acting
Here is where I am going to be most critical and most praiseworthy. On the positive side, Robert Sheehan as Klaus was really fun to watch. Though some of the clichéd situations were there, Sheehan was a joy to watch with the material he was given, and some of the odder moments the character had, he played that well (the first time he is tied up is funny). I also thoroughly enjoyed Mary J. Blige as Cha-Cha. She could have played that as a straight soldier, but there is a subtlety in some of her looks, a physical stutter here and there which really adds to the character. I also liked the way Emmy Raver-Lampman as Allison did with what little she had to work with. On the other end...oh how I thought that John Magaro as Leonard was bad. He was stale and it felt like his lines were forced. And then there is Elliot Page. Watching him (as he is now correctly identified) was like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard. And I say that as a fan of his from Hard Candy, Juno, and Inception (I even liked him in Whip It).
Special Effects
This section is here only because it is a superhero show. This is not X-men or the Marvel Universe, or Lord of the Rings, or any of those movies. This is more akin to the aforementioned Heroes, The 4400, The Watchmen (2019) and to a lesser extent Fringe. Special effects are not needed as a major part of the show, yet are present. If they had been done poorly, it would be noticed. But they are not, so it is unimportant.
Conclusion
While there is tremendous potential, the good does not make up for the bad. This is a show that is filled with clichés in both dialogue and plot. The idealistic realization that was supposed to arrive for the climax was obvious as late as episode 3. I almost stopped watching after episode 7, then episode 8, but told myself that I should watch it through to see if there were any surprised. One small surprise, but it was part of a side plot and nothing that made me go "Wow!" I will not watch seasons 2 or 3, or any further beyond that if they continue. Another way of saying this is that it was a bad Percy Jackson movie when it had the potential to one of the standouts in the Marvel Universe.
Recommendations and warnings: As I always do...I recommend skipping it (though I'm very temped to say watch it for Robert Sheehan and Mary J. Blidge only). For parents, there is drug use, both actual and inferred. And one scene of bondage and a couple references to that bondage - it is not 50 Shades of Gray, but it is not subtle, so I would say 16 and over.
Rating this a 4. But that is for season 1 only. Appearantly subsequent seasons are better, but I'm not interest enough to find out.
In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)
We've seen this before...
How many movies have we seen where family members of similar age have a similar or the same career where one struggles and the other succeeds? The list of movies like that is going to be very long, and the protagonist is usually the one who struggles, because drama. The struggle could be infidelity, or death of a spouse/child, drug use and abuse, or some kind of unhealthy obsession. This latter part is what we see often in police dramas. And with this movie, it is no different.
Now, this does not mean it can't be a good movie. This could be The Godfather, The King's Speech, The Lion King, Rachel's Getting Married, and for a more humorous take, Ferris Buhler's Day Off (to name just a few). Unfortunately, In the Shadow of the Moon (forth called Shadow) is not any of those. As you will know from the trailers and perhaps some reviews on some list somewhere, the basic plot is trying to find a killer who appears on one day every 9 years. Okay, sure, but...?
The 9 years part is explained, but only briefly. As a scifi movie, I was left wanting more of a dive into that aspect. There is a second aspect to this 9 year event which I won't spoil, but it also was not explored more and also left me wanting more. The tricky part of Shadow, really, is that it takes the main character, Locke (played by Boyd Holbrook), and advances him to that single day on the 9 year period. The changes are mostly visual to the character (think beard growth), but it really was not enough. There should have been an accompanying change in color or blatant style, or language usage. Unfortunately, it mostly focused on the continual fall into the obsession. I say this because at one point, Locke's daughter (Amy, played by Sarah Dugdale) appears and her look is quite jarring and is a very clear signal time has emotionally changed both of them. The one scene when he picks her up from school and drives her "home" is the best in the movie. But even then...
I started watching this over dinner, as I often do streaming movies. But quite quickly found myself distracted by other things (such as skimming the news). I also paused the movie a few times when I got distracted by something I read. But I did finish the movie. It kept poking at a potential grandness, and the score was appropriately dramatic (and probably better than the movie, itself). But at the end of the day, Shadow finished with an all too typical set of clichés which didn't really make sense, and didn't appropriately tie up the movie.
If you watch it, do so for Sarah Dugdale. I found her the best part of the movie. But I don't recommend wasting your time. Watch something else.
I'm giving it a 5, because it wasn't terrible. As a warning to parents, there is some grotesque blood/death scenes. Not horror in nature, but might be too much for the U13 crowd.
Ted Lasso (2020)
Big Whoop.
Have you seen Major League? You'll recognize the familiarity: a woman owner trying to destroy the team, a manger brought in to try and get the best out a rag tag bunch, the old veteran and the young up and comer, and that happy-go-lucky player. And if you know English football (soccer) going back a decade or two, you'll know Roy Kent - it's not subtle.
But beyond that, this is a show full of almost clichés that are just far enough away to not be clichés (Sam and witchcraft are excellent) and clichéd moments which become hilarious (wait until episode 8 and the Diamond Dogs). But all of that said, if you are not sure, you must change that tune. Ted Lasso is absolutely brilliant.
I won't bring the backstory of Ted Lasso, but you probably know of it, if not know it's entirety. The embarrassing and uncomfortable parts are there, particularly the press conference in episode 1. But beyond that, and some other building parts in episode 2, Ted Lasso, the character, is not a clown, he is an earnest person who knows just enough to understand what he has gotten himself into, and how to handle it. Played brilliantly by Jason Sudeikis, he is written with a folksy charm that references Aristotle, Gershwin, and Allen Iverson. And his speech at the end of the darts game in that episode 8 encapsulates exactly what we thought of him, and who we have come to know him to be. And it makes me smile every time I watch it.
Of course, Ted Lasso is not the only wonderful character. Rebecca Welton (played by Hannah Waddingham) is also...marvelous (I almost used "brilliant" again). The way her character develops and how she plays it is warm and endearing. Coach Beard (Brendan Hunt) is a great paring to Ted Lasso, and the way Nathan (Nick Mohammed)...and everybody else grows is such a joy to watch. I heard a review that said this was a show about heart, and it couldn't be more right.
And you will be laughing hilariously along the way.
The only quibbles I have are a bit pedantic and more noticeable if you know English football. I won't get into them as they don't matter much, but for something that is so well written, it matters to me and knocks it down half a point - from a 10 to 9.5. Big whoop.
Finally, as always in my recommendation...while there is no sex or violence, there is a fair amount of profanity (again, if you know the Roy Kent reference, you'll know why). But the profanity is not brutal and is somewhat playful. So, anybody under 14 (or not in high school) this might be due for a second thought. Otherwise, make time, you will be glad you did.
(And as a side note, reading some of the bad reviews. Yes this is a show directed at Yanks, but even as a bit of an Anglophile, I still found it wonderful.)
Another Earth (2011)
A Quiet and Soulful Journey That Does not Drag.
I came across the movie on a list of SciFi movies "you haven't seen." The premise seemed interesting, so I took the dive...and am not disappointed.
So, as I have seen this come up on a couple of different SciFi lists since, this is more the "Contact" version of SciFi than "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Interstellar," yet it is as philosophical as those. So, apart from most of the science part of the movie, it is really worthwhile, especially at only 92 minutes. And as others have pointed out, this is more a movie on philosophy than scifi.
For those who are familiar with Contact, the basic premise is the same: would you go if you could? In this case it is to Earth 2 (literally, that is the name). The question is why go? What is the reason for wanting to go in the first place? What is the risk v reward? There are brief moments in this movie which guide us along the philosophical path it wants us to, and they are nicely placed, nothing thrown in our face. In fact, the one moment in the movie which is an expected cliché turns out not to be such a clean cliché, and might not be one at all (you'll know when you get there). (Okay, now that I think about it, there was second cliché, but it falls within the same parameters.)
Ultimately, this movie works on three fronts. First is the plot. It is age-old question of would you change things if you could (or some approximation of that)? The question is never that far away from each scene, and never comfortably answered, as it should be. We know that there will be some reconciliation (it is convention), but how will it occur? It takes a while, and takes some time to get out, and when it happens, it is nicely done because of other events that took place along the way.
The second way this movie works is through the writing. There are no high minded conversations, no long scenes of deep philosophical discussions in a bar or restaurant or montage. But "conversations" are there, from looking at the sky, or the mundane conversations at work, to the moments watching the TV. And here, it matters in a subtle way of who says what, or what they don't say. No grand speeches. Just a nice, gentle movement forward.
The third way was the camera work. This movie is a personal narrative, our protagonist looking within to answer the question(s) she is asking herself. So the camera work is not smooth, and even slightly grainy by design, which adds a great tone to the lack of clarity that the two main characters have in their lives. There is also a switching from the close up to the full body, which is quite complimentary. It is one of those things which is so very obvious, yet is not distracting (and I only realized it was done on reflection).
(An addition note on the camera work: It was clear the camera person was attempting to film Brit Marling with respect. There were a couple of quick camera adjustments which didn't take away from the movie, but were there if looking for it. Kudos.)
With all of that said, the main actor, Brit Marling (as Rhoda Williams), was really fun to watch. Her stoic facial expressions and tentativeness brought a soul to the character which could easily have been lacking. I will certainly be looking for her elsewhere.
One final note. Ignore the physics. Had this been accurate in that way, nobody would be living as the two planets would have destroyed each other. This is even apart from where the heck the other planet came from in the first place? But this movie is not about that, it's a quiet and soulful journey that does not drag.
My score of 7 is accurate (none of my adjustments). I would have given it an 8, but the huge issues with the science are a bit problematic. There is also a plot point that is unexplained as well.
This is a recommended watch, but more for a slower Sunday afternoon, or a quiet Friday evening with a glass of wine. It is also recommended for everybody (maybe for 12 and up due to pacing/philosophic nature). There is only one sex scene, yet barely even any clothes have come off let alone a long moment of passion. There is also no profanity, and the only bit of violence is a car crash, which is done like the rest of the movie - gently.
Tenet (2020)
Inverted ranking of the "time trilogy"
Christopher Nolan likes his characters to have an experience with time in his original and unique movies. We see that in Memento, The Prestige, and most clearly in Inception and Interstellar. And to a lesser degree, he does this in is other movies as well, such as Insomnia (lack of sleep) and Dunkirk (the silent last flight). So, once again, we see him exploring time in Tenet.
What is obvious from the trailer is that the main characters experience time backwards. This presents a difficulty in storytelling in that the script needs to keep moving forward, yet bring this "inversion" into action. Of course, Nolan is skilled at this, and he does so very well. Then non-linear timelines of the four main characters are not possible as far as the story goes, yet there is not much confusion as to when the characters are in the script Again, this is credit to Nolan, clearly building on his past experiences.
Unfortunately, Nolan tries to do too much with this movie. He has to bring in ideas like "inversion," "time stile," and "temporal pincer movement," ideas which are not laymen's terms, if they've existed previously, and not only explain them, but keep them consistent throughout the movie. Sure, this is possible if not wanting to go into any detail about what could happen to the characters, but Nolan has never been that kind of writer/director. While the consistency is present for the first half the movie, the second half lacks this consistency. Understandably, this could be practically difficult to achieve, but with a director like Nolan and a budget of over $200 mil, this should have occurred.
Additionally, there are other unNolan like gaps in logic and expectations that he wants the audience to accept. As an example, if you have seen Inception, think of the top that Cobb has. He takes the time to explain its meaning. In Tenet, the thing they are after is just a thing, yet he wants it to have some great meaning and power, yet it is hardly explained. (He also gave it a rather ordinary name considering his ability to come up with unique names.)
Of course, it is easy to point out the problems. After watching the movie, it seemed like it was the third of some kind of "time trilogy," the first two being Inception and Interstellar. That being the case, this was by far the worst of the three. But it is still a Nolan movie, and still rather good.
As for the actors...well, I'll be brief. John David Washington as the Protagonist (actual character name) is good but underwhelming more often than not. Robert Pattinson as Neil, the partner, does well and seems to have fun with his role. As does Elizabeth Debicki, the female lead (though in a movie as bold as this, her delicate subtly gets lots from time to time). But the best of them all, probably not unexpectedly, is Kenneth Branaugh as Sator, the antagonist. Watch the movie for him alone, as he outshines everybody. (I also liked the small role that Dimple Kapadia played as Priya.)
Despite all I have written, this movie is definitely watchable, and enjoyable, and just like both Inception and Interstellar, you will have missed something the first viewing. It is also long at two and half hours, and the last 30 minutes are quite intense, so be warned. I'm also reviewing this in the context of the excellence of Inception and Interstellar, both as stories and with actors. The three movies, together, make up what I'm calling his "time trilogy."
I rate this 6.5 (rounded up) out of 10 - This is a Nolan movie, so critiques are based on his own high standards.
There is no sex, and some profanity, and as stated, the last 30 minutes are quite intense. Be warned if watching with kids under 15.
The Post (2017)
Good, but not quite....
A couple of the movies I have rewatched recently, in part because I enjoy them, but in part because they are just so good, have been "All the President's Men" and "Spotlight." I'm sure if you are interested in this movie, you either already have seen the others, or know about them. Thus, I won't get into them, but I will say that with those movies, and knowing that Meryl Streep (Kay Graham), Tom Hanks (Ben Bradlee) and Stephen Spielberg (director) were all involved amounted to high expectations. (Also, it should be noted that Josh Singer was is a credited writer, and he also wrote Spotlight.)
With all of that weight, this should be a good movie. It was, but mostly because of Hanks, as should be expected. It was difficult at first to have Hanks being Ben Brandlee as I have Jason Robards etched into my mind as that character. But such is Hanks ability that he was able to excise that memory, if only for the duration of the movie, and did so superbly. Hanks does an excellent job driving his team forward, not quite unrelentingly, but to put out news and to see that The Washington Post was in the position to become a national paper, not just a city paper.
Meryl Streep also does fine work, but unfortunately is given less to work with. While the time period of this movie is focused around "Graham" taking The Post public (was it really her idea? The movie never really explores that question), as well as printing the Pentagon Papers, she is given material in which she is little more than a socialite as a figure-head of the company. While the obvious sexism is present from as early in the movie as possible, it is written in such a way that she relinquishes almost all decisions until they need to be made, which only occurs in the last 15 minutes or so. Another way to say this is the movie gives us plenty of opportunity to see her make a choice, but she never really indicates that she will until she does. And that is just not human nature. So while she does well being the woman who no male really respects at that company, there is little the script gives her to allow her to change that perception.
That that is where my "not quite" part of the title comes in. Beyond the range Hanks is given with Bradlee, and the fight his reporting team is given (there is a wonderful scene Bob Odenkirk has making a phone call to a source), the overarching topics of what government lying to the public does and as well as the pervasive sexism even to women in power are never deeply explored. In the currently political situation we find ourselves in the US (and other countries), this would be a worthy exploration. Sadly this movie shies away from that exploration, and it lesser for it.
With all that said, this movie does end with a nice nod to "All the President's Men" which I found enjoyable. I am also glad I got to see Hanks play Bradlee, though I continue to think of Robards as Bradlee on screen. I think that is more a testament to the script than it is Hanks.
Overall, this is a good movie and worth watching, but it lacks the drama of the other two mentioned movies. I would give it a 6.5, but will round up. A
The Expanse (2015)
Brilliant - a non book-reading review
Recently I finished watching the first 4 seasons of The Expanse. Prior to watching, all I knew was that it was a very good series, and that production costs got too high for SciFi and Amazon took over (at the personal request of Bazos). That was it. I had not known that it was based on a book/series (and didn't pay attention to the credits) so I watched it think it was unique. This is the context in which I write the review below.
Season 1 - A Detective's Story
From the start, we know that humans have populated the solar system and largely fall into three camps - Earth, Mars, and The Belt (if you know your astronomy, you'll be familiar with Ceres and Eros at the least). If you know your history, an easy comparison could be the Cold War and the US fighting the USSR over Africa.
From the opening few scenes of the first episode, it had the familiar multilinear story which would obviously collide at the end of season one, or maybe further on down the line. The focus was a quirky, off-putting detective (Miller, played by Thomas Jane) on private contract to find a missing person (Julie Mao played by Florence Faivre) on Ceres. The other main half of the story is in space, with a mysterious attack on a private contractor. Here, the other half of the story line takes place with the crew (Holden played by Steven Strait, Alex played by Cas Anvar, Naomi played by Dominique Tipper, and Amos played by Wes Chatham) being the only survivors of the attack. Predictably, they want find out who attacked them.
While the storyline is not all that unique, it is not done in a way that makes the plot all that predictable. For example, it should be obvious that the Belters are a united group, but they are far from united, and have conflicts among themselves (just like Africa). Yet, almost from the start, there is an outside entity influencing the whole storyline in the background at first and becoming more influential as the season progresses, until it becomes the focus. And that is the point, near the end of the season where Miller and Holden collide.
Season 2 - Spaced
Season 2 moves primarily to space, figuring out how to manage this entity. Along the way, the independent colony of Mars and Earth are on course to start a war, with the Belt caught in the middle. Here, former Belters Fred Johnson (played by Chad L. Coleman) and Drummer (played by Cara Gee) make their mark having been introduced in season 1 as managers of a space station construction site, and habitual hiding/parking location for Holden and his crew. Introduced is Bobbie (played by Frankie Adams), a Marian Marine, who gets caught in a foreign and unclear situation, and spends the latter half of the series trying to figure out what to happened and what to do about it.
Throughout the season, the foreign entity plays a significant role indirectly (or not, depending on your viewpoint) causes an increased tension between Earth and Mars. Along the way, relationships change and grow, characters are put in internal conflict, and were season 1 was very much a detective's story, season two is very much a battle in space. There are too many subplots and relevant tangents to discuss, but this is by far my favorite season. Also, episode 5 is the most touching episode of the entire series to date.
Season 3 - The Expanse
The plot complicates and takes a dramatic shift mid-season. Holden and the crew, once hunted by everybody is now a hero, saving an Earth Ambassador and preventing war between Earth and Mars. The foreign entity is now showing a way beyond the solar system, and Holden and crew are sent to figure it out. In typical fashion, there is a film crew, and the documenting brings an uneasy tension to not just Holden, but us as well as we watch people used to being on their own, now being dissected. The question for this season is not just what will happen, will Holden be successful, but what will he do to keep his crew together?
Going in watching this series, as noted above, Amazon stepped in and took over the show. It was my impression that this was after season 3, but there was such as change in the story and it felt like Amazon got their hands on the show starting on episode 7. It was such a dramatic shift, that watching episodes 7 , 8, and 9 were a drag. There were moments, but for the most part it really felt like it dragged. In hindsight, I realized that there were no real "space" problems to solve, only annoying characters causing distractions. Episode 10 rolls around, and things get back to normal. And, of course, Holden and his crew save the day.
Season 4 - Land Ho!
What the hell is this foreign entity? Where did it come from? What happened to it? This season starts off in the new solar system, a place where the Belters can finally try and get away from the control of Earth and Mars...maybe. Of course, the corporate overlords send their mercenaries to control the land (and remove the Belters) and we all know who is going to try and save the day. By this point, though, we know that Holden and Naomi are in a relationship. And Alex has lost his. Finally, it is Amos' turn, and it is very much his type of relationship, direct and almost one he keeps at arm's length. It does add a bit of humor to the seasons.
But season 4 is also much different than the previous seasons. While there had been obvious antagonists, there was a lot of abstractness to "the enemy." In seasons 1 to 3, this foreign entity was the overarching antagonist and something Holden had to figure out how to manage. In season 4, the antagonist is clear and in our faces and human. And this is on top of the continued foreign entity threat.
But life has changed. Mars, the once war-like Mars, where employment was guaranteed (does that not sound like the Soviet Union?) is now looking outward and they are changing. Bobbie is in the middle of this, having been court martialed for her actions at the end of season 3, and struggles with her survival, use of her skills, and trying to determine what is right and wrong. In her track, there is a thread which has been building all season, and it is clear that it will be a focus of season 5 after Holden cleans up the mess on season 4.
And then the pandemic stopped everything...
Overall, The Expanse is brilliant. It is mystery, sci-fi, action, and some romance thrown in, with multiple multi-episode plot lines. The individual episode plots seem to clear, but are usually not, and the sci-fi behind them allow for many twists. The writing, the special effects, and particularly the music are all excellent. There are a plethora of minor characters which add to the show. In particular Jared Harris, David Strathairn, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Lyndie Greenwood all have smaller rolls, but are very worthwhile parts.
I also would be amiss if I did not recommend some particular episodes. In no order, season 1.9, season 2.5, season 2.11, season 2.12, season 3.4
And for those of you with kids, there is some nudity, though nothing frontal, some sex scenes, and a fair amount of profanity, all throughout. There are moments of underwhelming or overacting, and those moments stand out because of how great the series is. But it is highly, highly recommended.
Miss Bala (2011)
Unsettling yet satisfying
I've been on a kick lately, on and off, of watching female action/revenge movies. So I happened on Miss Bala, the US movie not realizing that there was an earlier version. As I do, I tend to watch the original if I don't really know much about either. Thus, I found this version, the Mexican origional, and am glad I did.
For those who know about the drug trade in Mexico and some of the recent history, this movie no doubt drew inspiration from the arrest of Laura Zuniga (both in appearance and age). With that said, it is not the story Laura and is the story of the writers. And what a wonderful tale it is.
Without giving away much at all of the plot, we know that Laura Guerrero (Stephanie Sigman) is poor, but aspires to be a beauty queen. But unlike her friend, Azucena 'Suzu' Ramos (Lakshmi Picazo), Laura is more introverted. And the movie plays with that. Shots linger on her as she determines her wants, her needs, her next move. We feel the hesitations made while the next decision is processed and then decided upon, often not the right one. But what is the right one? In most cases, there is no better decision, just one that is less worse, but the less worse now could have longer, deeper implications. And we know she will be used as she is constantly surrounded by men of violence so no decision she makes could ever have a good result.
And my oh my how Sigman is able to use those moments. Gerardo Naranjo (the director) does a wonderful job of letting Sigman show the stress and trauma and PTSD as it effects somebody more introverted. It is lingering moments before she gets in a car, or before she changes her clothes, or while she is taking instructions. Naranjo also does a wonderful job of showing how somebody with those character traits does not need a backstory or justification, she just does what she thinks is best, being used in some way by everybody. But Naranjo also does a wonderful job of picking the shots, the framing, the color (or lack) of the shots. It is subtle, but so every present. But, as a slight spoiler, he does a wonderful job of not having her rapped as we expect she will be, early and often. Only this salacious temptation is not given into.
And the writing credit must also be recognized. Laura (Sigman), being introverted and traumatized, has a lack of words. Most of the narration is done by others talking to each other, or others giving her directions. And the story is clear, we know the characters without Laura telling us who they are. And we know the direction.
There is, of course, issues with the story. How could she be so naïve? Where did she get that passport? But while those issues are really important for deciding who wins at Canes, I felt it was not much of a detractor. And while I came into this movie expecting some kind of revenge or retribution (the memory of Laura Zuniga was triggered only after watching the ending), I was not disappointed. Yes, there is violence, but it is all around her, threatening her, punching holes in walls or seats or breaking windows, and never from her. It is as if she is the cause, just because she is there.
This movie is greatly recommended. There is quite a bit of violence, some slight nudity, and one non-graphic sex scene, so it is not for kids, or those under maybe 16/17. But if you don't like foreign films, or are not in the mood to read subtitles, just watch it so see Stephanie Sigman act.
8 out of 10
Fast Color (2018)
Fun, but does not live up to potential
Several years ago, I somehow got pointed to the movie Belle and really enjoyed both the movie and the star whom I didn't know but thought I recognized, Gugu Mbatha-Raw. I decided to keep an eye out to see what she did. Subsequently, I watched Jupiter Ascending, Miss Sloane, and Beyond the Lights. The results were mixed, and when looking at her resume, I realized I had seen her on Spooks.
Why am I writing about Mbatha-Raw? She is the focus of Fast Colour, a movie that looked to have great potential. I was unfamiliar with it but found it on best-of list and along with Mbatha-Raw staring decided to give it a look. I am not disappointed to have watched it, but I was underwhelmed by the movie itself and with Mbatha-Raw herself. As I look at her roles, I realized that the ones which were best (from what I have seen) are where she plays a person who is a focus of all, but one which others have control of her life. In particular, I think her performance in Beyond the Lights is really underrated. But I also noticed that she has great ability to play the roles where she gets to do tears-of-strength. In Fast Colour, she is fighting to gain control, but she has nobody to play off in that regard but herself, and thus does not live up to her better performances (though she is far superior to her performance in Jupiter Ascending). There are no tears-of-strength.
This is not to say she is poor. Her performance has moments of where she is wonderful and she really does tenderness well, especially with her eyes, and has a couple of moments to show that skill off in this movie. Sadly, it is not enough. But she is not the only disappointment. Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black, Selma, The Wire) also does not live up, in general. In fairness to her, though, it was more the script than her acting. And that can be true of much of the movie - the real disappointment was the script. Even the well experienced David Statherian was not given much.
And that is where the real disappointment lies - the script. We are not given an explanation of the setting, just what it is. We are not given an explanation of why Ruth (Mbatha-Raw) is on the run, or how it was known she should be followed. This government "bad guy" is, well, disappointing. And there are a few strange decisions the characters make which don't make sense.
All that said, I'm being highly critical because of the high hopes, yet I watched the movie through and did enjoy it. The concept was fun and there was some inventiveness with it. There are nice moments in the movie as well, but most of them involving softer and more tender moments. I do think the conclusion could have been far more dramatic, but perhaps I am being overly critical.
In the end, this is a family movie (maybe not for kids under 8 or 9), and is an enjoyable watch, particularly while everybody is at home. The IMDB ranking is where I am - a 6. I do recommend this as a watch.
Giri/Haji (2019)
Great mix of Japan and England
Let's get this out of the way - there is both Japanese and English in this series. And it takes place primarily in London and Tokyo. But you may have already known that.
A brief synopsis, if you don't know (and there won't really be any spoilers). There is a murder in London and a Japanese detective (Kenzo Mori), played by Takehiro Hira, is sent to clean things up. Only this is an 8 episode series, so obviously things are not easily cleaned up. There are flash backs along the way which mostly do a good job moving the story along, and brining some clarity. And, of course, things often go sideways.
The series moves through 5 main characters:
Kenzo Mori, played by Takehiro Hira
Yoto Mori, played by Yosuke Kubozuka
Sarah Weitzmann, played by Kelly Macdonald
Rodney Yamaguchi, played by Will Sharpe
Taki Mori, played by Aoi Okuyama
There are plenty of other important character of varying importance and complexity. Jiro, a Yakuza enforcer, is written and played in a very clichéd manner. Donna, the English equivalent, is written and played with far more nuance and depth (and the on character I really wanted to know more about). But over all, there is a very broad mix of characters and a quite complex story as each of the characters is quite different.
Each of the episodes is also quite good, though for me episode 2 left a bit to be desired. There are of course the clichés, such as the plethora of flamboyant young gay males as well as the over-the-top British/English crime boss. But the nuance of Hira and Macdonald, and their relationship tied up around their ethical boundaries, is what really drives the series along. Additionally, Okuyama plays a bit part until episode 3, where as Taki she makes a rash decision which forces Kenzo to be both a detective in a foreign land, but also unexpected need to be a parent.
Largely, I'll not say much more about the story as it will give away plot (as well as talk too much about the characters). But I will say this about the overall story and writing: it plays as if it was written by a foreigner/European/American and not a Japanese. For anybody who knows anything about the Yakuza, they are very subtle, and that subtlety was missing almost entirely. Additionally, the single English crime boss is written as if he is the only crime boss in London. But, again, the story is very complex and I do understand how some corners needed to be rounded.
For me, though, the most enjoyable parts of the series are following Taki and the caution/mischief she gets into, knowing that she will get herself into danger eventually. I also enjoyed the intro to each episodes (obviously missing from the episode 1), and enjoyed the interpretation of end of the climax. I also enjoyed the conversation Taki has with her father in a police station. But on a disappointment, the ending was very clichéd and wrapped up too neatly. There were continuing threads which were left untouched with detrimental outcomes to the some of the characters, and they were unjustly ignored.
Still, this is really worth a watch. There is quite a bit of violence, some drug use, and some sex/nudity, so it is not for the kiddos. It is also binge-worthy. Take a weekend, or even a Sunday, and watch it all.
Anna (2019)
Le Femme Anna
I've been on a femme fetal kick lately, so this was an obvious choice. I really enjoy the woman who kicks ass and takes no names. Atomic Blonde has been a recent multiple times rewatch, Charlize Theron playing a great action hero/spy. Columbiana was also a recent watch, though slightly disappointing and filled with the suspension of disbelief even beyond the great femmes in this category (and the men are not all the better). It is the grit, the rawness, but also the tenderness which I enjoy in these movies, and always have. From Hanna (the Amazon series), which is lacking and Person of Interest (with Shaw, easily a potential stand-alone), to Leon: The Professional, and what I consider the original of this category, La Femme Nikita (the original, not the unfortunate remake staring Bridget Fonda).*
Admittedly, I was preparing dinner as I started watching Anna, and had captions turned off. There is quite a bit of Russian, though as I watched it was very obvious the thread from Nikita to Leon to the Fifth Element which made me think it was either a Luc Besson movie, or a very good mimic. If you are familiar with Besson movies, the captions are unnecessary.
As for the movie itself, it is fun. Between the spying and action, the movie felt like it was somewhere between an Ian Flemming novel and a John Le Carre novel. There are plenty of twists and turns, but if you are familiar with these types of movies, they are not unexpected and the question is where they will show up. Some were even quite obvious. Still, I did not go into this movie like I did with Red Sparrow, and was not let down by some of the leaps of faith in the story. I also was not expecting Atomic Blonde, and was pleasantly surprised over all. The early fight scene in Anna in the restaurant, though, measures up with the apartment/stairwell fight scene in Atomic Blonde. Not as good to be sure, but still quite inventive if not quite as cohesive. It is enjoyable nonetheless.
But this movie really works with the supporting cast of Helen Mirren, Luke Evens and Cillian Murphy, all far more experienced actors than Sasha Luss (Anna). Helen Mirren, of course, is the star playing her part of Anna's handler (Olga) with the excellence we expect of her (though not given enough to be a star). Luke Evans, the Russian (Alex Tchenkov), and Cillian Murphy, the American (Lenny Miller), also hold up their end, with Evans being given more to work with, and doing fairly well with it.
All told, this movie is fun and should be taken as serious as The Fifth Element. There are enough twists and thought out moments (I enjoyed that final sit down scene) that anything which is missing (and there is a fair amount) is forgiven.
I also must applaud Bessen from avoiding over sexualizing Luss and providing only a brief, silhouetted bare breast. There are a few sex scenes, but the nudity is almost totally absent and had it been there, would have been a distraction.
My rating is a 7 based on expectations from the genre and the trailer. It is not an Oscar winning movie, nor is it crap. I recommend for a Friday evening without the kids, with takeout chilling on the couch.
* - The martial arts movies of East Asia were deliberately left out.
Revenge (2017)
Fun, but lots of suspension of disbelief (spoiler part noted)
When reading the review, I will critique the movie will be mostly based on the trailer, except for the bit near the end ...
Based on the trailer, I was expecting this movie to be in English. It was not, mostly. A bit of a surprise at the start, but did not detract. Yet did make it a bit weird in terms of plots/characters.
So it is clear that we have a wealthy individual and his lover going to some house in the dessert. As someone who has lived in that part of the US...um. What? A house like that waaaay out there? And I mean waaaaay out there. No, not really.
And then these two guys show up. In the middle of the desert. At this house. When the lover is there. Really?! Okay, we know the purpose is to set up the rape scene, and based on the trailer, this is presumably moment all hell starts to break lose. Not quite, but more or less, that is the case.
The then Matilda Lutz is pushed off a clif onto a spike which in any Bond movie would have killed the villain. But this is where suspension of disbelief really begins. We know she survives. We know she heals herself, and we know she becomes this barefoot badass.
Now, please, when watching the trailer I assumed there would be some explanation for ability to "hunt." But there could be no explanation for being barefoot in the dessert. And what the hell was that about her somehow getting off that tree? Yeah, just a bit too much.
Getting away from the trailer, the movie was rather fun. Great visuals, use of color and the vastness of the dessert. And while the movie is not greatly acted or written, there are moments and scenes which are great. I for all I said above, I really did enjoy this movie.
{spoiler, sort of}
The one part which I disliked the most was the ending. All that blood and chasing around was stupid and one dimensional (even for those characters) and ended, well, without satisfaction. Perhaps that was intended, and that revenge in real life is not really satisfying. But there was so much suspension of disbelief, that it needed to carry on. The movie really should have let us have that feel-good moment rather than how it actually ended.
{/spoiler}
Atomic Blonde (2017)
Bond meets Borne with a better soundtrack, too.
Saw this about a week ago and wanted to let it sit for a bit before writing this review. The reasoning is that this is not the typical James Bond movie, or even Jason Borne. Nor is this a Jon le Carre capture, either. The difference? The kick ass spy is female. But you already knew that
Before watching, I had seen a trailer and a clip, and the combination seemed like it would be a 120 minute 80s music video, with car chases, fights, and, yes, a little lesbian action. And, yes, this movie provided all that, but those few words are too simplistic. To give an idea of what to expect, almost the first scene we have Theron (Lorraine Broughton) emerging from an ice water bathtub. My first thought was "Would this be done to a male?" But then, as the scene progressed, Theron is seen to be beat up, and she downs a shot of alcohol, and the visual is about the unfolding brutality show on her body. Along with the lighting, and Theron's acting, it is obvious that something f***ed up happened. At this point, we should remember that Theron has been in movies that range from Mad Max: Fury Road to Sweet November to The Italian Job (2003) to North Country. And Monster, of course, which won her an Academy for best Actress. This movie is all Theron.
From the first moments, we learn this is Berlin in 1989, as the Wall is about to fall (The chaos of those few months are captured in the 10 day time span of the movie). But it is 1980s, and throughout there is a great soundtrack (caught myself singing out loud a couple of times), even if it does not directly match up with the time frame (as a reviewer reminded, Eastern Europe tended to be several years behind in music, style, etc.). There are even a couple of songs in both German and English. And man, is Theron dresses impeccably.
One thing that I liked throughout the movie is the way the fights are choreographed. They are dirty, messy, and anything within reach can be used as a weapon. Think the use of the pen in Borne Identity fight scene in the Paris flat. Yet, in this movie, there are far more. Heels, lamps, corkscrews, just to name a few.
The fighting, though, is a bit cartoonish, a bit over the top. So much so, that the director, David Leitch, seemed to making fun of this genre and how ridiculous some of the fight scenes could be. Think of the ridiculous fight/chase scene at the beginning of Casino Royal (2006). In the theater I was in, some of us even laughed at a couple of the over-the-top moments. But it was not Kill Bill over the top, just enough to be playful, yet not lose the overall Female- kicks-ass vision.
The final 45 minutes pull back on some of that over-the-top aspect, and there is a bit of tenderness. The salacious lesbianism that was provided in the previews is rather more restrained and tender in the actual movie, and there is nothing made of that fact that there are two women in bed rather than a woman and a man. And there is a turn from the blunt force of the fight to a more subtleness of asking of what was said was truth in line with the fighting, or misdirection in line with the spying.
The fighting, too, is also somewhat restrained, not as comical, though the brutalness keeps going, Theron keeps getting beat more and more. It is that cross between suspension-of-disbelief and will-she-ever-die? But we ask, will she?
As for the acting, there is an admirable cast other than Theron, but only Jon Goodman (Emmit Kurtzfeld) is up the same level. Much was made of Sofia Boutella (Delphine Lasalle, lover) being in the movie, but I found her inconsistent, and James McAvoy (David Percival) seemed like he was trying too hard (which is a shame as I really liked him in Trance).
Still, this is a good movie, and if not seen in the theater, it is a must rent – though it has brutal/violent (not gory) fight scenes, so parents be warned - the movie rated R for a reason. With that note, though, there is going to be one fight scene, known as "Stairs Fight," which will go down as one of the best fight scenes in movies. I thought it was a mildly off when first watching, then I learned that Theron did all her action (and really did get beat up during the movie) so it may have been just a single take (as it was a single shot) – and the scene really starts a few minutes earlier in the flat she exits. It is brutal, and it looks like it really hurt, and she gets up anyway.
Bølgen (2015)
A Better Than Average Disaster Movie
The premise, obviously set up in the first few minutes of the movie, is that a wave could (and will) destroy a town in Norway on fairly short notice and kill many. Obviously it will be about predicting the when the wave occurs and getting out in time.
So far, it is a clichéd movie set up, all be it, based on a real possibility.
Beyond the initial set up, I expected this to be different than many other significant disaster movies, particular because it was not a US or British movie. Sadly, it is not. The typical events that happen in movies like Day After Tomorrow or 2012 (or any number of war movies as well) is present. There is even so much a similarity as a traffic jam when escaping the disaster similar to Dante's Peak. And, of course, we have the scientist who is slightly out there, but obviously reads all the signals correctly before they happen.
Cliché.
I had hoped for something better, perhaps along the lines of Deep Impact, maybe even Titanic. Certainly I did not think it could be compared to any of the classic disaster movies such as The Poseidon Adventure or Towering Inferno, or even more modern movies such as Children of Men, but I had hope it would not be completely clichéd. Sadly, I was wrong.
Granted, there are many smaller bits of the movie that are worth watching, such as most of the interactions between Kristoffer Joner (Kristian, the father/scientist) and Edith Haagenrud-Sande (his young daughter). And Ane Dahl Torp (wife) really stole every scene she was in throughout the movie. But apart from those notable parts, the movie is very predictable. I even sped through the last few minutes as it was typical Hollywood and lasted too long. Disappointing.
But, do not put it on your ignore list. I do recommend watching it, mostly for Ane Dahl Torp, but some of the cinematography is stunning as well.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Justice to the original Road Warrior, in part
The original Road Warrior, Mad Max Part 2, is well known in movie circles, but I am still amazed at how many people do not know of its existence let alone having seen it. The first movie of the series is even less well known, but it is also a better story. Beyond Thunderdome is an average conclusion to the Mel Gibson trilogy of Mad Max, and rightly ended as an attempt at making money. Yet, such is the cultishness of the trilogy, that this new version, Fury Road, was made both for those of us who know the original, and for those that have no experience.
The original Road Warrior was so good because it took all car chases, make them bigger, put a purpose to them, and centered the movie around them. There was real plot involved, too, though nothing like the movie Gibson later directed for his Oscar. The post-Apocalyptic setting of the Road Warrior was also unique, and it all combined to make a wonderful movie that probably is slightly above the level of cult classic. It was never even in any awards discussion, and Fury Road is also like that, but both are very entertaining (the two movies were meant for action, not drama), though Fury Road is more action driven and has a lesser plot when compared to Road Warrior.
Why Miller decided to remake the movie Is a mystery, though money is probably a motivator. That said, he had a lot to live up to. And he mostly succeeded. The major sticking point in this movie would be the ability to match the car chases which were both outlandish and interesting in the Road Warrior. As in the original, they were over the top, but not in a way that was cartoonish. And the uniqueness of the cars was quite good, too, with very little mimicry in the remake. (Though that giant, driving guitar speaker was stupid.) And along the way, there were quite a few small homages to the original series which were clearly meant for fans of the original.
Performance wise, it really amounted to Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, and a group of models. My first introduction to Hardy was with Inception, and since then he has quite a few good roles (in another review, I espoused his performance in The Drop). Here, like Gibson in the Road Warrior, the script is not dynamic, but he takes what he was given and runs with it. Like Gibson in the Road Warrior, Hardy plays the role with the same persona and with the same presence. This time, though, Max has a co-star, this being the well-known Charlize Theron. It has been interesting to see her change from the pretty girl roles to ones with more grit. This certainly is that, and anybody who has really paid attention to her career would probably not be surprised to see her with a sheered head for this role. And just like Hardy's part, she needed to have a similar persona and presence, to which she does well. The two really do well playing off each other given the script's limitations.
Juxtaposed to that grit is the quintuplet of models that is supposed to make up this feminist version of the Road Warrior. While none of them are as dynamic in screen persona as Hardy or Theron, they each do well on their own, and as a group, and none of them are really out of place. They also each have a grittiness that grows as the movie progresses that is a nice counter to their typical model life. Credit to this last bit must go to Miller who was able to make these models both visually beautiful and dirty.
Overall, this is a good movie, and exciting, though far from Oscar worthy. I do recommend watching the original trilogy first, but it is hardly necessary. Though the movie is R rated, none of the violence is graphic, there is only a single profane word, and no nudity just to have a naked body (there is some, but it is purposed and not graphic). I would even be comfortable considering this as a PG13 movie, though I understand why it was rated R.
Recommended, probably not late at night as the energy level is quite high. And if watching with kids, probably a good idea to let them do something afterwards. Also, this movie is for fun, not seriousness.
A Perfect Vacation (2015)
So bad, yet I still waned to keep watching...
What a bad movie. Bad plot, bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing
just bad. Except for Daryl Hannah.
But this movie is one of those movies that is bad, but good. This is one of those movies that can't be taken seriously, yet is interesting enough keep watching. It has all the clichéd moments and plot lines, yet is just far enough away from cliché to be worth watching. There is no nudity, the bathing scene is, in context of other movies of the genre, humorous rather than sexy. There were a couple of moments of Commando, but then Vinnie Jones reappeared on screen and I couldn't take the movie that seriously (and I tend to have a fondness for Vinnie Jones movies for some reason).
Overall, this is one of those movies where details are almost completely unimportant, and evidenced by my texting throughout, and not feeling like I missed anything. Of course, as a fan of the Lost series, I did see a few similarities. And like that show, there were a few major story questions that went unanswered. But they did not take away from the overall entertainment. And as previously mentioned, the entertainment was provided by the just-off-cliché moments and plot twists (though one was clichéd).
This is one of those movies that could be a hidden b-movie extravaganza. It has the cast, and the heroine, Natalie Burn, appears to be on the rise. If you really have nothing better to watch on a Saturday afternoon, this is the movie. But really, wait until Ms. Burn becomes well known to watch it.
(btw - the rating I gave is for execution of apparent intent. Compared to much more serious-intent movies, and this is more of a 3 star.)
Beyond the Lights (2014)
A love story on the surface
First, let's get this right – very few of use writing reviews really know what it's like when the stars are off stage. We can take any number of movies or TV shows/episodes or magazine articles or books and try and extrapolate, but we don't really know. Anything we watch, like this movie, is still truncated fantasy. So I will not speak of how realistic this movie is about being off stage.
Ultimately, this movie is a love story, and for those of you who have seen Begin Again, there will be some familiarities, even down to some of the movements and looks from Kiera Knightly mimicked by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. But, this is a different, more complex story, and comparisons are certainly unjust. Within this movie, there are issues of sexual expression and exploitation in the entertainment industry. There are issues of domestic violence (two aspects), interracial relationships (two), parent-child relationships (two), the inability to hide from fame (different aspects), and, of course, the drama surrounding two people entering a relationship. (This is another issue not mentioned here that is a major theme/component to the movie, but not in IMDb description. It is probably mentioned in other reviews, but this is a non-spoiler review.)
With so many different aspects, not to mention that Nate Parker plays a Black police officer in the LAPD, it is difficult to deal with any one in any depth. But Gina Prince-Bythewood does quite well at addressing them (though I wish she would have delved into the race issues more) with a bit more than surface tension. None of them do get the depth they deserve, but this happens with stories that try to address different issues. Whatever the critique, none of the issues disrupt the story, and with one or two exceptions, are not really overly dramatized.
As for the performances, we must pay attention to Gugu Mbatha-Raw. As she did in Belle, with a quality cast, here she performs with excellence, most notably playing many scenes with Minnie Driver. Her performance had depth that feels natural in its entirety, in a way that her co-star, Nate Parker (also good), was not quite as natural. Minnie Driver is who she is, and when she is damning, she is a force. Here she is somewhat restrained by the role, but when she released, she is lets fly, both subtly and with force. The other major actor is Danny Glover, who has been able to find his place with supporting actor roles as he ages. And here, he does very well, at times, seeming to push Nate Parker along.
While I would have liked this movie to delve into the exploitation aspect, and even do some examination of the race issue in music, particularly Black, female performers, there were lots of in- betweens and unspokens mixed with movements and expressions, mostly by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, that lets us know that any greater exploration of these (or others mentioned above) would take this movie close to the 3 hour mark. As is, at nearly 2 hours, it flowed well that it didn't seem like 2 hours. And even though the love story aspect is filled with clichés, those clichés are mixed with in with other, more complex aspects. Even the most glaring cliché for me – the road trip – was obvious in many, many ways, the craft of the direction and craft acting made it easy to forgive, and easy to forgive all the other love story clichés.
Recommended, mostly for a quiet evening. If one has kids, especially young or middle teens, this is worth watching with them and having discussions about exploitation of females (not just in visual entertainment, as this movie does show).
One final note that will be missed by most – sorry people – White reviewers, is the issue with Black females and self-identity. There are several moments in this film that address it, and as a White reviewer, I can only speak of it because I work in a predominantly Black community and discuss such issues. But, again, as it was there and easily missed speaks to the craft of the movie. More power to Misses Prince-Bythewood and Mbatha-Raw.
The Drop (2014)
Excellently Craft and Performance
The Drop is one of those movies that slowly builds though "could happen" events and occasional reveals. In this way, it felt quite a bit like Eastern Promises, and as good as Viggo Moretnsen is in that movie, Tom Hardy is just as good here. This movie, as may be known, was James Gandolfini's last role, and much like most of what he did, it is excellent. It was refreshing to see Noomi Rapace in a quality performance having moved beyond the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo trilogy (Swedish version). Rounding out the primary characters is Matthias Schoenaerts, the weakest of the four, but that seems to be as much to the script as both the character and the actor morph as the movie goes along.
With Gandolfini in this movie, and it taking place in New York City (Brooklyn), there is no doubt that this is a mafia/gangster movie. But this is not the Sopranos-type of movie. The characters are people more in the middle, having to deal with lives in middle, and all the baggage that comes from being in the middle. Each of the characters has their own back story, each revealed in a natural way such as one reveals upon meeting a new friend or partner. Beneath all of the reveals, each being important to both the characters and the story, there are clearly things left unsaid that "could be." Clearly, the thinking is that we know this is a gangster movie and we assume that something dramatic will occur, and the writer, Dennis Lehane, plays with that which keeps the story interesting.
There is a single event that is contrived (it is obvious when watching the movie) but it is necessary and does not detract from the overall. Much could be said here about character personalities, but I think that would be giving away too much of the development of the story (even though other reviewers have done so). And the conclusion, the final lines spoken, are the true reveal, and, spoken almost as an afterthought, make most of the preceding events clear.
And Tom Hardy is fantastic.
As a story, this is not one to miss. Highly recommended, and I might add it to my collection.
Finally, though this movie is rated R, the violence is not overtly graphic, the language is not excessive, it could easily pass for a strong PG13 rating, and most high schoolers could handle this.
Fury (2014)
The Fury of Brad Pitt
This is a typical Hollywood movie, with a clichéd script. No need for spoilers here, the end is typical, unsurprising, and a bit overly dramatic. But that does not mean it is a bad movie, and it is worth watching for Brad Pitt, alone.
The movie itself does have some character depth, and Shia LeBeouf does a quality job (though the script does have him make a significant character jump), Brad Pitt is the star. And he should be. This is his type of movie, the type he seems to do better in. Brad Pitt's character, Don Collier, is a bit darker, more philosophical, and is similar to what he played in Legend of the Falls, Se7en, The Assassination of Jessie James by the Coward Robert Ford, and even Troy. They are all darker characters, different from the Oceans series or even World War Z, and in those movies Pitt is in his element. In all of those movies, there are many scenes in which he speaks with stoic movement (or lack of) and his eyes. Behind all the pretty-boy comments, when he is given the opportunity to slow down, there is a serious depth that comes across on screen.
As for the movie itself, the basics are that it is about a tank crew in World War II. The battle scenes are high powered, seem to be almost Tarantino-esc, but are quite entertaining. The story moves with a variety of tensions and actions, and does not have very many serious logic gaps. In watching, it almost felt like a darker version of Inglorious Bastards (2009).
This is not a movie that will ever rise to the level of major award winner, but it is also not a movie that should be skipped. Though there are a few graphic war scenes, the violence is not overkill nor grotesque.
Revenge (1990)
Missed and Underrated
I first saw the movie when I was just starting to understand the complexities of the whole storytelling process. Recently, I watched it again, and remembered much of it the same, though not as fondly as time had caused maturity in watching. But, it still was worth the time.
To begin, apart from Kevin Costner and Anthony Quinn, the rest of the cast was quite impressive. This was during Costner's run of quality movies in the last 1980s and early 1990s. His performance certainly doesn't measure up to The Untouchables, No Way Out or Dances With Wolves, but surpasses The Bodyguard and Robin Hood. Quinn is rather dynamic, and plays his part as an understated drug lord and makes every scene he is in interesting. To those established actors, Madeleine Stowe matches quiet well. This was early in her career, and probably the performance that gave her a name. She was sensual, sexy, and sophisticated, and the love scene really are steamy, in no part to the chemistry.
But what makes this movie really interesting is Tony Scott. I've always thought his style was similar to Michael Mann, yet in many aspects better. This movie was done after Top Gun, but was still early in his career. The visuals and framing were superb, and despite some of the critiques of his numerous closeups, to me it felt consistent in the intimacy he was trying to portray. (He seemed to be similar in The Last Boy Scout, though not as effective.)
Apart from Costner and Quinn, and a small appearance by Sally Kirkland (wonderful little scene) and James Gammon, this was fairly early in the careers of many of the important supporting actors. Thus, there is an inevitable weakness that appears on occasion, yet should not detract from the time taken to watch this movie.
Recommend to watch in a darker room (no/low lights) due to the dark hues Tony Scott uses on his cameras.
Blackhat (2015)
Good but...
One thing we can all expect of Michael Mann films is the cinematography. Further, we can also expect a big story line that requires big actors. Finally, we can usually expect the cinematography to provide the "feeling" of the film.
As an example, with "Last of the Mohicans," he gave the feeling that one of the dangers in the film was nature, itself, and how grand it was (and still is). In "Heat," he provided the feeling of being disillusioned with his profiles (close up and far away - think the "We just got made." scene) and shading. In "Collateral," the movie is much more personal, very much a 1v1, and both Cruise and Fox get plenty of face time, literally.
But, what all those movies also have in common is the antagonist getting notable amount of screen time.
Where is comes to "Blackhat," the first part is definitely the case. From the beginning, and throughout, he provides the feeling of chaos and confusion that computer coding and hacking and programs running seem like they have. If you have ever looked at the source code of any webpage, it can look confusing to the untrained eye. Mann does quite well giving the feeling of chaos that the otherwise boring computer coding really is. He does this by trying to show us how malware/viruses work and propagate deep in a computer (the motherboard) to many scenes of multiple items of varying color (from flowers, to markets, to shipping containers).
***Mild spoiler alert***
But, for how ever excellent Mann is with the camera, he does seem to have a couple of problems in this film. Of the three movies previously, Blackhat differs in that the antagonist does not have significant screen time (Heat, Collateral), or any really dynamic scenes (Mohicans). Rather, the real antagonist is missing and only appears in any significant way towards the end, as if needed to be there for the finale (this being typical Hollywood).
***/mild spoiler alert***
A final critique, one thing about Mann films that the above three movies (Mohicans, Heat, Collateral) had is an excellent and tense climax. This is also the general ability of Mann overall, even in one of the weaker films such as Miami Vice. In the case of Blackhat, the finale is a bit of a let down.
As for the acting, Hemsworth is acceptable, though doesn't seem to quite get the intellectual part of the character right. Davis does not rise to the award winning performance she has previously, but that is due to the script, for which she more than makes up for. Leehom is also credible, though a bit to one dimensional. But the real gem is Wei. Her character has to run the gamete of emotions, and she does it very well, at times being both determined and sensual in the same moment, and breaking down moments later.
For all of the grand stories that Mann tells, this is another, and he does it well. But for all the positives, as a fan of Mann, I found this movie to be far below the three previously mentioned, and would even take "Miami Vice" over this (despite the horrible acting from Ferrell).
This recommendation is to wait for it on video, but watch it with an HD, big screen, not on the computer. But if you do see it, go for Wei. She is dynamic in almost every seen (very much akin to Li Gong from Miami Vice or Ashley Judd in Heat)