The King

November 10, 2019 at 2:12 pm | Posted in 2019 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊

This must have seemed like the movie begging to get made. Everyone loves Shakespeare, and we haven’t seen a version of “Henry V” since Branagh’s 1989 film. And now we have the perfect man-boy in Timothée Chalamet; he is impossibly beautiful and young, while also being capable of deep sadness and seriousness. How could they not make that film? Also, I have to give credit to David Michôd (director of the brilliant “Animal Kingdom”) for deciding to write his own script rather than rely on the Bard; that’s a gutsy move. But, what we lose is Shakespeare’s sweeping and deeply stirring language. Instead of “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers,” we get a screamed speech about England is the space between us. Michôd tries to be rousing (and, in a vacuum, he may well be), but he’s up against the greatest wordsmith of the English language. Good luck with that. This film feels bereft of those great speeches, Henry’s passionate indignation, the glory of battle, and the occasional humor. And Branagh’s take was definitely not subtle. That film is a roller-coaster of emotions leading to a rousing soundtrack-filled climax. Coming to this film with that one in mind can only diminish the experience. And that’s really a shame. Because, when I step out of that film (and the play), I realize that what Michôd has created is actually a much more subtle work. (BTW – I am assuming everyone knows the basic story. If not, SPOILERS ahead) This boy king is far more pensive and complex than Shakespeare’s. The story arch of Henrys IV & V is of the playboy becoming the warrior king. That is not this story. Yes, this Hal does live lasciviously. But he is also deeply compassionate, with legitimate disdain for his father’s bellicose ways. He is willing to sacrifice his own life to save the lives of soldiers who are pawns in the games of kings. Once he becomes king, Henry immediately sheds his frivolous past and tries to remake the throne in his image. However, unlike in the play, this story is not about how he became great, but it is much more about how he became his father. Slowly, step-by-step, Henry is drawn into the machinations of those less gullible. By the end, he calls for the slaughter of all the fleeing Frenchman. That shift happens so slowly, that one could be excused for missing it. In fact, his final scene with his future wife has less impact if you don’t realize how much he has lost of the once naive boy he was. “Henry V” is about the transformation into hero that Henry goes through; this film seems to suggest the opposite. That’s an evocative take on the story. And perhaps it would have landed more effectively with a different actor. Chalamet is one of the best actors of his generation, but we might have been better served with a slightly older one. The real Henry was five years older than Chalamet is currently (Branagh was twenty-nine when he played the part). That may have made a difference. He seemed to lack the gravity the film required. All of his distress, introspection, and rage just looked like a moody boy having a pout. It isn’t that Chalamet is incapable of capturing the range of emotions required; it’s just that I didn’t believe them coming out of that body in that circumstance. Probably, this is a small complaint in a really interesting film, but when you are going up against the ghost of Shakespeare, you really need all the help you can get. I liked the film. I am glad I saw the film. I just don’t expect it to stay with me.

Boy Erased

November 11, 2018 at 5:11 pm | Posted in 2018 | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

First, a confession. I grew up a gay boy who spent many years in a conservative religion. I confessed my sins, got “counseling,” and, to a much lesser degree than in this film, I participated in change therapy. All of which is to say that I am hardly an unbiased lens. And I did find myself wondering several times, who is the film for? And how do you access this film if not through the medium of personal experience? I was moved several times by the way the story struck deep cords in me; small details rung very true. Yet, without that emotional connection to carry you through the story, I am just not sure how one experiences this movie. As a story arc, it does not have much energy. The film is remarkably still, moving along slowly, almost placidly, toward a climax that we could all see coming and that lacked the drama and emotional release that I think the audience was expecting. In it’s place, what we got was something that felt a lot more like the truth. Lucas Hedges has had an impressive couple of years. Since 2016’s “Manchester by the Sea,” he has been in “Lady Bird” and “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.” In fact, he’s in three films that will be out and the same time (and is the lead in two of them): this one, “Mid90s,” and “Ben is Back” (which will be released in 3 weeks). He might be trying to give Timothée Chalamet a run for his money. While not as expressive an actor as Chalamet, Hedges does a solid job in the role. He is most effective when his “Jared” is struggling with shame. His anger is somewhat less convincing to me. Joel Edgerton (“Animal Kingdom,” “Warrior,” “Loving,” “It Comes at Night“) is one of the most underappreciated actors in Hollywood today. Watch the four films I just listed to see how versatile he is. He directed this film and wrote the screen play, based on the biography by Garrard Conley. He also plays “Victor,” the director of the conversion therapy program Jared is placed into. Edgerton is fantastic as Victor and brings much of the energy that propels the mid-section of the film. That said, I think the best performances belong to Jared’s parents, played by Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe. They both played those characters with such heart. Crowe, in particular, should get a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. His was a difficult character that could have easily become a stereotype. Instead, Crowe plays him with such deep compassion, that you can’t help but relate to this man. Especially in his final scene, Crowe gave some of the best acting of his career. His was the performance that will likely stay with me the longest. This was a solid, well-crafted film and one that took me on a personal journey. I hope that others, who have no connection to this material, can take that same journey and can be as moved by the final scene as I was.

Bright

January 8, 2018 at 11:36 am | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

◊

This film was only released on Netflix, but I recently reviewed “Mudbound” and “Okja,” both of which fall into the same category. It’s so much easier to do when it’s a film I like but, I guess reviewing Netflix movies is something I do now. So, here goes. This movie actually has an interesting premise; it’s a shame that’s the only thing interesting about it. Taking place in modern L.A., it imagines a world where magic, orcs, elves, etc. have always existed. In this alternate universe, there is intense racial tension between the species. The elves live in highly wealthy and segregated communities and they appear to run everything. Orcs are mostly poor, under-educated and despised by the other races. Human officer Daryl Ward (Will Smith) has been paired with a token hire Orc, Nick Jakoby (Joel Edgerton). He distrusts his new partner and so does the rest of the precinct, who want him to find a way to get rid of the guy. Meanwhile, some bad stuff is going down regarding a prophesy about the return of a dark lord. That is something way outside of the LAPD’s league, but Ward and Jakoby end up right in the middle of it. That could have been an interesting story with the opportunity for some prescient and insightful metaphors about society today. However, director David Ayer (“Suicide Squad,” “End of Watch”) seems intent on beating the audience with his metaphoric broadsword. His depiction of Orcs as a metaphor for African Americans was so over-the-top as to become almost racially insensitive. It ending up reading more as parody than metaphor, and that’s a problem for a film trying as hard as this a one was to be taken seriously. In its attempt to make that we get the metaphor, the script has every character acting as a one dimensional cliché. Every police officer, besides Ward and Jakoby, were so evil as to be ridiculous. Smith seemed to be sleepwalking through his role and Edgerton’s normally expressive face was hidden under inches of rubber. The dialogue was painfully unnatural. I did not believe anything anyone was saying; anger, vulnerability, fear, camaraderie all felt utterly phony. No emotion was earned in this film and, as a result, nothing meant anything. Its ending clearly leaves open room for a sequel. Good luck with that. Even for free, I wouldn’t bother watching the next one.

It Comes at Night

June 11, 2017 at 9:16 am | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ½

The woman in front of me declared this the worst movie she had ever seen. While I am not entirely sure what her canon of favorites would contain, I can understand her sentiment. Though I strongly disagree with her, I can see where someone would be disappointed if they were looking for something traditional here. With a name like, “It Comes at Night,” and a trailer like the one below, this looks like a very standard horror film. You might reasonably expect Stephen King-esque terrifying creatures and gore-a-plenty. But, if that is what you want, this is not what you want. Instead, this film is a genuinely taut creepfest, with lots of tension, mystery and an unnerving level of ambiguity. This is the first major film from director/writer Trey Edward Shults. He has a clear understanding of horror/thriller motifs and uses them to great effect. From the first scene, tension is ratcheted up slowly and unrelentingly over the 90 minute run time. Everything in this world is bleak, washed out and largely colorless, except the dark red door that represents the only way in and out of the house where most of the action happens. The story takes place some time close to now in some deliberately vague part of the United States. Some sort of illness is effecting people and that’s all we know. From there, isolation, anxiety and paranoia ensue. And that is what this film is really about. Calling it horror is a deliberate bait-and-switch on the level of calling “Fargo” a true story; the deception serves a deeper artistic purpose. Our anxiety and uncertainty about where the film is going is purposeful; Shults is trying to mimic in the audience the same experience that his characters are having. Right to the shocking and ambiguous ending, we are meant to be unsure what the hell is going on because the characters are unsure. I want to say more about this, so I am putting a spoiler alert here. If you have not seen the movie and don’t want the end ruined, do not read on. SPOILER: In that final scene, we are deliberately supposed to wonder what does the shock and grief on Paul’s (Joel Edgerton) and Sarah’s (Carmen Ejogo) faces mean. Is it because they wrongly killed an entire family without cause (and the last scene of their son was one more of his dreams) or was it because they were too late, their son is dead, and they should have killed the family earlier? In the end, we don’t know which was the correct path for them to take. We don’t know what the wrong choices were. And that is by deliberate design. We should leave that theater feeling unsettled because the world Shults has created is one steeped in uncertainty. What is it that comes at night? It is not, as we are mislead to believe, some monster. It is us. Perhaps, it is other dangerous human beings who come to threaten our family. Or, perhaps, it is our own paranoia that sneaks into our brains at night and makes us into our own monsters. That is also unclear. This ambiguity is what I love about the film. Shults is not just trying to make entertainment; he is trying to make us feel his movie. I think that takes a deft hand from a screenwriter and director. He took me places I did not expect to go and, for that, I am appreciative.

Black Mass

September 26, 2015 at 5:06 pm | Posted in 2015 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊ ½

I must confess that I have confusion over the term “character actor,” which, in theory, seems to refer to someone who is mostly known for playing a character type. Yet, in practice, it appears to refer to actors who are never in lead roles. I find that strange because, to me, nobody is a better character actor than Johnny Depp. He has rarely ever just played the average guy; he is always playing some larger than life character and, whether it works (“Edward Scissorhands,” “Ed Wood,” “Pirates of the Caribbean”) or doesn’t (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Dark Shadows,” “The Lone Ranger”), it’s fascinating to watch. This time is works brilliants. Depp’s James “Whitey” Bulger is by far his most disturbing character to date. He imbues Bulger with such seething malice for everyone that tension flows through every single scene. The way he stares, smiles, holds his shoulders, walks, all make him look like a thing of incredible danger. I have no idea what the real Bulger is like (and he has taken issue with this portrayal) but this character is a great movie villain and probably the best I have seen in years. There is one scene between him and Agent Connolly’s wife (Julianne Nicholson) that is brilliant. She claims to be sick and he checks her vitals in the most menacing way; it’s a moment of nurturing turned into horrifying threat. That scene will stay with me a long time. The larger film itself is not quite as transformative. Corrupt cops in bed with gangsters is hardly new material and, in fact, we have seen variations of this film several times in the last few years. The Boston accents are fun and the story is gripping but it wasn’t exceptional. Also, be warned, it was extremely violent. And not cartoon, superhero, action violence. This was up close and graphically real violence. It was disturbing enough that I turned away a couple of times. Depp was not the only good actor here. Joel Edgerton (“Animal Kingdon,” “The Great Gatsby,” “Zero Dark Thirty”) is a powerful Australian actor, known mostly for background roles here in the US. Hopefully, this film will give him a boost. As the deeply corrupt John Connolly, Edgerton is the other central character to what is essentially a relationship movie. Who these men are to each other and how they are using/being used by each is the central story arc of the film. It works because both actors are up to the task. Nicholson is also incredibly strong as Connolly’s wife. A whole bevy of other big actors show up in roles of varying importance. I had a hard time seeing Benedict Cumberbatch as Bulger’s brother but this is a minor quibble. This biggest flaw, as I have said, is in telling a story that wasn’t so unique and, perhaps, in having no heroes to root for. This is a story of bad men doing worse things. Everyone with any screen time is so unlikeable and so bathed in violence that it can leave the audience a bit numb by the end. This is not a film that will garner any Oscars, nor should it. But it might give Edgerton’s career a much deserved push and jump start Depp’s. That would not be a bad thing.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.