Captive State

With a smattering of special effects and some old school style storytelling, "Captive State" manages to be a smart, compelling Science Fiction allegory that will make you remember the films of the 1970s without being old-fashioned. This film is more cerebral than is healthy for the box office, but if you are willing to think and fill in the story elements, you will come away impressed by the things that were accomplished here with solid acting, a cryptic script and an idea that has been around for a long time.

"captive State" barely touches on the manner in which our planet became an occupied state. That process is over by the time the credits have finished. This movie takes place well into the occupation and it uses some long standing ideas as the crux of the story. Aliens have come for our resources, but they need our cooperation to get them. Their solution has been to take over the political processes of the Earth and replace them with their own form of governing. They manage to convince the power elite that they will survive and everyone else is given pablum about how great everything is now that we are subjected to this domination. Although this is an alien invasion film, it is not really about the aliens. They appear in relatively few scenes and are largely a menacing off screen presence. It is the Vichy style police state that is the true enemy of humanity, and it is uncertain if an insurgency can be reignited after having been crushed once before.

There is an overwhelming sense of sadness about how compliant we humans have become. The folks who make up the deep "terror" cell of resistance, come from some of the obvious places but there are also a few surprises. Much of the story involves how they have to circumvent the surveillance that the whole population is subjected to. The police have become a tool for control and they have power that can only be described as dictatorial. John Goodman plays the head of the security police in a troublesome district. His methods are successful but he seems to be holding back on some potential problems as a way of protecting former family friends and securing a complete victory over the Chicago resistance cell at the same time. He has always been one of the best things in any movie he appears in and this is no exception. Although his name is the first lead on the promotional material, his story is secondary at times to that of Ashton Sanders as Gabriel Drummond, the younger brother of a famous resistance leader. 

I mentioned that this was old fashioned story telling, well here is why I say that,,, very little is explained to us. We have to figure out what is going on as the story develops. Sometimes there are dead ends, and in other places there are moments that feel as if they are going to be important, but they are a red herring. Characters interact with one another and we don't know their motivations or relationships, we only see their actions. That means we need to pay attention to those actions and my guess is a lot of people will not like that. There were a ton of crime films and science fiction films in the early 70s that did the same sort of thing. Nothing is spelled out in bold letters explaining what is happening or why it matters. Because the film is set in the decaying parts of Chicago after the invasion, it feel gritty like one of those movies as well. There are some action beats but most of the movie is suspense based with some mysteries deeply buried for us to wait to unravel.

This is a stand alone film that could easily be turned into a franchise but I doubt it will have the financial cache to get to that. Vera Farmiga, Kevin Dunn and Alan Ruck are seasoned veterans of movies who are small background players in this story. Kevin J. O'Conner,is another who is working in the background to make the scenario seem real. The movie though belongs to Sanders and Goodman and they have the ability to play it honestly. I thought the wrap up was sad as hell but also inspiring. I won't say it is a total surprise but the way it plays out was not exactly what I chad come to expect. This is not really a popcorn movie despite the Sci Fi trappings. If you are interested in seeing how grown ups tell a story about the alien scenario, then this is the movie for you. 

Atomic Blonde

Set in 1989 as the Berlin Wall is about to come down, "Atomic Blonde" is a Cold War Spy thriller with a kick. The twist is that instead of James Bond we have Jane Bond, so all those people who have made that casting suggestion to EON Productions can now all cool their jets. Director David Leitch comes off of a long career as a stunt coordinator and he previously was an uncredited director of "John Wick". He clearly has an eye for action scenes and stages some brutal fights for star Charlize Theron to kick ass through. From a shoot em up perspective, this is a fairly successful film. However, as a spy thriller with delusions of franchisehood,  it leaves a bit to be desired.

Let me give you a little background on the literary character of James Bond as a prelude to discussing Lorraine Broughton, the English spy played by Theron. After Ian Fleming died, the literary 007 lay fallow for a few years. there were attempts to revive the series in the late sixties and seventies, but they never paid off. Sometime during the 80s, the publishers got their crap together and found a new author to pen Bond novels for several years. John Gardner had success in this field on his own, but the Bond Franchise would certainly be a jewel in his crown if it succeeded. Gardner wrote a more than a dozen Bond adventures, but he had too obvious a formula after a while. Inevitably there would be a double cross by one of the characters and occasionally there would be a triple cross. That is what is happening in this film. Double and triple crosses, however without the clarity of a narrative context. In other words, these things just happen out of the blue without much set up and certainly no trail that would allow an audience to participate in the process. Kevin Costner and Gene Hackman made it work in "No Way Out" because there was a ticking clock, and mixed motives that distracted us. "Atomic Blonde" doesn't bother to clarify anything. The end of the movie is a head scratcher and I was able to make sense of the first "Mission Impossible" film.

James McAvoy is the suspected double and at the end of the story, you need to be able to clarify why he has acted in the manner that he did. It's almost impossible to explain because it makes no sense. We know he fits a particular type but we are not clear on his motives or why any of this had to go down the way it did. The film is structured like a police procedural, where the suspect is telling a story that we get to see, but it it interrupted by side tracks and events that the subject would not have been aware of. "The Usual Suspects" made an effort to tie things together with bits of information in the background of the interrogation, this film does no such thing. So watch this for the action and style and forget about trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

Theron is ice cold as a blonde killing machine, and she plays the part of a spy being debriefed with the right amount of frustration with her superiors. Toby Jones is the MI-6 section supervisor who cross examines her and they have a couple of nice testy moments. John Goodman is a CIA advisor that she is reluctant to speak in front of, but we don't know why until the end of the film. It also makes no sense but at least it counteracts the bad taste that another twist was going to leave in our mouths. Sophia Botella was in "The Mummy" earlier this summer and in "Star Trek Beyond" last summer. She gives a solid performance as a French operative in over her head, and interestingly as a romantic interest for Theron, even though her part is mostly meaningless. Between Theron and Botella, fishnet clothing may end up in short supply in the European markets.

The look of the film is good and the style choices for the lead are interesting. I appreciated that when a character had been in a fight, that there were signs that a fight had taken place. The degree of punishment for the fight participants, whether winner or loser, is never quite believable because it is so over the top, but I suppose that is what makes it a fantasy spy film rather than a leCarre' story. It is a cool film, but not as cool as you want it to be given the trailers. Once again, all the best stuff is in the ads and there is not enough saved for the film.

Kong: Skull Island

There is no news here. This is a big action film with a giant ape that fights humans an monsters on an island. It is pretty much what you expect it to be. It is entertaining while you watch it and forgettable almost immediately. You will have enough time to consume your popcorn, but I don't expect there to be deep conversations into the night over the nuances of the story. Samuel Jackson may be playing Captain Ahab or Colonel Kurtz, trying to win the Vietnam War after we abandon our ally, but  that plotline goes no where except to create a little motivation for otherwise foolish choices by a professional.

Tom Hiddleston seems to be auditioning for his role as the next James Bond by playing a SAS agent, out of service but willing to contract for a fee. He is supposed to be the hero part in the movie and he was fine, but the character is so thin that we don't get much rooting interest. Academy Award Winner Brie Larson is on hand as a photo journalist who smells a story. It's never clear how she got authorized to be there but that doesn't matter. I was completely surprised that the film is set in 1973. I suppose there are story issues that are easier to sell that way but it does seem a bit disconcerting. John C. Reilly is part Rip Van Winkle and part Dennis Hopper when the expedition gets to the island. Somebody on the writing team must be a Cubs fan because that is a thing here.

Anyone who has seen a King Kong movie before, knows that Kong is a double edged sword. He is as scary and dangerous as hell, but there are always other things that are more frightening and dangerous, including mankind.  There is actually a subtle environmentalist message in the movie, but I doubt anyone will notice it between all the helicopter crashes and monster battles. The tribesmen on this version of the island are just as silent as the ones in the Peter Jackson film of a Dozen years ago, but thety are less malevolent and apparently wise in the balance of nature. They have the role of religious shamans who convey wisdom to the modern world but do so in a silent manner.

John Goodman got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in conjunction with the release of this film. This is a good sized part but nothing special as far as his performance. It would have been so much more befitting if the honor had been bestowed on him last year. Samuel Jackson is a lot more subdued than he usually is, I don't think I can remember one  use by him of his favorite adjective. There was a nice call back however to his role in Jurassic Park. That was entirely fitting given the nature of this film being about giant monsters on the loose on an island.

You are probably aware that there is an after the credits scene. It is entirely there to set up a series of future films featuring Kong. The studios that combined to create this movie are trying to set up a cinematic universe which will support all kinds of 50s monsters being in a story. It will probably work, this movie will do business until another action film worthy of our attention shows up. Until then, check your common sense at the service counter and pass the Hot Tamales. They will go well with the butter oil in the popcorn, and they will be satisfying for about the same amount of time as this film.

10 Cloverfield Lane

Here is a movie trailer that manages to sell the story without giving away the farm. The juxtaposition of moods is perfectly emblematic of what happens in the film, and the less you know, the more enjoyable the movie will be. I see reviews all the time when I read on-line where more than half the review simply retells the plot of the film. Sometimes that is necessary, because otherwise people won't understand why the movie is worth seeing or why it should be avoided. I have always attempted to keep that type of material to an absolute minimum on my posts because I don't want to spoil a movie for someone else, and frankly, repeating the story just bugs me, go see the movie if you need to know. This film is going to be a little challenging to write about because I don't want to give away anything at all.

If you too are worried about spoilers, don't read the next paragraph. It does not go into the plot but it does discuss something that most people seeing the film will have some knowledge of.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" is in fact a sequel of sorts to the found footage movie from 2008. That is eight long years ago, so a sequel might seem strange, but it is a different kind of a sequel, it is more a related story rather than a descendant. No characters reoccur in this piece but you will be able to see a direct relationship after the film has played out. There, that's as much as I will say about it.

End of semi-spoiler material.

This movie has several great scenes in it that will startle you and build some fantastic tension. More than ninety percent of what takes place is in a "locked room" scenario and there are basically no effects, visual trickery or CGI manipulation. This is a strange drama played out against a backdrop that remains ambiguous till the end of the film. There are basically three characters and how they interact, what they do and their relationship to each other is all what the movie is about. The reason this movie works so well is not really the premise, but the screenplay. The principle screenwriters are Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken and Damien Chazelle. That last name should have rung a bell for me, because he is the writer/director of my favorite film from two years ago, "Whiplash".  I'm sure that the first two deserve all kinds of credit for creating the situation and plot, but I'd be willing to bet that the tension laden scenes in the film were scripted by Chazelle, the building stress and the mental strain exhibited by the characters is so close to what was in that movie about a young ambitious drummer that I feel I should have been able to guess it. 

Unlike the original "Cloverfield", this is not a found footage film, and it is not shot using a 'Go Pro' strapped to someones head. The director here had access to a tripod and used it. That does not mean that the film is static, but it does mean that it is not full of visual flourishes designed to wow bored audiences. Director Dan Trackenberg is trying to tell a story, and not build a portfolio for himself to submit when someone needs a big budget picture made. Maybe he will be able to pull that sort of film off, but if he ever gets the chance it will not be because he was a camera wizard here. It will be due to the fact that he knows how to pace a scene and show the actors and stage a moment. And as i said earlier, there are some really good moments here. 

The cast has to get a huge amount of credit for the success of the film. John Goodman is an actor who works all of the time in so many different roles, that although he is easy to recognize, he is hard to classify. I found an appreciation of his efforts on another site that I read regularly and you might like to go there and see how versatile he really is (AndSoitBegins) . The truth is, he is well respected and has a long list of award nominated performances, mostly on TV. His film career is extensive and it really is a shame that he was not nominated for an Academy Award for supporting actor for "the Big Lebowski". This movie is in a genre that is not likely to change that but it should. He is terrific as Howard, either a savior or a lunatic, who drives the tautness of the film up the wall at times. Howard is more mundane than we might expect, but he has elements to his character that will give you the willies. Walking through the parking lot after the film, we stopped in the "Golden Spoon" yo get some frozen yogurt to take home. My daughter asked me if I wanted it in a bowl or a cone, mimicking a scene in the movie, and I actually shivered for a moment because Goodman makes that scene so real and foreboding. Like Goodman,  Mary Elizabeth Winstead is an actress known for both television and films. I noticed that she costarred with Kurt Russel in two films and did the remake/prequel to the Kurt Russel classic "The Thing", so maybe she has a thing for the grizzled old guys. This film really belongs to her. The emotional journey that takes place during the movie is all about her character. She grows and evolves as a person due to the experiences she goes through. There are some action scenes but more than anything it is the way she relates to her two co-stars that makes her performance memorable. The third actor in the piece is John Gallagher Jr., an actor that I don't know well but for whom this film could be a launching point for bigger things. He has two very effective moments in the movie and matches with Goodman and Winstead, minute by minute. 

That's as much as I'm going to say about the film. If you have seen it, I'd love to engage in some conversation with you about it. Just don't give anything away because then I will have to wish you into the cornfield, and that won't go well. 

Trumbo

Well here is a movie that I don't have to worry about spoilers for at all. "Trumbo" is a biopic that follows a well known chronology concerning events that occurred about sixty years ago. Film fans will be familiar with the lead character, they know the end of the story and the villains for the most part are identified early on. Hedda Hopper would be the main figure of evil in this piece but there is plenty of vitriol to be spread around, and most of Hollywood gets some on them. The script plays it as if Trumbo were a saint with magical powers and a short sighted ego that crushes his family as much as the events that take place do. As with all stories, the history is more convoluted than the film is and we will not in that direction here. Instead we will focus on the film and it's many fine qualities and few weaknesses.

The greatest asset the film has is it's star, Bryan Cranston. In the last few years he has moved from being the excellent but often overlooked comic performer in "Malcolm in the Middle" to a celebrated TV performer, who impressed for multiple seasons of "Breaking Bad" and enjoyed the endorsement of many in the industry for his fine work there. He has worked effectively in an ensemble including the award winning "Argo", but he has not yet shined as a movie star, that is no longer the truth, he fills the screen with talent in this movie. His line delivery is distinctive and works well with many of the grandiose passages of dialogue that have been written for him. Even when he is in simple conversation he sounds as if it could be a speech he is delivering to an audience. That fits the character quite well. His sly smile, furrowed brow and mannerisms with a cigarette holder all feel genuine for the outlandish egocentric that Dalton apparently was.

The supporting cast is also excellent, ranging from Elle Fanning as the apple that does not fall far from the tree to John Goodman as the crass studio head that exploits the blacklisted writers but also respects their work. The film is a who's who of Hollywood talent. Diane Lane is effective as Trumbo's wife Cleo and she gets a juicy scene with Cranston when they fight over his behavior. Helen Mirren is Great Britain's answer to Meryl Streep, always cast well and always excellent in her scenes. With the exception of Dean O' Gorman as Kirk Douglas, most of the actors portraying famous performers from the period have little resemblance to their real life counterparts. Some nice digital work inserts O'Gorman's face into a scene from "Spartacus" and that did enhance the believably of that sequence. While John Wayne would probably be considered on the wrong side of the issue, the screenplay makes him a fairly sympathetic adversary, at least one who has a true sense of morality concern the human beings involved. Trumbo is shown to have flaws (although they are largely skimmed over) when he uses Wayne's military status during the war as an attack point and then self righteously suggests that he be allowed to remove his glasses before being punched by a man whom he has just invited to do so. It was one of a few ugly moments that Trumbo as a character is allowed to have.

Not faring quite as well is Edward G. Robinson, a supporter of the Hollywood Ten until his career is mangled by the blacklist.  Another opportunity to show Trumbo's vindictive side occurs when he confronts Robinson, who ultimately testified as a friendly witness, and Trumbo dismisses Robinson's justification for his actions, despite the fact that he gave many of the same justifications earlier to fellow refusenik Arlin Hird ( a very solid Louie C.K.), an apparently fictional character that espouses some of the true philosophies of the Communist Party of the United States. Whether the confrontation took place or not, it must surely have been endemic of Hollywood at the time since there were so many people effected in some way by the blacklist.

I am usually suspicious of a movie that works in a speech to an audience as a story telling device, it seems a lazy way to sneak in narrative with an emotional content, but the speech given at the end to the Writer's Guild appears to have been genuine and it is suggested that it went a long way to healing the wounds of the blacklist. That makes it all the more odd that after finishing with an effective dramatic moment, the film turns polemic with a series of screen scrolls that start the argument all over again. The sour tone is probably designed to make the political message more important, but it feels like the screenwriter simply felt like the drama had failed to do so and therefore a post script was required. I thought it undercut what was to that point a human drama that showed the turmoil of the times and the confusion of the figures involved. That's too bad because for the most part, what came before really was compelling.

AMC Classic Series: The Big Lebowski

For every "Blood Simple", "Fargo", or "No Country for Old Men" that the Coen Brothers have produced, there is a lighter, funnier or more preposterous film on the other end of the spectrum. While "Fargo" has humor, I think you would be hard pressed to call it a comedy. "The Big Lebowski" does have a kidnapping plot also, but no one would mistake this for a drama. Somewhere between the slightly overlooked release of the film in 1998 and it's 15th anniversary last year it became a cult classic. It is beloved by aficionados of the Coen Brothers and former fans of Cheech and Chong everywhere. The hero is a burnout, lazy, not particularly clear stoner, which makes him perfect for the Gen X audience that was coming of age at the time.   

This is in a close race with "Raising Arizona" and "Burn After Reading" as the most comedic pictures they have made. I personally have laughed at more things in Lebowski, but the laughs have been harder, and more guttural in those other two movies. This does have a significant advantage over the other two if you are going to do a ranking; the two co-stars. Jeff Bridges and John Goodman give epic performances in this film and they will almost certainly remain the iconic images that people will remember of these two stars careers. All you have to do is search Facebook for examples of memes that feature the two of them and your dance card will be full.

This is a shaggy dog story that chases it's tail but never seems to matter what really happens. As is often said of film detective stories and comedies, it is the journey that matters rather than the destination. This journey covers a lot of territory in Southern California without really showing any of the topography. We get a sense of Malibu and Pasadena more from the characters that we meet who inhabit those places than from seeing the view. The mansion of The Big Lebowski reflects what would pass as old money here in So. Cal. and Jackie Trehorn's glass walled mansion looks like the kind of nouveau riche palace that a pornographer like Larry Flynnt would think is classy in the beach community. There are old school bowling alleys and suburban tract houses that serve as centers for the characters to interact in. So unlike other films that feature the Southland, "The Big Lebowski" uses sets and character to parody life in the City of Angels. As the Stanger who narrates the movie puts it, " But I'll tell you what - after seeing Los Angeles, and this here story I'm about to unfold, well, I guess I seen somethin' every bit as stupefyin' as you'd see in any of them other places. And in English, too. So I can die with a smile on my face, without feelin' like the good Lord gypped me." You'll feel that way too, even though the movie is not a travelogue.

Strange characters come out of the woodwork in this movie. Some of those characters never speak, some of them speak in broken English and some of them just have to piss on the carpet. Phillip Seymour Hoffman vamps it up in a role that preceded his stardom but marked a rich period of character work that he did in the late 90s. David Huddleston will now have this as the headline for his obituary instead of "Santa Claus". Julienne Moore, Steve Buscemi, John Turturro, Tara Reid, Ben Gazzara and many others could proudly point to their participation in this movie and be invited to conventions for ever. Finally, the man with the most amazing mustache in Hollywood, Sam Elliot, gets to use his sonorous voice in a whimsical way and ride off into the sunset as a mystery figure who shared this amazing tale.  The work of these character actors and a half dozen others marks one of the richest casts in a modern film that I can think of. All of their collective work would be wasted if we did not get the greatest performance of John Goodman's career and the laconic grace that is Jeff Bridges.

IMDB lists 166 separate quotes from the movie. In a film that is only 117 minutes long, that means the movie had an average of almost 1.5 quotable lines a minute.  From a statistical point of view, if you added in the number of Dudes" and "mans" said in the course of the film and then divided by the total uses of some variation of the "F" word, you will find that there is dialogue poetry as a result. It is one of the joys of movies that music which pre-existed the movie can be re-purposed to fit a story that seems made for that music. This film is an example of that minor miracle as well. My friend Michael has a summer series that he is posting "Purely Because of a Movie" where he spotlights songs on his ipod that are there because of a film he saw. I will be happy to mention a few from this movie that would make my list; Kenny Rogers and the First Edition"Just Dropped In" in the Pop song category, "Requiem in D Minor" by Mozart in the classical category and "Hotel California" by the Gypsy Kings in the selections not in English. There are a dozen other worthy entries as well, but "Tumblin Tumbleweeds" was in my catalog of music long before this film came along. 

So this is a first class comedy, by the remarkable talents of the Coen Brothers, featuring a great cast and two excellent lead performances. There are plenty of music tidbits to keep you intrigued and the movie is almost entirely quotable. Of course as Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski would put it...

The Monuments Men

The reviews have not been great and the buzz almost killed this for me. Then two things happened to make me once again want to see this movie. I read a review from one of the sites that I visit (which I usually avoid if I am planning on seeing the film) and I saw a repeat of the original story on CBS Sunday morning from four or five years ago. The story of what American forces were trying to do during WW II to save art history was compelling in a 6 minute slot on a news show, so how could this be a problem? I also trust the taste of my blogging colleague Keith and the Movies, and he was very enthusiastic. So since it is President's Day and I had the morning off before class this evening, I went ahead and saw this terrific film. (Thanks Keith)

"Monuments Men" tells the story of a small group of Allied art experts who were tasked with trying to locate the art that Hitler had looted from across Europe. There are some back-story inserts about particular works of art that are then used as focus points for the dramatized version of the story. I suppose if you read the book that the film is based on, you would get a clearer idea of what was fiction and what was invented. I think I can pick out enough of the dramatic bits to say that this  film is mostly an imposition of plot on top of a real world story. The plot is serviceable enough and even better, it highlights the elements that make you proud to be an American. As the CBS story pointed out, we did not take these works back to American Museums, we tried to return them to their rightful places. The story also mentioned that art pieces are still appearing seventy years later, in private collections and the work of clearing the legacy of theft is ongoing.

George Clooney stars in and directed, from a script he co-wrote. When he did "Good Night, and Good Luck", he was the toast of the town, by the time he did "Leatherheads" he was just toast. His last few films as director have not been well received. I did not see the "Ides of March" but I think I know what turns some other critics off. He keeps the story straight and does not shy away from sentiment. Cynicism is the coin of the realm in critical circles and there is not an ounce of it in "Monuments Men". There are clear heroes and villains and a task that is difficult. Sometimes a race to the treasure aspect or a dramatic incident is used to make the audience stay invested, but never in a way that talks down to them. His style may be just too direct and workmanlike to please cineastes, but the average film goer should be plenty satisfied with this story.

I especially enjoyed the pairings in the film that carry much of the entertainment value. Clooney and Damon play off one another like the frequent partners they have been. John Goodman and Jean Dujardin have a nice sequence in a truck that plays up humor at first and then tragedy.  Bill Murray and Bob Balaban get the most opportunities to make us smile, both in the warm embrace of home and the smug satisfaction of besting an evil opponent or a scared kid, and knowing the difference. The truth is that all of the real Monuments Men were in a real war with real bullets flying. There are sometimes a few too many words in the speeches that tell us how important this project is, but they are sincere words and I did not think they hurt the story at all.

I guess one of the criticisms is that by being so sincere the film plays flat. I found it refreshing that the soldiers did the same kinds of things I member seeing in B & W WWII films starring John Wayne, Errol Flynn or a dozen other stars from the forties. No one takes out a baseball bat and pounds the truth out of someone, they use deception, reason and righteous anger to get the job done. There are several points where the story does have to payoff given the way the script is written, and those outcomes were fairly satisfying to me. In a flash forward coda, I thought at first I was seeing an amazing make up job but than I realized the director managed to get his father into the film and that was a kick. The former host of AMC, before commercials and "Breaking Bad" was a nice presence and suggests just how heartfelt the whole enterprise was.