Coco

November 24, 2017 at 4:47 pm | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Future generations will look back at the Pixar era as a sort of golden age in animation. Better even than classics like “Snow White,” the films coming out of Emeryville are simply some of the best animated movies ever. This year’s “Coco” is no exception and, in fact, is one of the best of the best. Young Miguel wants nothing more than to be a singer but his family has a particular and hard earned antipathy for them. So, Miguel does what any music loving boy would do; he travels to the realm of the dead in search of a blessing from his great-great-grandfather. Pixar has done what Disney never mastered: they have created a film about a non-white culture that truly celebrates that culture from the perspective of its members. This is not “Pocahontas” or “Mulan.” We are treated to a rich and beautiful story that really celebrates the people in it. With an entirely Hispanic cast, “Coco” sinks deep into the cultural experience that has only ever existed on the surface of other Disney films. The result is a beautiful and touching story. As always with Pixar, the animation is truly stunning. This feels like their most accomplished film yet, with gorgeous scenery and beautifully emotive characters. With amazing visual details (like the way a tv screen was reflected in a person’s eyes), this film was a real joy to watch. This story is not quite as complex as the truly remarkable “Inside Out.” That one explored the complex idea that sadness can be a good and healing emotion. This film doesn’t go anywhere nearly as deep. The sentiments here are far more focused on the obvious, value-of-family, variety. That said, everything about it was a joy. Pixar has long left behind the idea that they are making children’s movies. These remarkable films have something to say to all of us.

Miss Sloane

November 22, 2017 at 7:59 am | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ½

“Miss Sloane” was an early 2017 film, released in February this year, but I just saw it on a long flight, so thought I would review it. Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) is a big star at a powerful DC lobbying firm. The film dives deep into the heart of the gun control debate and definitely takes a side. We watch Sloane as she tries to out-maneuver her opponents around a bill that would impose background checks. Not unlike 2011’s “Ides of March,” this film suggests the machinations of a very corrupt political system. I doubt these stories are too far from the truth, but both run the risk of losing their impact as they become increasingly more extreme. “Miss Sloane” has some good twists and turns and was quite fun to watch, like a chess match between pros. Chastain has the screen presence needed to play this character with the proper gravitas, especially when facing off against actors like Sam Waterston, John Lithgow, and Mark Strong. Strong, in particular, was effective in his role as the incredulous boss shocked by how far Sloane was willing to go. Several times, his facial expressions conveyed the perfect amount of shock, fear, awe and distrust. The other stand out performance belongs to Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Her Esme was the real soul and conscience of the movie; it is through her that the audience is supposed to ask, “when do the ends no longer justify the means?” When this film was at it’s best, it was insightful and poignant and raised interested ethical questions for me to chew on. In the end, however, it settled for a very Hollywood finish. It was certainly fun to watch and felt satisfying, but it also felt a bit empty and disconnected from any larger message the film was trying to make. Probably, that doesn’t really matter. I don’t think I need Hollywood to be my conscience. That said, my favorite films tend to do more than entertain me; they leave me a little uncomfortable.

Lady Bird

November 19, 2017 at 7:29 pm | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Almost to the day a year ago, I saw a film very similar to this one. That film, “The Edge of Seventeen,” was a real delight, full of honesty and insight. “Lady Bird” made me feel very much the same way. The film is written and directed by Greta Gerwig, who has acted in “20th Century Women,” “Francis Ha,” and “Jackie,” among others. Gerwig’s film is set in 2002 and focuses on a 17 year-old girl’s last year of high school. Gerwig herself would have been 19 in 2002 and so much of the film felt so real that I wonder if she was writing from her own experience. Lady Bird, played beautifully by Saoirse Ronan, feels like a fish out of water. She believes she is too clever for the everyday life she has to put up with. Meanwhile, her overly anxious mother (Laurie Metcalf of “Roseanne” fame) stumbles over how to communicate with her daughter. This world is also occupied with a host of others: kindly father, nerdy best friend, cruel & shallow cute boy, etc. But the real focus of the film is this mother/daughter relationship. Fortunately, both Ronan and Metcalf are excellent actors. They create deeply sympathetic, flawed and funny characters. The end result is a story that feels utterly believable. The kids all act and think just like kids. This relationship between parent and child felt as frustrating and as powerful as a real relationship. This was a simple story about a critical moment in a girl’s life; she’s struggling with what it means to become a woman and to face an uncertain future. There were no shocking twists or garish surprises. Just a regular girl trying to figure out her life out. I found that struggle to be funny, insightful and touching.

Justice League

November 19, 2017 at 10:09 am | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊

Admittedly, the bar was low for this one. “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” was just a mess, with moments of visual wonder amongst the horrendous dialogue and muddled, overly-stuffed story line. I did not expect much as the curtain rose (I go to an old-timey theatre, where there actually still is two layers of curtains that do rise and a guy playing on the organ before the show starts). When the final credits rolled, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. Director Zac Snyder (“Batman v. Superman,” “The 300,” “The Watchmen”) has toned down the moody visuals he is known for. They were really the only thing I like about the last film, but they aren’t missed here. In their place, we get a tighter and less grim story arc, with genuine humor and even some actual character development. DC has a long way to go to match the camaraderie and complexity of the Avengers’s relationships. That said, I think Joss Whedon, who wrote the screenplay, does a good job of getting us halfway there. Each of these characters had his/her own distinct personality and way of interacting with the others. Even a character like Cyborg, who I had worried would get lost against the larger and more iconic characters, was a vital member of the team, with his own unique personality and compelling story. Whedon and Snyder even managed to create an Aquaman who was not wholly ridiculous. Much of that credit also goes to Jason Momoa who gave the character a sly humor and gravitas that he desperately needed. Most of the laughs centered around the Flash, with Ezra Miller well cast in the part. Miller’s Flash is hyperactive, giddy, wide-eyed and a bit goofy. He’s far more interesting than the boy-scout TV version. At times, the humor around him felt a bit forced and fell flat for me. But, the funniest laughs also centered around his character. Overall, I think this film lacked the comfortable humor of “Wonder Woman” and the action scenes were not quite as fun. That said, I found the plot here to be much more interesting, the story arc more satisfying, and the ending avoided the silliness that crept into “Wonder Woman’s” final moments. This was a fun, high action romp with characters I would love to see more of. In the end, I think DC did exactly what it needed to.

God’s Own Country

November 12, 2017 at 4:51 pm | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ½

I must confess that, by the end of the 1990’s, I felt like I had seen my share of young-men-falling-in-love films. Most of them follow a formula that I have gotten pretty used to. So, I wouldn’t have bothered with this one if a friend had not wanted to see it. I’m glad he did. Set in Northern England, the film follows Johnny (Josh O’Connor) as he tries to tend to his parents’ farm. His father has had a stroke and Johnny must do most of the work by himself. He’s depressed and sullen and drinks way too much. His parents hire Gheorghe (Alec Secareanu), a farmhand from Romania, who Johnny initially resents but slowly grows attached to. Both men play their emotional cards very close to the chest. In fact, nobody hardly says much of anything in this film; these men make Ennis and Jack from “Brokeback Mountain” seem verbose. Which may be for the better as, when Johnny does speak, I can hardly understand a word of what he is saying. In fact, the Romanian was the easiest person to understand in the entire film. This is a slow moving film and I was slow to warm up to it. I had a hard time connecting to the characters early on, partly because of my difficulty understanding the dialogue. And the sex that did occur seemed rough, uncaring and cold. But the film really grew on me. Johnny’s entire world was rough and cold. As his relationship with Gheorghe developed, he also developed as a character. By the end of the film, and particularly in it’s last act, I was genuinely moved. There was some fantastic acting here, particularly when these rough men were trying to share complicated feelings. It made every fleeting moment of intimacy feel well earned. In particular, I was impressed with Ian Hart (“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”) as Johnny’s father. He was terrific as a man who was never comfortable with his emotions and was now even more restricted by his stroke. I thought his last scene with Johnny was fantastic. Under the surface, these people have deep passion and need. Because it is so contained throughout the film, even the slightest signs of it feel deeply rewarding. There is a tough, cold, brutality on the surface of this film. You can see it in the harsh lighting, the frozen landscape, the lives and deaths of the animals, the looks on people’s faces. But, stick with it long enough, and you will also discover real warmth, humor, tenderness and even love. The film will make you work for those emotions but, when they show up, you’ll be glad you waited.

Murder on the Orient Express

November 12, 2017 at 10:13 am | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊

To be honest, I’m not quite sure why Kenneth Branagh felt the need to remake this movie. The 1974 version was a rather sufficient telling of Agatha Christie’s overwrought novel. One has to judge a film like this on two different levels. The first would be to discuss the plot as based on a pulpy 1930s murder mystery novel; we can hardly lay the blame for any flaws there at Branagh’s feet. The second would be to evaluate the directing, acting, staging, etc of the film itself. So, as to the story, Christie was the most famous mystery author of her day (perhaps the most famous author, period). She wrote 73 novels between the 1920s and the 1970s. In fact, she wrote one or two a year for many years. That’s a lot of unexpected twists to come up with. As a result, her stories have a tendency to stretch credulity, and this one is no exception. You should not go to this film expecting a complex but ultimately logical plot (“The Spanish Prisoner” this is not). The story arc is largely cliché, the characters are stereotypes, the clues are discovered absurdly, and the final reveal is pure silliness. But that is not to say that it cannot be a fun ride. There is a certain degree of campiness to it all that can be delightful to watch. However Branagh is not known for his campy directing. In fact, he seems to bring a sort of Shakespearean seriousness to everything he does. Seeing his ridiculous mustache in the previews, I had high hopes that this film might be a great deal of fun. It has a fantastic cast, equal to the original, and they could have had a great time playing off of each other. But everyone seems to be playing her/his character so seriously. And Branagh most of all. He brings us an exhausted, disenchanted Poirot, who has a depth of character unlike previous Christie films. He would be an interesting and empathetic character if the source material weren’t so silly. That said, the scenery was lavish. The train was truly exquisite from end to end. I could be persuaded that Branagh only made the movie because he wanted to make that set. It gives him the opportunity for some great staging, lighting, and camera angles. And the arctic surrounds were also beautifully done. It was the perfect stage for a story more sinister and scary than this one could ever hope to be. We might all have been better served if he had used that set for a more modern-styled thriller. As it is, this film is not a dead loss. It is lovely to look at and there is fun to be had as the story unfolds. You will never gasp out loud at the twists, nor will you laugh out loud at the humor. But, you may find it to be a perfectly enjoyable way to spend an evening on the couch.

 

Victoria & Abdul

November 5, 2017 at 5:43 pm | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ½

1887, for her 50th year on the throne, Queen Victoria asked for two servants to be sent from India to serve her during her Silver Jubilee celebration. One of them, Abdul Karim, became her confidante and closest friend for the last decade of her life. After her death, the royal family was so scandalized by the relationship that they tried to wipe all evidence of it from the historical record. Thus it remained for 100 years until a scholar visiting a remote estate belonging to the royal family, came across a painting and bust of him. She did research that lead her to a still intact journal of Victoria’s written in Urdu (still intact because nobody in the royal estate knew what it said) and, eventually, to Karim’s own journals that had been kept by his last living relative in India. That scholar, Shrabani Basu, wrote the book that this movie is based on. Its a touching story about how alienating power can be and of how, even a queen, just wants to be treated like a person. Director Stephen Frears (“Dangerous Liaisons,” “High Fidelity,” “The Queen,” “Philomena”) takes every scrap of information he has to work with and gets it into the film somehow. The problem is that the information we have on their relationship is scarce. It is based largely on Karim’s journals and a few snippets of Victoria’s writing. The end result is a very unbalanced portrayal of Karim as an almost heroic figure and the royal household as a collection of bigoted, jealous fools. That may have been the case but it makes for a rather boring film, without much depth of character. Some complexities in Karim’s character are hinted at, like the possibility he was a chronic liar, but they were never explored. He was allowed to remain a sort of savior figure throughout the film. The end result was a story that was more melodrama than drama. It was hard for me to feel any connection to these characters because I kept second guessing how real they were. It’s a shame because there is an interesting story there about class, race, duty, faith, love and many other complex things. I just wish this film had gone a little deeper than the shiny surface we got to see.

Thor: Ragnarok

November 5, 2017 at 9:52 am | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ½

I liked this film so much more than either of its prequels (“Thor” and “Thor: The Dark World“), which is admittedly a pretty low bar.  Those were both dull and overly serious, relying entirely on special effects to replace any meaningful plot or dialogue. Come to think of it, this film is not so different. It is mostly a special effects spectacle with largely silly dialogue and a plot so full of holes that it is hard to decide which ones to highlight. How about the utter lack of explanation for how Hulk ended up on this planet, or how Bruce Banner’s ominous fear about himself is utterly ignored in the end, or how a creature vanquished so easily at the beginning of the movie becomes all powerful when it returns. The list could go on, but then you might be tempted to think that I didn’t like this film and I did. Why? Because there was one critical difference between it and its predecessors; it had a sense of humor. New Zealand born director Taika Waititi, who is most known for the tedious “What We Do in the Shadows” and the lovely “Hunt for the Wilderpeople,” is primarily a comedy writer/director. He has brought that aesthetic to the Thor franchise, where it is much needed. This film was, first and foremost, a superhero action movie. As such, it had its main villain, played with delicious glee by Cate Blanchett. It had its various lesser baddies, played with varying levels of silliness, from the relatively straight Karl Urban (as “Skurge”) to the always over-the-top Jeff Goldblum (“Grandmaster”). And it had several well-choreographed fight scenes, including the Hulk/Thor battle that we have all seen in all the previews, and the final battle scene, which was beautifully scored to Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song.” The best thing about these scenes was that the audience could actually follow the action, which has been a real problem in many CGI fight scenes in previous movies (think anything Michael Bay). But, as I mentioned, on top of all of this saving-the-universe-yet-again stuff, there was this nice layer of light comedy. At times it didn’t work, particularly when it was overly adolescent; I could have gotten through a Thor movie without ever hearing any masturbation, penis-size or anus jokes. But, what it did really well was to add dimension to two overly dramatic Marvel characters. Both Thor and The Hulk have suffered in overly serious films. Here, they suddenly became real people. These two characters were more alive in this film than in any film to date. Their buddy relationship was particularly fun to watch, as it allowed both actors to show a softer side to their characters, including warmth, humor, and self-doubt. I like this new Hulk a lot and I really like the new Thor who has evolved by the end of this story. I hope these are the two characters who show up in the “Infinity Wars” movies. I could definitely watch more of both of them.

The Florida Project

November 3, 2017 at 12:18 pm | Posted in 2017 | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ½

Two years ago, Sean Baker exploded onto the big screen with his first full-length feature film, “Tangerine” (see my review here). In case we were wont to think this was a one-time fluke, Baker ups his game and comes with an even stronger sophomore effort. Taking place in and around a couple of motels near Disney World, “The Florida Project” takes us inside a world in much the same way “Tangerine” did. Here, we experience life through a group of 7 year olds being raised by single mothers scraping to get by. Baker has such an affection for America’s disenfranchised; he shows us their resilience with great empathy and humor. Taking place in the the first few weeks of summer break, the film chiefly follows Moonee (Brooklyn Prince) and the various other children that orbit her as she goes about entertaining herself as a dirt poor, wholly unsupervised, child. Moonee and her friends are watched over by the gentle Bobby (Willem Dafoe), who is the manager of the motel where she lives. We also see her relationship with her mother Halley (Bria Vinaite). Halley is immature and poorly equipped to handle the role of parenting anyone, including herself, but she is still a loving mother and, through Baker’s lens, she’s impossible not to empathize with. The real miracle of this film is in the acting by this group of almost entirely untrained actors. Vinaite is powerful as Moonee’s mother, though this is her first film. She is raw and her emotions play so easily across the surface that I am tempted to believe she has actually lived the experiences she is portraying. This was a large cast of so many younger and older actors, and each of them seemed to genuinely inhabit their characters. This was nowhere more true that with our lead actress. Prince was astonishing. In a fair world, she would be considered for an Oscar nomination. For her to inhabit this character so fully was amazing for a child so young. She was loud, brash, sarcastic, charming, silly, playful, and demanding in all the right ways. At one point, she wept so painfully that I felt as though this young girl must really be sad and scared. I believed in Moonee fully. In so many places, this film felt as though it were a documentary. That is how real these kids and their behaviors seemed. This is a very funny, joyful film but it will also break your heart. Underneath the bright pink exterior, there is deep pain, with only more to come. This movie will make you laugh and, in its final moments, it will leave you stunned, sitting in a dark theater, trying to process what you just witnessed.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.