Civil War.

Review #2199: Civil War.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Lee Smith), Wagner Moura (Joel), Cailee Spaeny (Jessie), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Sammy), Nick Offerman (The President), Nelson Lee (Tony), Evan Lai (Bohai), Sonoya Mizuno (Anya), and Jefferson White (Dave) Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina and #1581 - Annihilation)

Review: 

"There is something in the film which is trying to be protective of [journalists]. I think serious journalism needs protecting, because it’s under attack, so I wanted to make those people ‘heroes’ to put them front and center.”

Sure, you could have a few pre-conceptions about what the film is or what the film is not, blah blah blah. I went into the film with the bare minimum of attention given to it, which either meant that it would be fine or pretty bad. Admittedly, the first image that came to mind when watching the film was different from what I thought I would be wondering. Specifically, "Saigon Execution". It is perhaps one of the most famous images to come out of the Vietnam War, one that went far beyond just being awarded the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography. On February 1, 1968, Eddie Adams was a member of the Associated Press that was in Saigon (as known at the time, as opposed to Ho Chi Minh City) alongside an NBC News TV cameraman in Võ Sửu that saw a capture of captain Lem (a member of the Viet Cong) by a general named Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Both Adams and Võ Sửu captured a moment crystallized in time: Loan shooting Lem in the head. But the thing about Adams is that he was a man of numerous things as an observer: if he was to be remembered for anything, he wanted to be remembered for what he did beyond a photo caught in reflex, because above all, he had his principles to stand by. He was once quoted as saying that "Death is the greatest kick of all. That's why the save it for last." However it worked out, the photo has endured far more than the video (perhaps most notably, it was featured in 1968's Head)., to where even Adams has endured in memory more than Suu. I figured that this was a more interesting way to start talking about the film than simply saying that right before its release, its director stated his intention to lay off directing in the near future, among other things when it came to promoting the film and its intent.

It's interesting, Garland wanted to make a movie about journalists on the frontlines (and there are a few good journalists among a cadre of others that blur the lines), but really, he might have made one long dark joke instead, which basically has the one idea that above all, the observer is not really just an observer just because they wear a vest saying "PRESS" on it. One is observing the observer observing events in their own viewpoint and decisions made to get this coverage (because they aren't just shooting it on their own), basically. Admittedly, once you have a title like "Civil War", you pretty much have put a bullseye on your head, because what else could you have called it? (besides, I went into it barely noticing that there was meant to be a map of which places were fractured from each other because, what difference does it make?) This is a film that has one of the first lines involve a president say "Some are already calling this the greatest victory in the history of mankind" to go alongside footage of unrest, because if one thought the age they live in was bleak (what with the various things one could protest for, such as a less intrusive Israel or other worldly concerns), try this on for size. It doesn't go into too many specifics of exactly how one is in a civil war with various separated territories, but I think using a bit of imagination works out here, particularly since this is basically a road movie with journalists that either have their souls hollowed out or on the verge of it happening, which makes for a fairly unsettling film for those into what it shows (and doesn't show). Trying to frame it as some sort of centrist filmmaking is pretty shortsighted when you get down to it. Besides, the performances work out best when it comes to showing the trials and tribulations of wanting to go out to gunfire with a ready camera on hand. Dunst excels here with no false notes detected when it comes to a tired old soul that could actually play for anyone familiar with the beats of a job that nevertheless seems to have lost a bit of themselves in that grind of production. They know what lines they can cross and shouldn't cross, and it gnaws at them for one can't unsee even when one closes their eyes, so Dunst being paired with Spaeny in a mirror of experience on the frontlines makes for a pretty compelling dynamic to watch play out to the most reasoned conclusion, for which each handle deftly. Moura probably ranks as the most thrill-seeking among the core four, which actually works out pretty well in showing levity along with the craven nature that comes in being gripped in the chase, at least when compared to a more seasoned pro on the last steps on a road in Henderson. Offerman is around for both the start and finish of the film as the object of fascination that has more said around him that, well, use your imagination on how it goes to see a face meant to be playing a dictator.  Probably the most gripping scene is the one with an uncredited Jesse Plemons that exudes the certain terror that I'm sure comes with encountering the back woods on the road. He handles it masterfully for a certain amount of time that keeps the film firmly on its toes. It is certainly a loud film at times that is expected with a dystopian war film that doesn't let a stone go unturned, even in a supposedly quiet moment where a trip to a friendly-looking place leads to a darkly amusing realization. The ending helps seal the film's fate in terms of realizing just where one will find themselves when it comes to the demands of an occupation and what it might do to their soul in the process as a certain image plays out in the credits that really might not be as emphatic in its ending as one assumes at first. In the end, it is a solid 109-minute effort in tension as carried by its main quartet to make for an interesting recommendation for those who know what they are getting into in terms of imagination and the grind that arises from it.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

Ex Machina.

Review #884: Ex Machina.

Cast:
Alicia Vikander (Ava), Domhnall Gleeson (Caleb Smith), Oscar Isaac (Nathan Bateman), Sonoya Mizuno (Kyoko), Symara A. Templeman (Jasmine), Elina Alminas (Amber), Gana Bayarsaikhan (Jade), and Tiffany Pisani (Katya) Directed by Alex Garland.

Review:
Ex Machina is certainly an interesting movie in so many ways. The first component is the atmosphere set up quickly in the film, which is this high-tech (and obviously reclusive) residence, with some shots of the residence and the environment around it that show some form of isolation. There is a small dedicated range of characters that also help to that feeling, and they are excellent. Vikander does a good job at giving this character some sort of life and you do sympathize with her in some part. There really is no sort of definitive hero kind of character, as everyone seems to have sort of hidden edge to them, even with Gleeson's character, who comes off as somewhat of an everyman with his own kind of desires to exploit, and he plays it well. Isaac is the only real clear cut type of character a bit easier to define, in part because of his reclusive nature, and without spoiling too much he does a good job at portraying this narcissistic kind of person, carrying the dialogue without a shred of unbelievability. The dialogue between Isaac and Gleeson also contributes to the tone of the film being more than just a case of a Turing Test, with Vikander and Gleeson having a fine amount of chemistry as well. Mizuno doesn't have any lines, but her performance is noteworthy in its own way because she still manages to have a kind of presence even when in the background. The effects are also pretty good in that they seem to mesh with the film without becoming too distracting, with the robots being a good case of that. It's a tightly made film, with no real compromises but a good deal of consequences and stakes. The ideas it presents have touches of influence from other concepts (Frankenstein might be a good example), but it is done in a way that feels fresh and works in an acceptable manner. It's good entertainment, but it's better pondering material as well, especially with the ending. I recommend the movie, in part because of what it does with what it is given, with a cast and execution like this.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.