3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Wonder Wheel (2017)
9/10
VERY GOOD FILM - ignore the politically trendy critics
8 December 2017
Wonder Wheel is NOT Woody Allen's best film, it is a bit underdeveloped and has a major casting flaw, but it IS his best film in many years. I think his best films overall are Crimes and Misdemeanors, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Interiors.

I am not a big fan of Blue Jasmine or Midnight in Paris, but I do think that both are decent films in some ways. Blue Jasmine was close to being great, but for me that film was histrionic in a way that I found uncaring, cold, heartless and even mocking in the treatment of Cate Blanchett's character Jasmine. Blanchett was wonderful in the role, but the audience was told to laugh AT her and not with her - and that I found to be a serious flaw in that film. To borrow from that film's obvious inspiration, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE - "deliberate cruelty is not forgivable!" - and I think Allen was cruel to his flawed protagonist whether he intended it or not.

In Wonder Wheel, Allen borrows obviously from O'Neil and Tennessee Williams, but puts his own dramatic twists to it. This film has humorous elements, but it is absolutely a drama and in my opinion his best drama in over 20 years.

The film starts off a bit clunky for the first few minutes, but if you give it your attention and get past the awkward Justin Timberlake intro, you will soon be engrossed in the characters, the set-up, and ultimately rewarded with a very honest exploration of DEEP PERSONAL DISAPPOINTMENT, jealousy, self-delusion and evil deception. Sound fun? Amazingly, the tragic lead character is actually very fun to watch, but you do feel sympathy for her despite the fact that she is her own worst enemy and in many ways the enemies of others, too. The character development of Ginny (Kate Winslet) is the best thing about the film. She is one of Woody Allen's most interesting creations in his entire career. She is absolutely a tragic character - NOT the hot mess rip off of Blue Jasmine that many critics are claiming! Ginny is a much richer, more sophisticated character, and Kate Winslet plays her with agonizing honesty. This is one of the top performances in Winslet's entire career, which says a lot. Belushi and Juno Temple are very good, too.

The film's biggest flaw is Justin Timberlake. He's not a bad actor, but he is very miscast here. He lacks the charisma for this particular character, and it doesn't help that his character is presented to the audience with a distracting storytelling device - talking directly to the audience as narrator. This movie would have been much better without that, and I wish Allen would have either made the lifeguard more humorous, or taken a sharper turn and made him more cunning. He was neither - too safely written AND portrayed, and it is the film's most obvious and main flaw, sadly.

However, Kate Winslet is utterly captivating and you cannot take your eyes off her. There are many wonderful moments where she reveals Ginny in such sublime ways, in such subtle ways, that the louder moments have greater impact because really see and feel all sides to this tragic, very sad woman. My favorite scene in the film involved Winslet and Temple in a bedroom, just the two of them. The scene was completely breathtaking - and one of Allen's most superb moments in his career. Winslet takes this scene to a level of brilliance, and I don't think I will ever forget how it made me feel. It was shockingly naked and I felt like I was watching an emotional porno with Ginny baring all to the audience while at the same time concealing all and deceiving the character sitting next to her. An amazing achievement in writing and acting there, highlighted by brilliant cinematography.

Vittorio Storaro deserves tremendous credit for his extraordinary cinematography, particularly in the scene mentioned above. Together, he and Winslet have enriched Allen's latest film to a much higher glory that it would have otherwise achieved. The script is underdeveloped in areas, particularly pertaining to the lifeguard Mickey (Timberlake) and in a few other areas as well. That being said, this is otherwise a very good film, and in some moments it is a brilliant film.

The current wave of sexual politics sweeping over Hollywood at the moment has resulted in Allen being swept up, yet again, in sexual controversy. Based on facts made public long ago, Allen does not belong in that category, in my opinion. I believe him and I do not believe Dylan Farrow or Mia Farrow. I believe Dylan was coerced as a child by her vengeful mother, and as an adult continues to believe the lie that was fed to her. I believe the results of Woody Allen's voluntary polygraph test, I believe the findings of the court that found no evidence of wrong doing on his part, and I believe the timing of Mia Farrow's claim against him make it almost impossible to believe her story. I think her motive to destroy his life and career is obvious.

I also think that in a few years time, after Allen is gone, the slew of critics who have trashed this film so unfairly, with such mob-driven, cowardly political blinders on, will look back with embarrassment when they realize it is a very personal and sophisticated drama and will probably one day be seen as Allen's best late-career film.
227 out of 274 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
SUPERB acting in above average survival drama
27 November 2017
The Mountain Between Us is a very rare kind of film in where it succeeds - versus where it is a bit of a letdown. Also quite rare these days is a film shot in any kind of mountainous wilderness (very little FX here) where the star is not Liam Neeson saving his daughter from ravenous wolves or something stupid. I liked this movie and recommend it for viewers who don't care so much about the current fashion trends of cinema and still care for a slightly old-fashioned kind of storytelling.

What works:

1. The cinematography in this film is excellent. Props to Mandy Walker for executing countless challenging shots that greatly added to the strength of this movie in terms of transporting us to this extreme location. I think that if the film itself were directed by Mandy Walker, it probably would have been a better film overall.

2. Kate Winslet is outstanding and very gripping and committed to the role. She really is the star of her time and a marvelous actress. Idris Elba is also very good in his role, but truthfully it is Kate Winslet who shines, quite surprisingly, in a role that most actors would have failed to elevate the way she elevates it. She is always wonderful and engaging to watch on screen, but I really loved seeing her in the kind of role we have never seen her in before - it's not a very complex character - but she makes Alex interesting to watch, and as the film progresses you truly care about her more and more, and you see that strong as she is, she is very afraid of dying on this mountain. There is one particularly well written and acted scene where Ben asks Alex (a photographer) to take his picture before he dies. She tells a story about a similar situation she experienced professionally, and it's a very good scene and Winslet makes it surprisingly compelling.

3. Idris Elba. He demonstrates in this film that he has what it takes to be a reliable, interesting leading man. I hope he gets more leading roles because he is very naturally masculine (lacking in many leading men these days) and has great talent to boot.

4. Chemistry. Winslet and Elba have very good chemistry. I would love to see them together again a film with an entirely different plot just to see try something new together.

5. The music in this movie is very good, and it helps fight the slow pacing and repetitive moments that hurt the film.

6. The ICE sequence is exciting, VERY REALISTIC, and the scenes leading up to it and following it are the best parts of the movie, where the film really finds its' flow and groove.

What DOES NOT work:

1. The PACING - at times it is good, but the momentum seems to stem entirely from the force of the actors great performances, despite the low energy direction.

2. Hany Abu Assad is a very good director with a great vision as an artist. Here, however, he would have benefited from watching a few American films (no one does movies like this better than Americans) to get an idea for how to combine his vision of a survival story with some techniques that help pick up the pacing.

3. Energy - the movie lacks energy once it starts getting overwhelmed near the end (which is the worst place to lack energy in a film like this) - although again I think the actors singlehandedly save these moments and keep the viewers engaged.

4. The Ending - it's not BAD, but it should have been less cliché and more emotional than it was. The romance between Winslet and Elba, cheesy at times, was still quite believable because of their natural chemistry. They deserved a more satisfying ending because of it...instead we got staging that we've seen many times before.

ALL IN ALL, I think this is a better than average film with some obvious flaws, but which is very worth seeing for 2 wonderful actors delivering performances above and beyond what the script called for. This is a film that demonstrates what star power really is - and in particular Kate Winslet shows audiences that entering her 40's she has every bit as much energy as she did in TITANIC - in fact more-so here because what she and Idris Elba do together is clearly an extremely difficult environment! KUDOS to 20th CENTURY FOX for shooting almost entirely on location, for casting actors NOT in their 20's, and for making the kind of bare bones survival drama that rarely gets made these days when every film is either a MARVEL adaptation or a cynical satire on American life.
6 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful from beginning to end
21 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS!

I hated this shockingly racist, illogical, trashy film! I am stunned that it is not being called out for the racism (hidden behind the mask of alleged liberal good-deed-doing) and violence that it condones! I have never seen a film make so many attempts at virtue signaling while at the same time exhibiting racism all over the place. Frances McDormand alleges about some torturing of "innocent black folks" and yet that storyline is never explored. Sam Rockwell (so awful in this I need to invent a new word to describe the failure) plays a racist cop but we never actually SEE any racism - there is only innuendo and excessive, unfunny use of the "n" word. Racism, if you're going to explore it intelligently with an audience, needs more than mean words and one scene where a "racist cop" get annoyed with and threatens to take in a young hipster black man for spitting in the cops direction. Sadly, that's the best example of something mildly racist actually happening in the film besides cheap talk - and it's WEAK - because frankly the cop, dumb as he is, actually has a point in that spitting towards a cop is an act of aggression - the cop didn't arrest him, he just reminded the young man that he's walking a fine line. Every black character (all in minor roles) portrayed seems to have stepped off the train from Williamsburg or Wicker Park. They are ALL hipster types with nothing of value to contribute besides cheap talk. The black people in this movie exist only to make the fake liberals look good for having "black friends" somewhere in the background. WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION - WHY is Frances McDormand the star of this film? Why not ANGELA BASSETT? Instead of casting a white actress why didn't the filmmakers decide to make this story about a Midwestern black woman who's daughter's rape and murder was ignored by the cops? That would at least be a more believable attempt to explore these themes - rather than FILTER THAT MESSAGE through a white woman. Hollywood is racist and they almost always think white liberals need to save black people. Is it about racism, or justice for the dead daughter? Neither, ultimately. As for her dead daughter, she's abandoned by the storytellers so...WHO CARES?

The violence is stupid and LOOKS FAKE! Example: that dumb kitchen scene with the boy and his dad and the knife! Embarrassingly executed - almost as embarrassing as that REALLY bad CGI DEER that is just a knockoff scene from a superior scene from THE QUEEN. ALSO --the message of anger begets anger, etc being explained to us directly from a character is cheap writing and disingenuous. There is no good message here. Also, why the making fun of the midget? Gee - that hasn't been done thousands of times! Stupid. Not funny and NOT edgy.

BASIC PLOT FAILS!

#1. They introduce a man who "MAY" be the killer Frances is kinda searching for (more time is spent kicking high school kids in the shin - by the way, why did those kids just STAND there and let her keep kicking them? Not a very realistic reaction. They would have RUN AWAY!) He MAY be the killer - and then we learn he definitely is not? And why give us this whole story about him being somewhere "SANDY" in the war? So he's a rapist soldier now instead? So WHY show him CONFESS to Frances earlier? STUPID!

#2. THE BILLBOARDS DON'T WORK! We see NO ONE drive past them EVER except for Frances McDormand, Sam Rockwell and Woody. As for the news broadcast, that was again cheap writing. It doesn't show us how people react to anything related to the billboards. Woody's cancer is a cheap diversion from the fact that the billboards have no affect. By tying his cancer so directly to the plot with the billboard's "alleged fiasco" they deny the opportunity for the audience to see the townsfolk real reaction to the CONTENT of the billboards - and instead they react to Frances being mean to a dying man. This defeats the point of the billboards in terms of storytelling, so it's hard to see any real reason why or how these billboards EVER stir the pot, but the filmmakers pretend that magically they do!

# 3. When a hipster gets thrown out the window by Sam Rockwell - the new police chief sees this - and, uh, DOES NOT ARREST HIM! So, not only do the filmmakers know nothing about police, what is legal or illegal, but they have never watched a single episode of LAW AND ORDER or even JUDGE JUDY. Speaking of reactions - no one in this film has a realistic reaction to anything that happens ever. Sam Rockwell goes from nearly murdering someone, to acting goofy after getting fired, all in the same breath! It's stupid beyond belief. Then we're supposed to believe that during THE FIRE, just SECONDS AFTER reading Woody's moralistic letter (another cheap devise overused throughout), he has an instantaneous change of heart/moral epiphany and thinks immediately of saving the BURNING CASE FILE ON HIS DESK to help Frances McDormand? I could go on for hours about how awful every second of this film is...save yourselves the time. Watch "IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT" or "MISSISSIPPI BURNING".

This movie is so awful it does not even deserve to be criticized. The only reason I am is because it has gotten rave reviews from critics DESPERATELY searching for a zeitgeist film of the moment, but who haven't found a good one yet so they are propping this one up! WHY? Because it checks off all the correct virtue signaling requirements of the times. Critical thinking while viewing this film will reveal a false justification for violence, bigotry towards dwarfs and country people, and inherently racist storytelling.
134 out of 277 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed