The Savages.

Review #1660: The Savages.

Cast: 

Laura Linney (Wendy Savage), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Jon Savage), Philip Bosco (Lenny Savage), Peter Friedman (Larry), Guy Boyd (Bill Lachman), Debra Monk (Nancy Lachman), Margo Martindale (Roz), Rosemary Murphy (Doris Metzger), David Zayas (Eduardo), and Gbenga Akinnagbe (Jimmy) Written and Directed by Tamara Jenkins.

Review: 

“It was something that was happening all around me and at first I was scared to write about it. It’s an intimidating subject, but ultimately, I think The Savages is a story that is not just about confronting death but really also about seizing upon your life, even in the smallest of ways.”

Sometimes you just have to laugh with the pain. Tamara Jenkins was born in Philadelphia but was raised in California by her divorced father, and some of those experiences would take root in her first feature film with Slums of Beverly Hills (1998). At any rate, Jenkins first studied film with the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University after moving to the state to perform in various productions in the theater. Fugitive Love (1991) was her first short film, which received some buzz on the festival circuit (such as Sundance), and further work followed within public television (including a Guggenheim grant) alongside subsequent short films before getting the chance to make a feature. Nine years followed from her debut film, owing to her attempts at a failed screenplay and time spent with minor theater work; Jenkins would hone the script for the film over the course of a few years, for which it came out of one initial scene that she came up with involving a phone conversation between the two main characters that dealt with their divide as siblings - she has described the first draft as being 200 pages, with honing down coming in the subsequent stages. For the script, Jenkins utilized her experiences spent with her father and grandmother, who each had dementia and lived in nursing homes (it is not, however, a "strict memoir", as she put it). The film was shot in New York and Arizona over the course of 30 days and turned out to be a fair success for all involved, with Jenkins and Linney at the forefront of attention.

Undeniably, it isn't the easiest film to get into, probably because of the inexcusable fact that there is a certain type of people who just won't want to see folks that look like harsh husks of people in their personal lives deal with the inescapability of handling someone close to them die. But one can't escape the immeasurable talent provided by Linney and Hoffman to these roles that seem like yin and yang, and one cannot escape Jenkins in her accomplishment of a black comedy-drama about two folks that have to come together of what the past made them in the present in their issues that make for a tenderly human tale - imperfect, but aware enough to prove worthwhile to wince through. It is a film that takes its microscope to the human experience in a path we all have to face: growing old and seeing what we have become to those around us (and vice versa), whether that means as someone with emotional damage packed with them or with other characteristics that don't fit the usual mold that come from film involving death in its own way. It seemed fairly familiar to me, since my father had to deal with being cared for by others after having problems with both his hip and subsequently his leg and speech (which sticks with me even now, nearly nine years later). We all deal with care-taking and grief differently, but it is the fact that we have to deal with it at all that makes us human, and it just isn't something that can be solved so easily, modern sensibilities be damned (whether that means mediocre jobs, flings or whatever floats the boat of coping with dysfunction). It will prove rewarding for those who buy into what it says about the bonds of family within a bit of laughter in pain, for which I found it to be a pretty good one to sit for 113 minutes, right down to its stark contrasts that range from Sun City to Buffalo in terms of settings to see these people interact with (no guesses for which I might prefer to visit one day). Of the main duo, it is Linney we gravitate to in terms of seeing a person in turmoil, stuck in a middling rut that Linney pays wonderfully, mostly because she taps into the guilt and self-absorption that we can see in oneself without any mistimed notes or any tries at maudlin moments. Hoffman proves just as adept in a task in playing the flaws to what one can expect from an actor who specialized in distinct performances and never makes it seem like a copy, and the banter he shares with Linney in adjustment within life/death hit that delicate line of curiosity in tender mercy. Bosco had a mix of roles in television, stage, and film from 1953 to 2010, and this was his best-known and last film role prior to his death in 2018. Acting as the curmudgeon that shaped Linney and Hoffman in the family trio, he does pretty well with the material, managing to not waver in the balance of short temper and rapid descent in health without becoming an object of pity or simple scorn, reflecting the film's interest in character-driven drama with complexity that have no simple solutions or easy goodbyes (the best scene with the three of them, naturally, is the one where he berates them when they meekly ask him about arrangements for death). Friedman accompanies Linney at times with casual offbeat favor that makes for a few chuckles while Akinnagbe ends up being the last little key of interest with a bit of insight that connects with Linney for a time. Ultimately, we have a film of responsibility and obligation, where working on one's flaws are no easy feat to go alongside the most inevitable quality of all: getting older and confronting how one was shaped by the past around them, which generally results in a wincing chuckle that will prove rewarding enough for those who care for that sort of thing.

Next Time: Near the homestretch, it's time for Hustlers (2019).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Review #1545: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Cast: 
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Andy Hanson), Ethan Hawke (Hank Hanson), Marisa Tomei (Gina Hanson), Albert Finney (Charles Hanson), Rosemary Harris (Nanette Hanson), Brían F. O'Byrne (Bobby Lasorda), Aleksa Palladino (Chris Lasorda), Michael Shannon (Dex), Tom Zolandz (Junkie), and Amy Ryan (Martha Hanson) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon)

Review: 
“In drama, the characters should determine the story. In melodrama, the story determines the characters."

If one can say they directed 44 films, that would probably be enough to have pride in as a director. If one could say they had a handful of memorable movies to go alongside an Honorary Academy Award and some notice for stars that feature in those films, that would be exceedingly good to have. At the age of 83, Sidney Lumet created one last classic to serve a career filled with well-managed preparation and a vitality for storytelling with complexity and stature to go with it. Not every film of his was great, but Lumet managed to cultivate success and audience notice with films in multiple decades with films like 12 Angry Men (1957), The Pawnbroker (1964), Network (1976), and The Verdict (1982) while still keeping busy with smaller films and a soft return to television (his involvement with 100 Centre Street was his first in 40 years). The film was written by first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson, who previously worked with stage plays before being inspired by "the folly of human nature" and his study in theology to write this screenplay, which took seven years to get it made. Lumet was attracted to the script (likening it to a melodrama as opposed to just a thriller) while also making key suggestions to the plot such as having the main two actors play brothers rather than friends in order to heighten the tension. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (based on a old Irish saying) was the first and only Lumet film to be shot on high-definition video (owing to less hassle) along with being the last film that he directed before his death in 2011.

Sometimes a simple plan of robbing a mom-and-pop store for easy money and easy solutions to the problems of two brothers just doesn't go the way one expects. Or more specifically, sometimes people are just brought down by the obsessions that wreak havoc on one's soul, particularly their obsessions. What we have is a family on the verge of a breakdown in terms of morality and beyond that captures the desperation one can encounter when greed turns into guilt. I think we all reach a moment where we think about what would happen if we could just escape from our troubles, where one must try to stop themselves from having envy over how the grass looks on the other side. We look upon these people and we see them as fairly believable types reflecting upon us regardless of however many bad choices they end up making, because the simplest plans can go awry just like that turn crime dramas into tragedies. It does this by spanning through different perspectives that will occasionally crisscross a scene we saw earlier with another look, which pleases those who desire such non-linear telling for the most part. Hoffman, generally known for his variety of distinct character actor roles throughout his life, does tremendous here in pulling strong will and desperate emptiness needed to encapsulate his part of the drama needed that would have been rough putty with less talent behind it. Hawke has an equally interesting challenge with his pathetic counterpart that he still handles with a fair sense of conviction to what he needs to pull here on his end to keep up with the level of desperation required without becoming consumed in languished pity. Tomei doesn't have as much dialogue, but she does well in capturing a lack of satisfaction and aimlessness with what she has when facing Hoffman or Hawke. Finney is the last key to come together in terms of this growing spiral in terms of hardened nature that sells those carefully planned moments just right, with his one highlight being a scene of attempted reconciliation that ends with a devastatingly executed breakdown in what you see in the margins. Of the rest of the cast, Shannon does nicely in those small moments of sad intimidation for a film all about people past their prime. It generally works out for 117 minutes in winding itself up in tension and bleak situations that looks upon consequences and lost values within oneself and family that usually hits the mark in keeping up with its perspectives that all build to a mostly rewardingly bleak conclusion in what it says and doesn't say. Ultimately, I would say it proves to be an underrated classic worth looking upon with its high-strung string-pulling as Lumet's last winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Big Lebowski.

Review #1517: The Big Lebowski.

Cast: 
Jeff Bridges (Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski), John Goodman (Walter Sobchak), Julianne Moore (Maude Lebowski), Steve Buscemi (Theodore Donald "Donny" Kerabatsos), David Huddleston (Jeffrey "The Big" Lebowski), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Brandt), Tara Reid (Bunny Lebowski), Philip Moon (Woo), Mark Pellegrino (Blond Treehorn thug), with Peter Stormare (Uti Kunkel/Karl Hungus), Torsten Voges (Franz), Flea (Kieffer), Jack Kehler (Marty), John Turturro (Jesus Quintana), David Thewlis (Knox Harrington), Sam Elliott (The Stranger), and Ben Gazzara (Jackie Treehorn) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, and #1063 - Blood Simple)

Review: 
"What's interesting to us are the people you know that are very good at what they do but aren't necessarily successful."
"The movie people let us play in the corner of the sandbox and leave us alone. We're happy here."

Brothers can make for great things together, and it is the work of film that Joel and Ethan Coen are best known for. They had an interest in film from a young age by what they viewed on television living in Minnesota and doing their own remakes on a Super 8 camera. Joel spent his studies in college in film programs such as New York University while Ethan studied in philosophy at Princeton University. They made their first feature together with Blood Simple (1984), which they had enticed backers with through a trailer they did together that led to a funding over the course of a year - the resulting film was a hit, and other films followed (with fair degrees of attention from critics and audiences). Over the course of over three decades, the Coens have made a total of eighteen films together, for which they have written, directed, produced and also edited together.

If there truly was a cult movie that stoked so much fervent interest in the years that followed being (at best) a modest hit with audiences, I would say that this is exactly the right film to qualify as "cult classic". With countless examples of lines that people can repeat to each other endlessly and an actual festival dedicated to a screening of the film alongside bowling and wearing costumes of certain characters. When it gets to that kind of blandishment before watching a film, either you'll be hooked in or you won't care that much about it, and others have certainly described it as their favorite film of the Coen brothers (when asked about the film years after release, J. Coen noted the "enduring fascination for other people than it does for us"). Attention can be everything, but I know in my mind that this is a pretty good film. It certainly does not reach greatness, nor does it teeters towards mediocrity, it just serves as a nice little experience worth a fair curiosity if one is in the mindset for it. One can abide it with no problem, whether in its attitudes of eccentric presences and a story that the Coens aimed to seem like a "modern Raymond Chandler story" that goes where it wants in twists before unraveling in relaxation. It's a silly movie at times, such as with its dream sequences, but it never wavers in cheapness or becomes anything too outlandish.

In a role generally referred to as iconic (along with one of his favorites), Bridges certainly grabs onto such a terminally relaxed role (with one inspiration being producer Jeff Dowd) with ease that strides from scene to scene with absolute feeling in out-of-shapeness that is obviously suitable for what is needed in casual charm (Eagles slander notwithstanding). Goodman (based in some part on friend John Milius) rolls with bombast and blazing timing in speaking his mind with no restraint needed. The others prove fine to follow along with besides our undeniable curiosity over the main duo, to a point. Buscemi says a few lines in second gear to Bridges and Goodman (with one distinct retort to tell him to shut up a few times), which I suppose makes sense in the fringes of chuckling along. Turturro shows up for moments at a time, to which I check my watch, chuckle in theory and move on to someone else (preferably a character that isn't a pederast, so not only is Turturro playing a useless character, he's playing a useless pedo). Huddleston moves things along past slack with a little edge to him, while Hoffman follows with care. Moore livens in quirks for those small moments one thinks it is needed, while Elliott provides a well-suited narrator.

Really, if the plot was tightened just a little bit more or some a trimming of all these characters may have meant a better movie (again though, one tries to not express a desire for what they wanted out of a film and just talks about what is in it instead). If one ranges entertainment through how much they enjoyed the characters they saw moreso than a deep plot, all power to you. Plenty of good movies can do that and also become icons in their own right. To me, it is good enough to overcome a decent (if not quite as interesting as it should be) setup because it generally results in fascination for where it could go next with interest. It has a nice look (credit to Roger Deakins along with the Coens' desire for a retro pop film in contemporary times) and certainly will provide those who desire to see what all the fuss is about something to remember for nearly two hours. Whether it serves enough to repeat lines from it or even go to church over it (Dudeism, because of course that is a thing) is up to you to sit on the couch and decide for oneself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible III.

Review #1109: Mission: Impossible III.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Owen Davian), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Billy Crudup (John Musgrave), Michelle Monaghan (Julia Meade), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Declan Gormley), Keri Russell (Lindsey Farris), Maggie Q (Zhen Lei), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Eddie Marsan (Brownway), and Laurence Fishburne (Theodore Brassel) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness, and #769 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

Review: 
It is interesting to look back at the first three Mission: Impossible films and look at how each stand out clearly from the previous one despite being popcorn spy flicks. It's also interesting to see the gap between these films, in that this one was released six years after the previous film (with this year's release of the new film being the sixth in the franchise that has spanned 22 years). I try to not make it a habit to compare a film sequel to the one before it every single time, but it is pretty obvious that this one is an improvement in nearly every single way from the earlier one, and it manages to improve in aspects from the first installment. Perhaps it is the infusion of different writers in Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci & J. J. Abrams, with the former two previously being responsible for their work on The Island (2005), while Abrams had created television shows such as Felicity, Lost, but most importantly Alias, which Cruise had watched episodes of prior to offering the directorial job to Abrams. The opening scene certainly helps spark interest with the tension that it inspires from Cruise and Hoffman, that's for sure. The parts with Cruise and Monaghan manage to come off well together, having a bit of refreshing nature to them that is different to the conventional elements in its spy nature without becoming a cloying detriment nor becoming something overtly cliche. As one would expect, it is nice to see Cruise again in the role, with a clear confidence and clear action look that you would expect from before while also seeming fresh and welcome. Hoffman proves to be a serviceable adversary for the moments that require it, with his motivation being at least somewhat clear to breeze through. The group of Rhames-Rhys Meyers-Maggie Q are fairly useful to watch paired up with Cruise in the plot, being capable in any scene (action or small moments of interaction) for comfort. Monaghan does fine for the part written. Crudup plays his role quietly, but it serves the job alright. Russell and Pegg each don't have much time, but they make fair impressions ultimately. Fishburne rounds out the cast with a fairly watchable chief role that cuts the corners you would expect. While the film may not have the highest of stakes to it, it never gets bogged down by complicating its plot or pretending to be anything that it isn't. At 125 minutes, the film runs itself at a fine pace with its action and plot by making sure that neither gets lost too far in its own excitement, being a fair piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Twister.

Review #812: Twister.

Cast
Bill Paxton (Bill Harding), Helen Hunt (Dr. Jo Harding), Jami Gertz (Dr. Melissa Reeves), Cary Elwes (Dr. Jonas Miller), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Dusty Davis), Alan Ruck (Robert Nurick), Jeremy Davies (Brian Laurence), Joey Slotnick (Joey), and Sean Whalen (Alan Sanders) Directed by Jan de Bont.

Review

Truth be told...This made Independence Day (#193, which also happened to be released 20 years ago) seem like less of a chore compared to this. Simply put, Twister is a popcorn movie, solely entertaining for the destruction set forth by the tornadoes. If you go into it looking for some sort of enjoyment from these characters or plot, you won't really get much from it, save for Hoffman, who certainly has enough quirky energy to stand out in a movie designed to just be a spectacle. Paxton is fine, but him and Hunt never really seem to have much chemistry that stands out among the tornadoes. Elwes is the "bad guy" of the movie (unless you count the tornado), complete with an accent that while not laughable is mildly entertaining. Let's put it this way: Giving the movie criticism for being what it aspired to be is tough, because it aimed for that goal and not much else. But for me, it was only mildly entertaining, because there comes to be a point when you get tired of tornadoes ripping stuff to shreds over and over again. The characters exist to give the movie a plot, barely registering as cliches. I guess something must be wrong (with either me or the movie) when only one major character dies in the whole movie, and it's the "corporate bad guy". If I don't care about the characters trying to get a research device into the vortex of a tornado (because they're bound to get at least one out of four), then why even bother with the movie? Because...the effects? I suppose so. It really is the ultimate take it or leave it movie. For me, it was just an average movie that wasn't as exciting as other movies designed to just do one certain thing, being just a movie that came and went as average as a weather report.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.