1917.

Review #1585: 1917.

Cast: 

George MacKay (Lance Corporal William "Will" Schofield), Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Thomas "Tom" Blake), Mark Strong (Captain Smith), Andrew Scott (Lieutenant Leslie), Richard Madden (Lieutenant Joseph Blake), Claire Duburcq (Lauri), Colin Firth (General Erinmore), Benedict Cumberbatch (Colonel Mackenzie), Daniel Mays (Sergeant Sanders), and Adrian Scarborough (Major Hepburn) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall)

Review: 

“I wanted something that had the quality of a dream at times, but had real-life stakes. Any narrative, any fiction is a compression in time, a compression of character. You’re trying to find the tip of an iceberg. And if the tip is well done, the iceberg becomes clear. You don’t have to see it if you know it’s there.”

Most films in some form have something to do with family. Sam Mendes was inspired to do the film from stories that were told to him by his grandfather Alfred Mendes about his service in World War I. The elder Mendes was born in Trinidad in 1897, with chances of study in university being curtailed by the start of the Great War (also known as World War I). He served in the war under the 1st Battalion King's Royal Rifle Brigade and carried messages between no-man's land through the muddy trenches of war. After his war service, he wrote short stories and novels while working in provisions and civil service. His grandson Sam was the son of an author and a professor, who first developed an interest in cinema from a young age. His studies at Peterhouse, Cambridge helped him find interest in theatre as well, where he directed a number of plays at the Marlowe Society before his graduation in 1987. He soon became a director for plays in the theatre that rose in prominence over the next decade and a half before being brought in to direct his first ever film with American Beauty (1999), a tremendous success (he aspired to make films like the ones he had seen at Cambridge, such as Paris, Texas (1984), Repo Man (1984), and River's Edge (1986)). Other films (mostly successes) followed in its wake, with this being his eighth feature film (and first script written, done with Krysty Wilson-Cairns). He described his idea to do a film based on a messenger on a short time period to where he needs to go in the trenches of war that he described was "fundamentally about paralysis and stasis", one that would appear as two continuous shots (with the use of long takes). The primary stars and supporting characters are fictional, but the film's inspiration is Operation Alberich, in which Germany made their withdrawal to change their positions on the Hindenburg Line that happened in the span of a month in 1917 (as opposed to the date of April 6, 1917 that the film begins its story). 

There have been quite a number of war films over the years, with a portion of them revolving around World War I in some manner, whether that involves the silent era with The Big Parade (1925), or with sound in novel adaptations like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) or further down the line of perspective with Gallipoli (1981). To me, the sense of urgency that comes with the film seems a bit reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan (1999, a messenger film of sorts) or perhaps a more modern example would be with Dunkirk (2017, which dealt with an escape through three storylines and minimal dialogue), and the enjoyment of the film comes from how much of its filmmaking reaches you in interest for its urgent pacing for 119 minutes. The camera almost seems like a person following these two main characters at times, as cinematographer Roger Deakins weaves together a dynamic look and execution to following along with the span of one moment in time. For better or worse, the film is more a technical achievement than an achieved war film - it is fairly entertaining, in the same way that it will generally keep you on your toes for what could come around the screen next, but it can be easy to see a small divide between viewers that find marvel with its shot structure and others who find it more distracting to the real sense of the war as a whole. Having just two main characters mixed in with a group of glorified cameos also in some ways seems to tinker with its magnitude of war. MacKay does well with a role on the routine, having to move fast with bits and pieces of useful dialogue mixed in with the sounds of war that are fine without being wooden - in other words, we can follow him fine in those long takes without constantly checking our watch. Chapman does alright as well with his time to spend on screen, as each make for a useful duo that can have small exchanges beyond just the mission, such as when they have to get through a trapped place with one blind leap. The others come and go in parts, notably with Firth as the one detailing the mission, Strong as one of the leaders in transport, and Cumberbatch as the person to focus on to end the goal, and they all do fine here (it isn't exactly a role to mug the scenery if the camera is on the move anyway). As a whole, it is generally engaging with its intent of urgent moviemaking that will likely prove fascinating for those looking to find films of its era that capture curiosity in technical terms with a good hand guiding the way to looking back to the past as a way to keep it around in the present.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so this ends the Tribute to the Decades project (January-October). This was the largest project that Movie Night has ever had, and it is that drive to do ten months of reviews to cover a wide range of films that led to this being the greatest year ever for writing (the previous record was 242 in 2012), and it isn't quite over yet. Plans for what happens next will be on a smaller scale (namely, not more themed months for a while), but I hope you all enjoyed this project for what it covered and what it could have covered - Thanks, folks.

Parasite (2019).

Review #1584: Parasite.

Cast: 

Song Kang-ho (Kim Ki-taek), Lee Sun-kyun (Park Dong-ik), Cho Yeo-jeong (Choi Yeon-gyo), Choi Woo-shik (Kim Ki-woo), Park So-dam (Kim Ki-jung), Lee Jung-eun (Gook Moon-gwang), Jang Hye-jin (Chung-sook), Park Myung-hoon (Oh Geun-se), Jung Ji-so (Park Da-hye), Jung Hyeon-jun (Park Da-song), Park Keun-rok (Yoon), and Park Seo-joon (Min-hyuk) Directed by Bong Joon-ho.

Review: 

"It's not that they were parasites from the start. They are our neighbors, friends and colleagues, who have merely been pushed to the edge of a precipice. As a depiction of ordinary people who fall into an unavoidable commotion, this film is: a comedy without clowns, a tragedy without villains, all leading to a violent tangle and a headlong plunge down the stairs. You are all invited to this unstoppably fierce tragicomedy."

Korea has had plenty of film directors in the century that has followed from the first Korean film in 1919, and it is a welcome occasion to add another name to the list, particularly one that has rocketed himself to prominence both in South Korea and abroad like no other in Bong Joon-ho. He was the son of a professor of art that grew up in Seoul. Bong was inspired to direct movies by seeing his father doing drawing as a child, and seeing films on television also helped in that regard. He made his first films while being in college (such as with stop motion and 16mm) before graduating and moving on to study at the Korean Academy of Film Arts. He moved on to working on other films in cinematography and writing before getting the chance to direct his first feature film with Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000). Memories of Murder (2003) proved his major breakthrough in South Korea (being one of the biggest hits of its year), while The Host (2006) proved even more popular. This was the seventh feature film from Bong. It was during production on Snowpiercer (2013; the first of two films to feature Hollywood stars) that he came up with the idea for the film (he had been a math tutor of a wealthy family for two months as a teenager), inspired by a suggestion from a friend to do a play (which has limited space but spurred on a story that could be told with two houses), with the second half ideas coming in the last few months of writing (he wrote the story by himself while co-writing the screenplay with Han Jin-won). He has stated in interviews about the divide in South Korea in terms of "relative wealth" as widening, and he described the film as "neutral" more than just being a film about clashing class systems, aiming for bittersweet with honesty rather than random hope (he also noted one inspiration being Kim Ki-young's 1960 film The Housemaid) - he also once argued that you could see either family as being a parasite in their own way, so there's also that point to consider of a film with numerous surface levels to look upon.

There was certainly a bit of high expectations, mostly because it was one of the most talked about movies of 2019 (the one defense I have is the fact that I never saw it advertised as playing in my local theater, and 2019 was certainly a busy theater year), and the Academy Award wins (including the first international-language film to win Best Picture) only cemented the curiosity. The art of a great film can come from the balance of tragedy and comedy. The art of seeing human fallibility depicted with such tremendous skill and honesty is what makes this a tremendously devastating film. It does so much without needing to be in your face about what it is saying, whether that involves elements of family drama, dark comedy, suspense, and particularly satire. One of my favorite little things about the film is the fact that both of the family houses for the film were actually sets, with one of them being designed by the director and the other doubled as a water tank. In general, this is a well-crafted film in its details that spring from its look to its management of tone that never wilts, keeping the attention of the viewer high while leaving a curious question or two to ponder after it ends (it is a film with shades of gray, after all). The acting (with a main core of seven) lives up to the enjoyment of the film. Song (who had worked with Bong before) makes for an engaging performance, capable of the everyman type that can be clever in moments that can either reflect a dark comic tone or family drama. Lee reflects this just as well on the other side of the coin in the family dynamic, engaging at a distance that make for some useful moments in the house (such as talking about someone's smell when believing he is only in the company of his wife). Cho does well in reflecting naivety without being used for ultra-cheap amusement. Choi and Park make worthy youthful sly support, while Jang contributes well to snide humor on the side. Rounding out the cast is J.Lee and M.Park, a reflection upon a reflection in people living on the margins with their own sense of craven desperation. The film takes its time with 132 minutes to set its surroundings and characters with delicate precision while allowing its story to breathe in observation (as opposed to having a soapbox moment). Once it jumps into another gear with its movement for the second half, it proves a roaring ride of carefully crafted thrills within its dark humor for those who enjoy what it aspires to tell about society in some form while not seeming like it will age badly. It proves worth a watch as a classic for the era and a stand-out film for South Korean cinema and its well-regarded director in Bong as a whole with its well balance of cast, story, and style.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Star is Born (2018).

Review #1583: A Star is Born.

Cast: 

Lady Gaga (Ally Maine), Bradley Cooper (Jackson "Jack" Maine), Sam Elliott (Bobby Maine), Andrew Dice Clay (Lorenzo), Rafi Gavron (Rez Gavron), Anthony Ramos (Ramon), Dave Chappelle (George "Noodles" Stone), Greg Grunberg (Phil), Shangela Laquifa Wadley (Bar Emcee), Willam Belli (Emerald), Ron Rifkin (Carl), Rebecca Field (Gail), with Michael Harney (Wolfie), and Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real. Directed by Bradley Cooper.

Review: 
"I always knew, goddamn it, I’m gonna have to at some point put it out there, directorial debut. And then I was like, when am I gonna have the guts to do it? And I also knew I could only direct something that I had a point of view about. And I always wanted to tell a love story. I thought, there’s nothing better for me cinematically to able to tell a love story, like a real love story, a broken love story."

Here we are again, seeing the old become new with prominent faces behind it to headline a new take on the traditional stardom story. One starts with the director, who also served as director, co-producer, co-writer (with Eric Roth and Will Fetters), and singer. Bradley Cooper wanted to become an actor when he was introduced to films like The Elephant Man (1980), which he later starred in a Broadway adaptation of. The Philadelphia native studied at Villanova University before transferring and graduating from Georgetown University with studies in English. He trained in acting with the Actors Studio and got into acting on television in 1999 and film soon after. Regular work and some recognition came with the TV series Alias and Wedding Crashers (2005), but it was his starring role with The Hangover (2009), which had two subsequent sequels with him as star alongside films like Silver Linings Playbook (2012) that helped him find prominence as a lead. But of course there are two stars to nearly every film, so enter Lady Gaga. Encouraged as a child to be a "cultured young woman", she learned music from a very young age such as the piano while also doing high school stage productions. She also studied method acting at the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute and Collaborative Arts Project 21, although she dropped out of the latter school to focus on music. Her album The Fame (2008) was her first success, and she has moved on to further success with her music that range from electronic to dance to pop; this is only her second film role (not counting a handful of appearances as herself in documentaries), having had her first prominent television role in American Horror Story: Hotel (2015). 

The strange thing is that I forgot to do this film when it originally came out. Even though I had seen the first two films of the same name, I honestly did not think to do this film because it was quite a busy time to do other stuff (that, and it felt better to cover the other film...which took nearly two years to do). So, why not a quick little rundown of each of the three films: The original film was released in 1937 with a story by William A. Wellman and Robert Carson (with several other writers contributing and direction by Wellman). It is the only one to not have any songs (since it isn't a musical) - as a whole, it was a pretty good movie, tender in its setup between stars Janet Gaynor and Fredric March that was noted for having similar aspects to What Price Hollywood? (1932) alongside inspiration from the marriage of Barbara Stanwyck and Frank Fay. The 1954 remake (written by Moss Hart) was a grand classic with Judy Garland and James Mason as the key stars, dynamic in its music with well-timed direction from George Cukor. The 1976 version (written by John Gregory Dunne, Joan Didion, and Frank Pierson), starring Barbra Streisand & Kris Kristofferson and directed by Frank Pierson, was a monumentally cheesy affair, an ego-trip involving Streisand that can't sell romance nor as a rock star. It shouldn't be a surprise that there had been plans by Warner Brothers to do another A Star is Born for years, with ideas of casting stars being as early as 2000 that looked for directors such as Clint Eastwood and musicians such as Beyoncé; Cooper expressed interest in doing the film despite close friends warning him. 

What we have is a romance between country rock and pop, which seems more fermented in attempts at honesty within addiction and fame that may rank it just as good as the 1954 version if not better. Gaga does well with trying to hew down-to-earth quality in terms of find confidence within dazzling chemistry with Cooper that is enjoyable to see her journey through soulful singing that includes an easy favorite performance with "Shallow" that keeps the line between celebrity and vulnerable at the right distance. Cooper simply makes a welcome debut in directing, one that seems like a personal film for him (as he also struggled with alcohol addiction early in his career), and all that training of singing and music-playing seems to have paid off greatly - he grits his way towards struggle and self-assured damage with the right sense of conviction needed to make a worthy pair come alive with star-crossed romance. Elliott carries his traditional resonant presence and voice with efficiency, easily believable to see interact with Cooper with resolved and unresolved ends of brotherly conflict and love. Clay (a stand-up comedian with various turns in acting - both comedic and drama) proves equally as useful in homespun warmness, useful for what is needed in his scenes with Gaga without becoming sopped in sentimentality. Gavron, Ramos, and Chappelle round out the cast well enough in the edges with what is needed, whether in ambition or devotion. As a whole, it makes a worthwhile 136 minutes in how it makes a fine-tuning on the original structure from before that seems fresh enough to seem necessary while having interesting presence and an engaging soundtrack full of songs (which Cooper and Gaga did live, by the request of the latter) that are pretty enjoyable in earnest grit with a mixture of pop and country rock. It is a welcome remake that contains some grounded performances alongside music and story to make a mostly worthwhile experience with a winning duo at the helm to carry it along.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Isle of Dogs.

Review #1582: Isle of Dogs.

Cast:

Bryan Cranston (Chief), Koyu Rankin (Atari Kobayashi), Edward Norton (Rex), Liev Schreiber (Spots), Bill Murray (Boss), Bob Balaban (King), Jeff Goldblum (Duke), Scarlett Johansson (Nutmeg), Kunichi Nomura (Mayor Kenji Kobayashi), Tilda Swinton (Oracle), Ken Watanabe (Head Surgeon), Akira Ito (Professor Watanabe), Greta Gerwig (Tracy Walker), Akira Takayama (Major Domo), Frances McDormand (Interpreter Nelson), F. Murray Abraham (Jupiter), Courtney B. Vance (The Narrator), Yojiro Noda (News Anchor), Fisher Stevens (Scrap), Mari Natsuki (Auntie), Nijiro Murakami (Editor Hiroshi), Yoko Ono (Assistant Scientist Yoko Ono), Harvey Keitel (Gondo), and Frank Wood (Simul-Translate Machine) Directed by Wes Anderson (#1553 - Fantastic Mr. Fox)

Review:

"Jason, Roman, and I started this project with wanting to do a movie about some dogs abandoned on a garbage dump, a pack of dogs who live on garbage. But we had also been talking about wanting to do something in Japan, about Japan, something related to our shared love of Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa. The story could have taken place anywhere, but it came together when we realized it should take place in a fantasy version of Japan.”

It is not often that a director known for live-action work makes a bon-a-fide classic on their first venture into animation, particularly with stop motion, so undeniably there was anticipation to cover another Wes Anderson film, with this serving as his second in stop motion. For all the information one could say about him or his films, it was certainly still interesting to hear him once state his top three filmmaker influences as Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and Bill Melendez. Oh sure, there are likely others that Anderson has also stated an influence, but it is the fact that he wanted to make a self-contained world like those Peanuts specials (stating this once during an interview about Rushmore) that Melendez (who in addition to directing was also a producer/voice actor and animator for over 60 years) helped to make over numerous decades that will undeniably stick with how one could see Anderson's films as a whole. He is an eccentric director with his own visual and narrative style that balance comedy and drama in their own distinct way.

The film was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Kunichi Nomura. It takes inspiration from the films of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions, with the fur here being made from alpaca wool (there were other inspirations in terms of dog-centric films like 101 Dalmatians and The Plague Dogs). There will be quite a few references to look upon in interest, such as name-drop references to Seven Samurai (1954) alongside a selection of music that mixes songs from Japanese cinema alongside work from Alexandre Desplat as composer. Is it as great as his previous animated work? Not quite, but it sure is a welcome treat regardless, one that proves interesting as a standout piece for its decade. There is quite a fascination to be had with a film that makes an interesting atmosphere come across with flourish and respect for establishing what needs to come across with a dystopian setting of a futuristic Japan. It relies on deadpan humor that makes for clever moments without needing a heavy nudge, relying on casual conversation between its group of main voices / supporting voices that show up, while the nature of language also helps in some interesting subversion (having both English and Japanese with certain moments of translation) that makes a useful 111 minute adventure. There is quite a diverse amount of voices to hear sprinkled through the film, ranging from Anderson regulars like Murray, Goldblum, Norton, and Swinton to go alongside new ones like Cranston and Gerwig. Cranston (familiar for his roles on television such as starring on Breaking Bad) proves quite well here, engaging with careful tenor that leads the way in gruff charm. Rankin does fine with a performance (primarily in Japanese) with wistful curiosity for what is needed here (mainly acting alongside a voice pack of dogs). Schreiber is warm in parts in terms of snappy devotion. The meat of the film is split between them alongside the group of Norton, Murray, Balaban, Goldblum, who make for an interesting group to exchange a few amusing lines together in casual warm conversation. Johansson shows up for basically three scenes and does alright with use towards small cute moments with Cranston. Nomura proves a worthy focus on the mainland storyline, while Gerwig (actress-turned-director) shows some pep to go against that. Others have brief lines in highlights, such as with Abraham, Swinton, Ito, or translators with McDormand and Vance (alongside ones to listen closely to hear, like with musician Ono, Stevens, or Keitel). As a whole, I found it to be mostly successful in maintaining balance of charm and humor with a mostly-put together story that will at the very least make a viewer go home happy by its ending without decrying artificiality. Whether a dog-lover or not, it will prove a useful experience for its variable amount of audience reach, working just as well for children or adults without seeming too much in its visual and story language.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Annihilation.

Review #1581: Annihilation.

Cast:
Natalie Portman (Lena), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Ventress), Gina Rodriguez (Anya Thorensen), Tessa Thompson (Josie Radek), Tuva Novotny (Cassie “Cass” Sheppard), Oscar Isaac (Kane), Benedict Wong (Lomax), Sonoya Mizuno (Katie / The Humanoid), and David Gyasi (Daniel) Written and Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina)

Review:

"I try to figure out: What is the thing that I'm adapting? And in this instance, it was the feeling, the experience of reading the book; it was the atmosphere of the book. That was the thing that I was concerned about."

One never can hurt to find a worthy director within being a writer as well. Alex Garland fits the requirement since his first publication nearly 25 years ago. He was a graduate of the University of Manchester after studying History of Art. In 1996, his first novel was published with The Beach, based on his travels across Europe through backpack (which he described as satire against backpacking) that became a hit based on word-of-mouth praise - to the surprise of everyone, including Garland, which included a subsequent film adaptation that Garland observed its production (it was seeing the collaboration between the screenwriter, producer, and director that he felt looked like fun). Although he would write two more novels, he decided to take his interest to screenwriting with 28 Days Later (2002). He followed this up with work on Sunshine (2007) and Never Let Me Go (2010) before taking an "unorthodox collaboration" with writing Dredd (2012). Ex Machina (2014) was his first breakthrough as a director (alongside writing duties), a science fiction film achievement. One of the producers of that film (Scott Rudin) later approached Garland to read a particularly recent book named Annihilation (written in 2014 by Jeff VanderMeer), which he described as a "really strange, really quite beautiful book". It was the first of a trilogy of books called the "Southern Reach Trilogy", although Garland wrote the script when only one book had been released. He wrote it as a "memory of the book" that wanted to make a dreamlike kind of film.

What we have here is a fascinating movie that surely deserved better upon release. A dispute with the head of Skydance Media (one of the production companies behind the film) and leaders at Paramount Pictures meant that the film would have just under three weeks of release in theaters before it was readily available on Netflix to stream (a terrible decision, for those who desire cinema releases as first priority). Take one good guess why this occurred: imagine funding a science fiction film and then deciding it is "too intellectual" and "too complicated". This is literally the same major studio distributor that allowed mother! (2017) to go along unscathed without preview screenings, but here we are. One does not get the feeling of being talked down to here within its mix of science fiction and horror, this much is true. It most certainly is not too complicated to elude interest from an audience (older audiences might see an unintentional relation to Predator (1987), while most would note familiarity with H. P. Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space"), because it most certainly is an entertaining and useful experience in the means of human nature with self-destruction with a shimmer of terror. It isn't a film with an easily defined monster, but there is one easy detail to keep on the toes: the only thing that survives is the frightened pain of those who are taken by it, one that has turned the environment around it into something extraordinary and frightening at the same time. One works the film out on its own terms for 115 minutes with carefully planned unraveling, which makes for a wonderfully strange time to build towards pondering the means to get to its ending, for better or worse. Portman does pretty well with handling the capability of self-destructive nature around her with useful regard to the surroundings around her that isn't lost in a show of effects. Leigh keeps it carefully on-key with quiet planning for the inevitable, while Rodriguez and Thompson each do fine with building the layers of shaky chemistry between people entering the unknown with fears and interests to go alongside it all (which works mostly without a hitch). The others are fine, including Issac and his carefully constructed post-escape act between here and there. It proves efficient with visual sense to go alongside a fairly well-crafted atmosphere to inspire a few questions (mostly on the inquisitive side, although it could also prove interesting to pick at, such as its ultimate fate) that rewards those with patience to make it a worthwhile sophomore film for Garland. It wasn't a huge winner at the time of its release, but only time will tell how it does with those curious enough to look upon it somewhere in the margins for horror or sci-fi.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

mother!

Review #1580: mother!

cast: 

Jennifer Lawrence (mother), Javier Bardem (Him), Ed Harris (man), Michelle Pfeiffer (woman), Domhnall Gleeson (oldest son), Brian Gleeson (younger brother), Kristen Wiig (herald), Jovan Adepo (cupbearer), Stephen McHattie (zealot), Amanda Warren (healer), Laurence Leboeuf (maiden), and Emily Hampshire (fool) Written and Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi)

review: 

“The idea with all my films is to entertain, to give audiences a journey they haven’t had before. But I want to do it with a subject that makes me passionate. What’s the point if you’re not doing that?”

Sometimes you can just track an interesting path of a director in their first film and see how it goes to the latest one - enter Darren Aronofsky. The New York native had an interest in the outdoors and show business as a youth, and it continued with his studies at Harvard University, where he studied social anthropology and filmmaking. Inspired by directors such as Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee, he made his first movie with the senior thesis Supermarket Sweep (1991). His first feature film came with the release of Pi (1998), an ultra-cheap dark classic thriller. His next film in Requiem for a Dream (2000) was just as well received while noted for its intensity. The Fountain (2006) was not easily received (although it has a following), but The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010) both received considerable notice (particularly for its lead stars in each film) while Noah (2014) was his biggest film in budget/success. 

Angry about the world with its environmental state and as a whole enough to strike inspiration, Aronofsky reportedly wrote the script to the film in five days, and inspirations have been argued that range from Rosemary's Baby (1968) to The Exterminating Angel (1962). The easiest word to describe this film would be "esoteric", really. Get it? A film about mother (Earth)? Drawing a story based on the Bible (there is one character name capitalized, after all)? And it is still a cloying, divisive, ridiculous mess? The real surprise is in how much you want to know before seeing it - the answer would be none, because hearing an endless supply of "you just don't get it!" vs. "I don't get it, because X" would likely cause a great headache for all involved. It certainly won't help anyone wanting a film pegged under one genre, since "psychological horror" doesn't really seem to cut it. I mean, hey a husband-and-wife living in a country house wrapped with writer's block and intimacy problems suddenly have a couple of strangers turn up sounds fine. Is it blasphemy? Is it pretentious? Is it something else? It can fall under either or all of these three categories, depending on the patience and the point of view of the person watching it. To me, I thought it was incredibly silly, a monumentally weird movie that seems more like therapy for Aronofsky than anything else. It might as well have taken place on the stage (with...some modification to its gruesome scene at the end) with how it plays to the rafters of allegory, allegory, and allegory. Lawrence (having become an actress as a teenager and one with prominence years later) does fine with what she is given, balancing that fine line between emotional vulnerability and being stuck like a statue to ham-fisted metaphor. No one is really confused in their acting, although Bardem sure comes close here. Truthfully, one would hope to see more of Harris and Pfeiffer, each being equally amusing in pushy fervor that begs for more time to spend with loopy interlopers. 

Is it a challenging movie different from the usual fare released in mainstream theaters? Sure, but so was Zardoz (1974), and all one remembers from that film is Sean Connery in a nappy. Why stop there with the reference to that film? After all, both films try to meander through a certain type of philosophy from its director while subjecting their lead to some sort of memorable outfit/character (which in the case of Lawrence is a bunch of heavy stuff amidst statuesque acting all around) that involve some sort of supreme being (one being a rock and the other being...take a guess) while taking a hard swerve for its climax with some sort of revelation (in this case, a literal mad-house). Whether one believes in God or not, it is sure to be a strange one to evaluate, although truthfully I wish I could show this to a religious friend of mine, if only to see if they would get mad at it for my amusement. In that sense, it is equally appropriate to give this film the same rating as I did years prior to that film, because neither are particularly great pieces of work, but they sure are memorable in all of their ridiculousness. I applaud Aronofsky for continuing his vision of filmmaking with passion, and the commitment to have his actors participate in some weird pretentiousness, despite the overriding result of said camp. It will prove a welcome curiosity for those that favor Aronofsky and his films for what they attempt to do in story, while proving an irritant for those not in line with its ultimate goals.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

It Comes at Night.

Review #1579: It Comes at Night.

Cast: 

Joel Edgerton (Paul), Christopher Abbott (Will), Carmen Ejogo (Sarah), Riley Keough (Kim), Kelvin Harrison Jr. (Travis), Griffin Robert Faulkner (Andrew), David Pendleton (Bud), and Mickey (Stanley) Written and Directed by Trey Edward Shults.

Review: 

"With this one, I think I jumped into it as the audience would. The way it’s written is the way I jumped into it. I let it spew out of me. Also, it stemmed from something super personal, so it started from that and spewed out from there. I don’t build out this whole, huge world and start writing. It comes from this personal, little space and let it build out. And then I have my logical reasons for everything else, but I intentionally keep stuff out."

Never count out seeing a young voice find their place in resilient prominence in cinema, whether for drama for horror, particularly from a name that could prove quite useful to know in the future in Trey Edward Shults. The native Texan already had a love of films by the time he was a teenager, but his chance to move into the work of filmmaking came at the age of 19 when he was hired to work in the camera department on The Tree of Life (2011), directed by Terence Malick (a visionary director to discuss another time). The experience shaped his decision to drop out of Texas State University (having been at school for business management) and do work interning for Malick (which resulted in work on Voyage of Time (2016) and Song to Song (2017)). He made three short films as a director from 2010 to 2014, which includes Krisha - he would convert it into his feature debut the following year with members of his family participating in the film, which was a hit with the festival circuit. The basis for the film came from his reaction to his father's death, in which he tried to help his dad find some peace with the regrets he had, with the film being about the process of grief and regret that is torn by fear, reflecting his biggest fear - mortality. He found inspiration with films such as Night of the Living Dead (1968) and The Shining (1980) alongside works from directors such as John Cassavetes and Paul Thomas Anderson.

I'm sure you have heard this before, but sometimes it is what you don't see that is more scary, which can be drawn right in the open from the prominent featuring of Pieter Bruegel the Elder's painting The Triumph of Death. If one is expecting a slow burn involving paranoia wreaking havoc over all as opposed to a monster movie, you might be in for quite a tense winner. It relies on pulling the strings in stress and doubt for the majority of 91 minutes, and the enjoyment is in exactly how one feels about seeing fear play out like this, seeing people trying to survive despite the threat of sickness while cooped up away from the world (or at the very least trying to escape the problems the world can bring), because fear is one thing, but death is another. Edgerton is dependable here, capable of reacting to his surroundings with the conviction required to move in fear without seeming brazen about it. Abbott does just as well here, expressing his own control on the situation as it grows, maintaining the other side of tentative balance of family just fine. On the other side of reflected families, Ejogo and Keough each do well in matching the surroundings needed that keeps the doubts in check. Harrison (having been in small roles of film since 2012 before having a breakthrough here) proves the key piece of the main group, capturing a yearning fear and growth that makes for a usefully different kind of youth horror story. It builds a carefully-planned atmosphere of quiet doubt to longer on who and what one knows and doesn't know that makes for delicate human nature drama that works best within the details (such as during its dream moments, for example), relying on one's patience to make an efficient time (with an equally appropriate ending to go with said buildup). It won't merit the best for everyone in delivering everything in horror, but it is a quietly effective film of family and fear to match the moment needed to ponder on its content after the screen goes to black and one goes back to their normal life behind the screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Moonlight.

Review #1578: Moonlight. 

Cast:

Trevante Rhodes (Adult Chiron Harris / "Black"), André Holland (Adult Kevin), Janelle Monáe (Teresa), Ashton Sanders (Teen Chiron), Jharrel Jerome (Teen Kevin), Naomie Harris (Paula), Mahershala Ali (Juan), Alex Hibbert (Child Chiron Harris / "Little"), Jaden Piner (Child Kevin), and Patrick Decile (Terrel) Directed by Barry Jenkins.

Review:

"I want to create productive images, not necessarily positive images. Overt positivity can sometimes deflect attention away from the problem, or create myths that aren’t helpful. The way I described it to the actors was, ‘Everything in this movie is a gray area. The characters are gray, the situations are gray.’ There’s some very dark shit in this movie, but you have to acknowledge the ugliness. You just have to.”

As the saying goes, sometimes the past makes the difference for what matters in the present for a worthwhile effort into film. Barry Jenkins made a film set in Miami, Florida for his breakthrough feature, and it fits right into his background as a Miami native. He studied film at Florida State University College of Motion Picture Arts, and he subsequently took up production assistant work to help him on a journey towards filmmaking as a career. His first short was My Josephine (2003), but his first feature film came with Medicine for Melancholy (2008). In the eight years that followed, he did work on scripts that led to dead ends alongside work as a carpenter and with a commercial studio of his own before being encouraged by associates to work again. The basis for the film is an unpublished play by Tarell Alvin McCraney called In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, with Jenkins writing the screenplay adaptation. Both shared similar backgrounds, since each both were born in Miami and raised in the same neighborhood and each had been raised by a mother that struggled with her vices - they only met for the first time just a few years prior to the development of what became this film (since a friend gave Jenkins the play to read). The key change between the original work and film was the fact that the former depicted a day in the life of Chiron through the three stages of his life at the same time (because one only realized it was the same life of the same person halfway through reading). If you can do a film right near where you grew up, particularly one filmed in Miami in the Liberty City neighborhood, you have already accomplished part of the goal already, particularly with a budget of just $1.5 million.

What we have here is a film making a journey on those moments of silence to ponder through three points in one person's life, whether that involves childhood, teenage life, and adulthood. It doesn't aspire to have all the answers to what it means, particularly when it comes to masculinity that moves in a hauntingly tender manner that will reflect well upon those who find it something to resonate with or draw upon their own experiences. In other words, it is a usefully-crafted drama that does quite well within its quietly layered narrative that doesn't need to play to cliché or expectation but instead on the engagement one finds with these characters and who they represent to those living in the margins of life in some way. There have been plenty of coming-of-age movies that have come and gone over the past few decades, but one can always find a way to make it useful when it comes to depicting the struggle for one's identity. Regardless of how one is with their family, orientation, or with their life as a whole, the struggle to find a way out and be who they are is one we can all find important to dig for ourselves for 111 minutes. One starts with the opening storyline in "Little", featuring a quiet but effective performance from Hibbert, who resonates well with those moments we see him interact with the surroundings that will undoubtedly shape him that keeps the level of dialogue with others such as Ali, Monae, Harris, and Piner to worthy poignance. Ali (previously known for his work on shows such as The 4400 and House of Cards) is undeniably excellent here, doing so much in shaping the tone of the film with the look upon making one's path with nuance for such a small span of time on screen. The same applies in care with Monae, while Harris does quite well in unifying the film with anguish that comes to us without needing to play for pretense. The middle story in "Chiron" keeps pace going in quiet energy that bubbles to the surface on its own time, which Sanders and Jerome handle fine, making the exchange on the beach compared to on the schoolyard that more poignant. The closing story in "Black" opens as many doors as it seems to close, in that time passes on without needing to spell things out for that time spent with Rhodes & Holland. Is it a flawless experience? Not entirely, but it is the fluidity of its drama that keeps things grounded in tension that succeeds more often than not in what is needed. It is the film for people who need a story of spoken and unspoken light between the darkness as a film fitting for its era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars

La La Land.

Review #1577: La La Land.

Cast:

Ryan Gosling (Sebastian Wilder), Emma Stone (Mia Dolan), John Legend (Keith), J. K. Simmons (Bill), Rosemarie DeWitt (Laura Wilder), Finn Wittrock (Greg), Callie Hernandez (Tracy), Sonoya Mizuno (Caitlin), Jessica Rothe (Alexis), and Tom Everett Scott (David) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man)

Review:

"Now more than ever we need hope and romance on the screen, and I think there’s something about musicals that just get at something that only movies can do. That idea of movies as a dreamland, movies as the language of our dreams and movies as a way of expressing a world in which you break into song, that emotions can violate the rules of reality.” - Damien Chazelle

Maybe the old saying about the youth being the future can work out in film, as one could observe from Damien Chazelle. Born in Rhode Island but raised in Princeton, New Jersey, he had a love of filmmaking from a young age (while doing music with the local studio band), which reflected on his study at Harvard University within Visual and Environmental Studies. As part of his thesis project, he directed his first feature film with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), which received some notice on the festival circuit. He tried his hand in Hollywood with writing assignments for hire (such as The Last Exorcism Part II (2013) and 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)), but he wanted to do his own projects. He and college classmate Justin Hurwitz had envisioned the idea for La La Land in 2010, and there had been plans to do it with a cheap budget that was scrapped, mostly because he was told that the concept and material "seemed brazenly uncommercial" (Focus, for example, wanted to change the focus from jazz to rock and modify the opening number and ending). It was the success of a film near to Chazelle's heart in terms of his experiences as a drummer in high school that led to his breakthrough with Whiplash (2014), a critical darling that also helped get his foot in the door to make this feature with a more suitable budget.

So, how does one make a film about Los Angeles come alive while describing it once as the place that worships everything and value nothing? (which just reminds me of that old joke about it being a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there). By trying to inspire hope within a cynical audience member? In some ways that may prove all they need, although it is clear that others might find their eyes rolling rather than in tears. I guess it depends on where you look upon the film's idea of bringing romance to the screen with the stylings that try to aim for classic musicals of yesteryear with a touch of modern flair that goes for "cute" but, "not that cute" at the same time, with listed inspirations being films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) to Singin' in the Rain (1952) to even Boogie Nights (1997). So here we are, a musical that wants to go on with no cuts for its numbers. Is it as great as those traditional musicals? Better than some of them, perhaps. This may all be subjective, but I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of the aforementioned Singin' in the Rain, or even An American in Paris (1951); technically, this might be comparable to the quality of Gigi (1958) - good, not great, but good in inspiring decent little charm with chemistry. One starts with Stone (freshly established earlier in the decade with films such as Easy A), the best presence in the whole film when it comes to well-delivered grace that obviously proves useful to watch on screen in the balancing act of struggling dreamer alongside time to sing and dance with chemistry that flickers with some worthy energy. Gosling does fine with what he has offered to him, since his pursuits come off a bit more aloof, but at least they make a worthy pair together when they dance (singing is a different edge). The supporting cast is played to short lengths, such as having singer/pianist Legend there for a time to promote charm with inverting classic jazz with fusion (which goes...somewhere?), or a stern one-shot from Simmons. Funny, I remember classic musicals having some sort of memorable third character to pair off the would-be romantic leads. It might seem like I am picking at this film a bit, but let's just list some positive notes too. After all, it is a charming film in execution, with the opening number on the freeway, while the dance between Stone and Gosling in that twilight of sunset is also a dazzler. The songs are fairly well-crafted too, perhaps not inherently catchy, but they resonate with a dream of gloss and fevered ambition that the film goes for without needing to stuff themselves. 

And then of course there is the ending of the film. It was stated by both Chazelle and others that this is the ending they wanted with no changes, grounding the classic musical in "real life". For that, all power to Chazelle, since I doubt the ending shifted audience notices downward at all. It's a shame I just don't like that ending, not merely because it's a bittersweet one, but more so because I just found it to be a ridiculous choice for a film that wants to adhere to old-school musical films but then decide for both a supposed honest ending alongside with an "imagined" sequence as a cheap joke to have it both ways. But hey, life is like a bunch of seasons, and one's dreams will require perhaps sacrificing things to get there. Cool, great, have fun with that attempt at spinning goo into the newest product of hope within cynical times (we've never been cynical like this!, says the history-maker of the now). It is also entirely possible that one can get weary at times even for "good" films, because sometimes expectations are higher for some films than others. As a whole, it is a nice little movie, filled with some useful charm and interest with harkening back to the musicals of yesteryear, which it reaches with mostly successful results. Is is the great return of the classic musical? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it is an interesting experiment from its young director in Chazelle that will surely prove a useful curiosity in discussion over where it sits in time spent with song-and-dance.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Train to Busan

Review #1576: Train to Busan.

Cast:

Gong Yoo (Seok-woo), Ma Dong-seok (Sang-hwa), Kim Su-an (Su-an), Jung Yu-mi (Seong-kyeong), Choi Woo-shik (Yong-guk), Ahn So-hee (Jin-hee), Kim Eui-sung (Yon-suk), Choi Gwi-hwa (Homeless man), Jeong Seok-yong (Captain of KTX), Ye Soo-jung (In-gil), and Park Myung-sin (Jong-gil) Directed by Yeon Sang-ho.

Review:

"I thought using a continuously moving isolated space like a train would be interesting. And I thought it was similar to our lives. Human life also flows in one direction, toward death, whether we want it to or not … What’s important to me is what kind of life I will live in the cube where my final destination has already been decided."

It never hurts to find another new voice for cinema, so it is equally useful to reach a film from South Korea alongside one from Yeon Sang-ho, featured in the midst of his career that shifted focus from a reputation as a director of animation into live action. He had a love of animation from his youth, and he spent his developing years finding inspiration in directors such as Hayao Miyazaki. A graduate of Sangmyung University in Western Painting, Yeon made his way into filmmaking with short films starting with Meglomania of D (1997). He continued with his work in shorts in the span of over a decade before making his feature-length directorial/writer debut with The King of Pigs (2011), which received considerable attention despite its low budget as an animated feature aimed for more mature audiences. This is his third feature film and the first of two directed in the year of 2016, as Seoul Station would be released a few months after as an animated prequel to this film (his most recent release in Peninsula (2020) incidentally serves as a standalone sequel). The film seems reminiscent of other zombie films (as Yeon had an appreciation for both the works of George A. Romero and Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake), albeit with a focus on distinct action through various spaces within melodrama usually seen in Korean dramas.

So here we are, a zombie movie (written by Park Joo-suk) taking place on a train with a bit of social commentary along the way that makes for an involving film to go along with. It moves along with quick intensity and conscience for who exactly is in line to survive under these circumstances (on one side, we have the rich cloying among themselves while on the other we have a homeless stowaway that can't even express the horror he saw). The creatures come out of nowhere with blazing speed and fairly quick infection-rate that could spare no one with the wrong circumstances. This is on-the-rails action with a few observations on the way that while not probably as great as say Night of the Living Dead (1968) is at least pretty good entertainment for 118 minutes that keeps its threat looming with effectiveness without forgetting the human element in making useful tension. It starts with Gong (a name quite familiar on Korean television and films over the past few years), who does quite well in lofty curiosity, a cynical man wrapped away from others that include even his daughter before eventually stepping into his own for others that makes for quite an interesting journey to follow. Ma (known for his supporting roles before reaching international prominence with this film) proves well in down-to-earth charm before moving into zombie punching. Kim and Jung (who like the other main group were also name actors with some prominence) do fine in dealing with tension that keeps them on their toes without any hesitation. Choi and Ahn make up an okay pair together, while Kim makes an amusing adversary and Choi makes a worried stowaway count well for support. It proves more daunting with its execution for the first half more so than the second, but it is a generally engaging movie, relying on its environment and character moments to make for engaging action, with one favorite being a scene involving the struggle to let people back into a certain section after fending off creatures. On the whole, it is a riveting adventure worth a watch for some enjoyable action with tight spaces filled with useful actors to fill the space of tension for enjoyment to hitch a ride on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Midnight Special.

Review #1575: Midnight Special.

Cast:

Michael Shannon (Roy Tomlin), Joel Edgerton (Lucas), Kirsten Dunst (Sarah Tomlin), Adam Driver (Paul Sevier), Jaeden Lieberher (Alton), Sam Shepard (Pastor Calvin Meyer), Bill Camp (Doak), and Scott Haze (Levi) Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols.

Review:

“I never wanted to make movies just for me. I want to make movies that people watch.”

Whether through studio productions or independent ones, the director/writer can make their mark any which way they can, whether through story or aesthetic. Jeff Nichols, raised in Arkansas as the son of a furniture store owner, grew up with a love of films from directors like John Carpenter and Steven Spielberg. He studied at the University of North Carolina School of Arts, and it was a suggestion from his father to do a film about "a place you know that others don’t" that led to Shotgun Stories (2007), made on the cheap over the span of three years. Take Shelter (2011) raised attention for the director/writer, but it was Mud (2012) that fully put him on the map more in terms of notice. This was his fourth feature film alongside his first studio production, made on a budget of $18 million. Nichols was influenced by films such as Starman (1984) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) in terms of their structure and aesthetic when it comes to the sci-fi chase, one that aspires to have the viewer follow the mystery like his other films, even if it happens to have a bit more CGI than his other works. He had just become a father at the time of writing, and it certainly seemed to play an influence in his writing here.

While the film wasn't exactly a great success upon release, it is easy to see where it could spring interest as a hidden favorite. Sometimes you need a slow burn kind of mystery film, particularly one that takes itself on the road for science fiction within a family setting. It aspires for a bit of transcendence with quiet styling that keeps us in the dark to our own imagination. Sure, it is the story of a kid and other folks on the run, but it is the responsibility taken by Nichols to generate a curious story to come around to its own path that makes it at least good enough to glance across the aisle of interest. It might not be as great as its influences, but it certainly works just fine in expressing itself as a film about belief, whether that means one of a prophet, or of logic, or the most important one in family. The 112 minutes come out with fascination over what comes out to us closely without needing each detail spelled out to us, where a few effects can come along with their own interest and not blur the line of subtlety. One starts with Shannon (who has featured in every film directed by Nichols), who does quite well here in expressing parental devotion with worthwhile intensity. Edgerton doesn't say too much, but he still proves useful in rolling along with the mystery in quiet edge. Dunst appears on her own time as the last crucial piece of the main five, but she does worthwhile in showing reasoned grace with a part that utilizes her with effective quiet power in the climax. Driver does just fine with inquisitive curiosity, while Lieberher makes for a useful youthful presence to tie it all together with mystery that never seems to play to whims for the camera, while Shepard and Camp make useful support for brief scenes together. As a whole, it winds itself in mystery for involvement when it comes to a story about parents and belief within sci-fi trappings that ultimately will prove rewarding for those willing to come along for the ride for a careful adventure with interest that may inspire a sense of wonder, packing an ending that will at least inspire some discussion to it. In the end, that should prove more than enough for a good time and a worthy experience for a director striving to make a mark in storytelling.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Big Short.

Review #1574: The Big Short.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Michael Burry), Steve Carell (Mark Baum), Ryan Gosling (Jared Vennett), Brad Pitt (Ben Rickert), John Magaro (Charlie Geller), Finn Wittrock (Jamie Shipley), Hamish Linklater (Porter Collins), Rafe Spall (Danny Moses), Jeremy Strong (Vinny Daniel), Marisa Tomei (Cynthia Baum), and Tracy Letts (Lawrence Fields) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues)

Review: 

"I think it’s no accident that most people get bored when they hear about it. I think it’s, like, designed to be boring. I think they don’t want anyone participating in the conversation, they want you to use this jargon, they want you to basically go away, they want you to feel stupid, and the second you crack it, it’s just endlessly fascinating.”

Going from a reputation of comedy to verge into comedy can be a tough task, particularly if you have done so well with the former. And yet, if one has enough conviction in what they want to tell in their story (no matter how complicated), anything can happen. Adam McKay has proven a worthy example of achieving notice within both comedy and drama. The Pennsylvania native majored in English with studies at Pennsylvania State University and Temple University, but his real interest was in standup comedy. He did various work in improv comedy (most notably in Chicago with The Second City), which included being one of the founders of the group the Upright Citizens Brigade. He moved on to Saturday Night Live as a writer for six years (including two as head writer) before moving into directing. His first four films were each written by him and Will Ferrell (who starred on the show), which resulted in movies such as Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) and The Other Guys (2010). Undeniably, it was not an easy task to adapt real-life events involving bankers and an economical collapse to film. Naturally, this is adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Michael Lewis that talked about the housing bubble of the 2000s and the people that bet against the bubble (the film kept Dr. Burry while basing the others on real-life money managers and traders such as Steve Eisman and Greg Lippmann). McKay expressed an interest in doing a film based on the book because of his interest (and outrage) in the crisis with people depicted in the book that did not fit what a studio might desire for leads to follow - explaining financial terms to go alongside all of this is another story entirely. McKay and Charles Randolph would adapt the book to film as screenwriters - Randolph wrote his screenplay over a period of six months while McKay made his contributions two years after that, most notably with the moments involving breaking the fourth wall and celebrities brought in to explain certain terms.

What we have here is a film that can equally be viewed as both a bio-drama and a comedy on the nature of unchecked greed versus incompetence within finance, a film that will have one buzzing with information to digest that will leave them rippling with curiosity over just how one could get away with so much with a system that really didn't know what it was doing. We are talking about people who bet against the odds for a market that looked like it would never stop based on what had happened before with the foundation when it comes to mortgages, subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations. In other words, it's the story of people who found themselves with a system that was not in fact too big to fail, and one can either look upon them however they like, whether that means with anger or another way. Sometimes one needs a bit of informative depression when it comes to films wanting to tell a film about finance. In that sense, it is inevitable to look upon another film related to greed with finance in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), or maybe even something like Margin Call (2011). The more complicated it gets with its foundation and tension, the better the film goes, and that proves to be the case with an excellent and complicated film like this, a useful one fresh for some interesting acting alongside its movement around economics that make a worthwhile film that appeals to biting satire rather than condescending biopic. The film is told through three separate but parallel stories that are linked through the eventual crisis, in which two of the main four actors doesn't ever interact with the others. Bale is our first focus, one who certainly molds right in with an eccentric role filled with concentration and awkward charm that never seems like a bit played out to impatience, whether that means listening to loud music in his office or fiddling with his clients about being right. Carell (no stranger to dramatic turns after being known for comedy) is just as well-done, capturing a certain cynicism-filled edge that reaches with useful honesty for what one can feel about others around them in terms of temper (although if you hear it from Eisman, the man that Carell is loosely playing, he captured the anger without his sense of humor - but biopics can only be so fleeting). Gosling does well here with a role that practically seems made out of snakeskin, one filled with transparency for what he does, which works out pretty well for a performance that we follow along at times for certain moments of explanation. Pitt is fairly reserved here for a role that fits that requirement, independent without becoming entrenched in the background for too long. Magaro and Wittrock both do well with contributing idealism within wanting to make a bunch of money within a withering system that lend a few wry moments while closing the film out with a poignant moment inside a collapsed building of finance. Linklater, Spall, and Strong also do fine with contributing their end in support to follow along Carell without being lost in all the financial hullaballoo. As a whole, its moments in trying to balance drama with details about finance with a variation on the usual exposition that keeps the film on its heels for 130 minutes with farce and furor that makes a provocative film on history that still lingers in its consequences years later that is useful to keep alive in our mind to understand the rights and wrongs of what might seem mundane but are in fact much more than that.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Gift.

Review #1573: The Gift.

Cast:

Jason Bateman (Simon Callem), Rebecca Hall (Robyn Callem), Joel Edgerton (Gordon "Gordo" Mosley), Tim Griffin (Kevin "KK" Keelor), Allison Tolman (Lucy), Beau Knapp (Detective Walker), P.J. Byrne (Danny McDonald), David Denman (Greg Pierson), Busy Philipps (Duffy), and Wendell Pierce (Detective Mills) Written and Directed by Joel Edgerton.

Review:

"I wanted to take those triangle thrillers that we’re all so familiar with and hold the audience’s hand going down that road for the first third of the movie, and then just start messing with those conventions."

Like I said, the director can come from anywhere. Sometimes he can even serve as the star of the picture, and this proves doubly true with Joel Edgerton, making his debut as a director alongside serving as star, writer, and co-producer. The son of a solicitor, he developed a passion for home moviemaking, doing so first with 8mm while growing up in Sydney, Australia. After studying drama at the University of Western Sydney, Edgerton entered acting with the Sydney Theatre Company before adding appearances in television and film in his native country, most notably with The Secret Life of Us (2001-02). This was the fourth film he had wrote for, having done so with The Square (2008, which had his brother Nash as director), Felony (2013), and The Rover (2014, co-written with David Michôd).

This is a decent little movie, certainly befitting someone making the rounds in terms of acting and directing as a moderately entertaining experience, one that uses its small cast to create a few moments of worthy tension. It definitely seems a bit familiar for those who know what it is trying to pull with psychological thrills (with influences noted such as Caché and Fatal Attraction), but Edgerton does a fine job with weaving a tense atmosphere that leaves doubt in one's mind with the nature of its plot before eventually getting to its sleight of hand ending, which will either work for what is needed in terms of lasting impact, or it will seem a bit hollow for all that it built to that point. One starts with Bateman, mostly known for his work equally as a teen idol on television before moving into straight man roles in comedy (such as with Arrested Development (incidentally, he also had gotten himself into directing with Bad Words a few years prior to this). He does quite well here, balancing himself in reserved tension that keeps you on your toes each time you see him. Nothing is quite as it seems, and he does well in maintaining the illusion of charming stability without collapsing into condescending cliché, because he can move between logic and ruthless fairly well - such as whenever Edgerton steps out of sight and Bateman introduces the seeds of doubt about this man to his wife (whether that means name-calling or something else). Hall does pretty well as the key piece between the two of them, handling her doubts and fears with reason and useful conviction that we gravitate to because of her position that sees the lines of who and what we know blur a bit in a way we shudder to think about. Edgerton makes for quiet tension, doing so with an act that seems just a little off-key from when we first see him (essentially equal to a person you met long ago that didn't quite understand when it's time to go) that only grows from there, building the seeds of doubt without needing any overblown theatrics. Sure, a dog could be kidnapped or so, but we never take our eyes off the doubt that comes from the building tension that comes from more than just a supposed weirdo, and by the end it's possible to not really even have a clear definition of who fits the role as "monster". On the whole, it is the build in quiet tension for what we know/don't know about someone that ultimately makes the difference in how effective the film works itself out, one that doesn't lead to any big moments of blood or even an overamped jump scare for its 108 minute run-time. If the idea of someone you know from long ago coming back with a few gifts of their own seems like it could be an interesting little thriller, I would suggest this one (while saying the less one knows the better), as it is a useful effort accomplished by Edgerton in terms of moving one's expectations about the thriller with creeping execution and conviction.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Maggie.

Review #1572: Maggie.

Cast:

Arnold Schwarzenegger (Wade Vogel), Abigail Breslin (Maggie Vogel), Joely Richardson (Caroline Vogel), Douglas M. Griffin (Sheriff Ray Pierce), J. D. Evermore (Holt), Rachel Whitman Groves (Bonnie), Jodie Moore (Dr. Vern Kaplan), Bryce Romero (Trent), and Raeden Greer (Allie) Directed by Henry Hobson.

Review:

“When I read it, I knew I had to do it. It is more vulnerable than any role I have played, more real, more emotional. You’re used to seeing me play the ubermensch, the action hero bullets can’t seem to hit. In Maggie, I am the everyman … dealing with the most basic concerns – protecting his family.”

When you have been the favorite in terms of delivering entertainment in action or comedy for so long, one wonders what to expect from a turn to drama from someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Perhaps he hasn't been the idea of a great actor, but he certainly found a way from bodybuilding to acting that has made him a memorable presence in the action film genre for numerous decades. Even when winning multiple times with bodybuilding contests like Mr. Olympia, he wanted to act. He made his debut in Hercules in New York (1970), but it was the documentary Pumping Iron (1977) and Conan the Barbarian (1982) that ultimately helped him on his way to recognition as at least a man worthy of gritting it out each time. There is a reason he has found himself as one of the most prominent features of action cinema and Movie Night as a whole, and it is because of easy it can be to like seeing him on screen. Now, years after having put acting aside to serve as Governor of California, here he is in a different kind of genre for once - drama, with a film fittingly released the same year he starred in trying to hone back the action past with Terminator Genisys (2015, which is definitely of a different quality). This is the first feature film for Hobson, who certainly had his own interesting way to filmmaking. He was a graduate of Royal College of Art, and he soon honed his craft (a designer for title and credit sequences for films and awards shows. The writer, named John Scott 3 (no, not a typo), was an engineer. The script had attracted attention, but it was the storyboards that Hobson created to help develop his thoughts behind each scene that helped in convincing Schwarzenegger to express interest in the feature, which he would also help produce.

So here we are, watching a film about a man having to deal with watching his daughter suffer through sickness that cannot be cured and will have to make a decision on exactly what to do with her before she ultimately dies. It just so happens that a tale of parental agony is told through the layers of a zombie film, one that tries to bank on its performances rather than through machinations of action. It is a competently average film, buoyed by Schwarzengger and Breslin, one that rides hard on the heft they can lend in drama that smooth over most of its problems within pacing alongside its inevitability factor. It goes with a touch of quiet sullen passion that rewards those who like drawn-out drama while perhaps not fitting the interest for those wanting further in horror. In other words, if it weren't for these two actors at the helm, this might not have turned out the way that it does. After all, this film had just a limited release (my least favorite kind of release) by Lionsgate, and it almost seems suited for a short play with how it utilizes a limited setting and characters more than anything, but here we are. It makes a decent experience at 95 minutes mainly because it doesn't threaten to go longer than it should, particularly when it comes to getting around to effects usage (cheap but serviceable). Schwarzenegger does just alright with what he is offered here - no big posturing, no winks aside, just a role with some quiet agony that he reaches out for with useful effectiveness for anguish. Breslin plays a worthy title character performance, moving along with her own inner and outer struggle as someone watching themselves decay that makes sobering moments between the two of them have some well-drawn effect, as one could expect for a movie that relies on building itself on these two with the inevitable. Richardson and Griffin show up in parts, and each are okay, although really it is those smaller moments involving tragedy that mean most, such as a bonfire between healthy and infected friends, or a friendly doctor advising between quarantine or a tougher option in doing what needs to be done themselves. On the whole, this should be a better film when it comes to building drama (its ending of choice will either reach you in poignancy or leave one cold), but I found it just tender enough to seem worthwhile enough for a watch. It isn't the best feature for either Schwarzenegger or Breslin, but it serves as an interesting curiosity in each of their history, and in some ways that might be more than enough to recommend it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Book of Life.

Review #1571: The Book of Life.

Cast: 

Diego Luna (Manolo Sánchez), Zoe Saldana (María Posada), Channing Tatum (Joaquín Mondragon Jr), Ice Cube (The Candle Maker), Ron Perlman (Xibalba), Kate del Castillo (La Muerte), Christina Applegate (Mary Beth), Héctor Elizondo (Carlos Sánchez), Ana de la Reguera (Carmen Sánchez), Danny Trejo (Luis Sánchez), Grey Griffin (Grandma Anita Sanchez), Carlos Alazraqui (General Ramiro Posada / Dali / Chuy), and Plácido Domingo (Jorge Sánchez) Directed by Jorge R. Gutierrez.

Review: 

"From day one, I felt the weight of all of Mexico behind me, but it’s sort of a weight I’m used to carrying. That’s what I’ve always done in my career; I’ve always wanted to showcase my culture"

Mexico has resulted in a variety of filmmakers over the prevailing decades, ones who aspire to get out into the world and make their own projects over time, whether that means in live action or animation. Jorge Gutierrez was born in Mexico City and raised in Tijuana, and he had a clear love of his culture that carried over to his work in animation, which included study at the California Institute of the Arts; his 3D short Carmelo (2000) was a breakthrough in some respects. He did character design alongside writing on a variety of animated series before getting the chance to do his own series with the Adobe Flash-animated El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera, which ran for one season. Gutierrez developed the idea for this film over the span of a decade, with original plans of optioning at Dreamworks before it fell into the hands of Reel FX Creative Studios (behind features such as Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away), with 20th Century Fox Animation serving as a fellow producer. Others would join soon after to help produce, such as Guillermo del Toro. He wanted to make sure he made a movie about the culture of Mexico with his own brand of magic, to the point that he mandated that the animation crew not go to Mexico for research, believing that they would only find things that would make a "tourist version of a culture." 

It could be inevitable to think about this film in relation as one of two animated features released worldwide dealing with the Day of the Dead, both involving trips to the underworld alongside trying to avoid being kept under (or worse yet forgotten about), with the other being Coco (2017). One can watch either before the other and still find plenty to find satisfaction with however, regardless of the clear distinct difference in quality. It might seem a bit unfair to pick on this film, because it is a nice looking movie, achieving the basic ambition set out by its director to capture vivid animation within Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead). Its picking of cast that mixes familiar voices here and abroad do fine in keeping a good head above underworld waters, at least for the most part. Luna does fine with what he is offered, which namely involves a bit of posturing and silly moments. Saldana does alright with balancing some humor involving this main trio, taking charge that surpasses Tatum, who seems a bit miscast in actually lending the right degree of banter to go with the others. Ice Cube fares about as much as one could expect from casting first-time voice acting meant for comedy - decent, but curiously placed in a film that desires something more involving. Perlman and del Castillo do make a fair pair together, while Applegate tells the story with patient timing. The others are alright, but one basically tries to lose themselves in the animation before being reminded of a silly joke or songs that come along for the ride, which again could have worked with more original songs. It has nice designs at times (such as with La Muerte), and a case could be made that it doesn't overstay its welcome at 95 minutes, and that will surely be more than enough for some. It is the structure that comes from the film in trying to have both a world of creative whimsy and ties with clichés from other films of its ilk that clouds the overall result, particularly when it comes to its unnecessary singing to tell new threads in an old-fashioned fable that could do with more mystery and less wringing overall (telling the story to an audience is one thing, literally showing an audience of kids being told this is another), which goes down from overcoming fears and achieving your own distinct destiny and yada yada yada you know where it's going from there. Ice cream can come in many flavors, but if you find it a bit runny, it isn't going to make the result better than the ice cream truck down the road. I thought the film was fine when it stuck to depicting a view upon a culture that Gutierrez obviously has a passion for with charm and vibrant nature, and if that seems more than enough for young audiences, it likely will hit the note needed for a watch. It isn't anything great, but it suits the basic needs for those who desire said enjoyment from a fable of old and new cloth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.