Here is a film that has no more than a half dozen characters. There are maybe twelve lines of dialogue in the film. For the first third of the movie there really is no score. And the film manages to build suspense, create character and provide enough exposition for us to understand what is going on. That my friends is a well written story. There may be a couple of plot holes or inconsistencies but once the idea has grabbed a hold of you, it does not let go until the end. Maybe you can worry about minor quibbles after you catch your breath and relax your body and grip on the armrest. Director and co-screenwriter John Krasinski has made a modern horror classic. It is limited on gore but rich in suspense and ideas.
The premise of the film is set up very nicely in the introduction of the film. There is a screen shot that mentions a day count, but that is all. Everything else is laid out for us in silence. The children are kids, but one of them is sick. The older sister is enjoying shopping in the venue but is also watching out for her youngest brother. The parents are attentive to not making a sound and when a potential noise disaster is averted, everyone seems to heave a sigh of relief. It is just kids being kids that leads to a disaster and starts us into the darker paths of the story.
Millicent Simmonds is a tween actress who has to carry much of the story. She is a deaf girl playing a deaf girl but that is just appropriate casting, it does not diminish the performance. She has to convey the attitude of a burgeoning teen with facial expressions and shoulder shrugs. She nails it. There is a shadow of guilt that haunts her and during the course of the film, she pulls away from her father a bit because of how she thinks he sees her. Krasinski as the father in the story is as loving as a parent can be, but the self talk that only a teen can create is the focus of this relationship. There are two resolutions in the film, one for the personal relationship and one for the horrifying threat that the family faces. They are tied together by the same device, but Krasinski has written himself a heroic moment that will pull at you like crazy. When Simmonds realizes how she has mistaken her father, despite all the evidence of his love her, it is a great acting moment from the young star of the movie.
Everything in the film depends on the family remaining silent. The plot element that challenges this need the most sets up the climax of the film. This is where Emily Blunt gives one of the greatest horror film performances ever. She is not simply reacting to what happens, she is at the center of these events. The courage of a mother was shown to be a spectacular character arc in "Aliens", well this one could easily sit beside that film. The story adds tension upon misstep, followed by relief and then even greater tension. Half of this is played out on the face of the lead actress. The rest she manages in a physical performance that had to be very challenging. The final image of her in the movie will make you glad you sat thru the previous ninety minutes.
OK, there are a few plot problems concerning electricity and the parents key decisions regarding the family. The focus on their farm makes sens but there seems to be an attempt to contact others in multiple ways, and we don't exactly know what that is supposed to accomplish. Human beings inevitably make noise other than speaking, and while the film meticulously shows us the efforts made by the family to keep quiet, a draft in the Spring could sent this out the window in an instant, and no real answer is ever provided for such inconsistencies. None of that really matters however because the slowly building tension and the moments of suspense keep us enthralled and that's what a horror film should do. That the film also addresses issues of love and redemption make it all the more powerful. You can expect to see this film on my end of the year list. If I were not so afraid of shouting after seeing this, I'd shout at all of you who haven't gone to a theater yet.
We got a Spielberg film just last December (although for most it was just a couple of months ago in January), but "The Post" despite clearly being made by Spielberg, doesn't need to be a Spielberg film. "ready Player One" on the other hand, seems to demand the hand of the master on the controller. This is a meta exercise in nostalgia, both for the period of time and for the kinds of films that Spielberg used to make. Lucky for us, it mostly works and the reason is Spielberg himself.
The book that the film is based on is a pastiche of ideas and images and memories from a million minds of gamers. It was primarily a tool for reliving the joy that comes from mastering a new game and solving a puzzle. Since the gaming industry was born and thrived in the 1980s, it also is rich in the music and films of the times. The conceit is simple, this movie is a race between lonely souls who have moved out of the real world and a mega corporation that wants to control the environment that they have all moved to. The competitions are laden with the kinds of pop references this generation of geeks will appreciate.
Ernest Cline's novel is much darker than this popcorn fueled entertainment. A pop culture geek himself (he wrote the movie"Fanboys"), Cline saw the limitations on social interactions that living in virtual reality held. The specter of a new form of debtors prison, hovers over an environment where fantasy role playing has replaced real intimacy. The villain in the book is much less cartoonish than the ultimately feckless Ben Mendelsohn of the film. The problems faced by the competitors were often mundane and repetitive, as many of the games being saluted were. It takes someone with a lot of patience and time to master some of the ideas that hardly seem worth mastering in the first place. Spielberg with the help of co-screenwriter Zak Penn, has refocused the story to celebrate the pop culture more than the dark under current in the story.
In the first chase in the story, we are introduced to the three main characters as they dash madly through a race that looks like a combination of Mario Kart and Grand Theft Auto. The motorcycle from "Akira" and the DeLoren from "Back to the Future" are driven by the future romantic couple and each has their own way of challenging the game. The chase though is typical Spielberg, it is frenetic but still comprehensible. As usual, there is always one more piece of dramatic business to stretch out the tension of a scene. The events are so meta that he even lampoons himself with a reference to Jurassic Park as well as a few films he had a hand in as producer.
How could it not be a Spielberg film when the cinematography was done by the artist that Spielberg has worked with 18! times over the last thirty years. Janusz Kaminski is responsible for the look of so many Spielberg films that he might just be his shadow. The one thing that is missing that would put the nail in the coffin is a John Williams score. We get a vigorous but clearly 80s style theme from Alan Silvestri, veteran of "Back to the Future", "Amazing Stories" and a couple of upcoming films in the MCU. Oh, he also scored the "Super Mario Bros. Movie".
The changes lead to a more audience friendly experience. There are more movie references than video game Easter Eggs (although there are plenty of those). A 70s guy like me appreciated the music selection for the nightclub scene and if you like "The Shining" it replaces "War Games" as the main film sequence with a completely different take on the process. Also, there are fewer deaths of heroes in the movie. It is a cinematic stew of epic proportions.
Characterization and subtext are mostly lost with this film interpretation but it makes up for those points by always being visually stimulating. It does not have the resonance of an Indiana Jones or E.T., but it will entertain you for two plus hours and that time goes by quickly. The presence of Simon Pegg and Mark Rylance as secondary figures also adds to the depth of the film, but if deep is what you are looking for, go back and watch "Lincoln". Until the next Indiana Jones film, this is as close to classic Spielberg as you are likely to get, and that is pretty darn close.
OK, it's only the end of March but I think I can safely say this will be on my year end list of favorite films. I dig stop motion animation, I have enjoyed more than my fair share of Wes Anderson films, and I love dogs. Going in it should be a no brainer but I had a few doubts because of the supposed allegorical references to modern issues of immigration and xenophobia. It turns out that anyone who wants to find a tenative tie to some modern political issue in a film, does not have to work that hard. People, if you are reading that much into this story, you need to cut down on your caffeine.
The Wes Anderson style is all over this film. You can hear it in the clipped remarks that the dogs make to one another. It is also full of the color palates that he so lavishly uses in all of his movies (or at least the ones I have seen). Much of the interaction has a dynamic and undercurrent to it that makes it feel as if we are hearing two conversations at once, a surface level interface and then a deeper more satirical intercourse. There are also several visual gags that are gruesome and hysterical at the same time. No one could mistake this for a movie made by someone else.
The fact that only Anderson could have produced this film is one of the reasons that I can't take any of the charges of cultural appropriation seriously. While the truth is that he is a westerner telling a story set in Japan, it only matters that it is Japanese for some historical context. The idea that a group of people could be mislead by a nefarious political leader is not uniquely Japanese. The notion of parts of a culture being banished is not Japanese either. I'm willing to give him credit for letting the human characters speak in Japanese without making it seem like subtitles are necessary for every utterance. As I have said numerous times in my classes, "you can find something to argue about in just about anything. That doesn't mean that it is problematic to most people."
The aesthetic of the film is definitely weird. The flu that the dogs have seems to be an odd contrivance but it works for the story. The notion of "Trash Island", is not all that different than the planet that Thor ends up on in Thor Ragnorock. The fact that Jeff Goldblum is featured in both pictures must be coincidental. The island is a nicely realized habitat that our pack has to navigate to reach an objective. There are complex backgrounds but even more intricate machinery and architecture than one would imagine in a dump.
Everything else though is backdrop for the charming story of a boy separated from his dog, and the bonds that humans and animals really do need to be complete. As a dog owner, I have frequently put words in my dogs mouths. Wes Anderson does this for the whole movie and the words are both profound and amusing. My guess is that everyone here will have a favorite dog that he/she will relate to and love. "Chief", "Duke" and "Spots" are my favorites, but ultimately all the dogs are like most dogs, lovable once you get to know them.
I can't imagine the time and talent it took to create the intricate puppets that get used for the stop motion action in the film. I know computer work must also have played a part but even then, something has to be designed first and the art direction and characters in this movie are astonishing. The actors all feel as if they are carefully matched to their characters. Bryan Cranston as Chief manages to be gruff but also winsome in spots. Goldblum's Duke is a never ending fountain of understatement and set up lines, with just the right sonorous tone to make it sound somewhat intellectual. The music combines traditional Japanese flavored drums with more tuneful passages to also add to the environment that everyone in the film is occupying.
Everyone else may have noticed this, it's not a haiku but it is a homophone: "I Love Dogs "
I went back to look at my review of the original "Pacific Rim" and it is relatively positive. There is an acknowledgement that the premise is silly and the characters are thin, but otherwise the movie was fun. So consider this as a sequel to that review. My comments here will probably mirror the film in the same way that the original review mirrored the first movie. The depth will be less, the characters less interesting and story will be more incomprehensible. Five years ago I found the energy to make the review a little entertaining, today I don't have the same creativity or motivation.
There have been so many films that have trashed the cities of the Earth in the last ten years, they all start to run together. For a brief moment, it felt as if this film was going to forgo that routine and do something more creative. For ten minutes we get an alternative world, where people are living as scavengers in the ruins of the cities that were destroyed in the last film. Two characters are quickly introduced and there is a homemade "Jaeger" to entice us. When one giant robot fights another, I had hopes that this would be something a bit different. Unfortunately, the two new characters that are introduced are immediately placed in the world that existed in the first film. We get a weak reboot of the training/drafting process and a potential threat from a technological improvement in the weapons is abandoned almost immediately for a development that makes almost no sense. We do get some robot on robot action but it isn't long before that morphs into the same thing with a different cast.
Sydney, Australia and Tokyo, Japan are the two cites that get busted up in this go round. There is a tasteful decision to convince us that thousands of people are not dying with every punch being throw and every monster waving it's tail. The four second visual reference and one line of dialogue are meant to assuage our guilt about watching these cities be torn up. The more comic book aspects of the movie also help diminish the significance of the destruction. It finally is a little hard to worry that CGI building being collapsed means anything. It's a bit like the destruction of Alderlan, we know what it means but it carries only symbolic weight, no real emotional consequence.
There are a few characters carried over from the first film, but to be honest, since I've only seen it the one time, five years ago, I forgot the role they played for the most part. John Boyega is supposed to be the son of Idris Elba's character in the first film. I don't think there was ever a reference to him in that movie, only to the adopted daughter who is his sister. Rinko Kikuchi is that sister and she does not get much to do. The other carry over characters are more important to the story but they make almost as little sense as the previously unknown brother. Scott Eastwood is fine as a rival character, he gets to be the butt of one good joke line, but mostly he is stoic and ready for action. Boyega has to try to match the spirit of the speech from his dad in the first film, and he just sounds like a cheerleader.
"Pacific Rim Uprising" is not interested in any social ramifications of the war against the Kaiju. There are a couple of places where some political and philosophical issues could be made a part of the story, but they are jettisoned immediately. The film does this repeatedly. It asks a question or raises a subject and then does nothing with it. The emotional loss of the movie characters is nil. Even the one character who announces that he will be dying by making a foreshadowing statement early in the story, gets denied the payoff that was set up in that earlier scene. The technology is never explained as it was sometimes in the first movie. Jerry-rigged solutions to complications that come up get done in time regardless of how much time might be needed to make any of it logically work. I can believe I just used a criteria of "logic" to judge this movie, because there is no consistent rationale for what happens, it just does.
The robots fighting each other and then fighting giant monsters is fun for a while, but it does get repetitive. There were no real human elements to offset the repetitive nature of these continuous battle, so the movie feels a little long and redundant. The end result is that this film will help you kill a couple of hours but not help you anticipate another time killer two years from now which is clearly the plan. That giant white gorilla movie coming in a couple of weeks, suddenly looks a lot more entertaining by comparison.
OK, tell me that getting Spielberg's Biggest Blockbuster of the 1970s AND his Biggest Blockbuster of the 1980s isn't going to help me win this draft. Plus I have the sequel to his biggest Blockbuster of the 1990s to go along with it. This should be in the bag, but only if you do your part and vote for my slate in the Draft.
Jaws
There are plenty of posts on this site for this film. Here is a list:
For some reason I was very reluctant to see this film. I'm not a gamer so the franchise doesn't mean much to me. The two versions starring Angelina Jolie are distant menories after one viewing when the came out, and the trailer made the movie look like a single long chase through the jungle and I saw that last Christmas with "Jumanji". So imagine my surprise that this turned out to be pretty good.
Alicia Vikander has been on my radar since I first saw her in a ridiculous film "Seventh Son", from three years ago. Since then she starred in my favorite movie of that year and won an Academy Award. None of that really suggests that she could be an action star, but this film manages to make her pretty believable in that role. One of the things the script manages to do is show that she is frequently lucky rather than invincible. The opening two scenes show her being defeated in a battle in the ring and getting creamed in a bicycle chase. She has her moments but she is also clearly not always going to come out on top. She is also an amateur in this film version. As a nascent treasurer hunter, she is really in pursuit of her father not the contents of a tomb.
I don't mean to suggest that the story is complex or that there are not a lot of chase scenes. In fact, the plot does seem like a series of action sequences strung together. The most noticeable of which are three chase sequences that take up the first half of the film. The bicycle chase at the beginning is very clever and nicely shot and completely superfluous to the plot. A pursuit across a series of boats in the harbor of Hong Kong, does little to advance the story either. The big chase is the action scene that is so prominently featured in the trailers, and it is that jungle chase that I mentioned earlier. It has some of those Spielberg touches, that add just one more complication as you think the end is within reach. Those play out like a bit of a cliche but they still manage to work.
My main reason for wanting to see this is that it features Walton Goggins as the bad guy. We are fans of his work ever since we first came across him in "Justified". I know that he had some success before that but we know him as Boyd Crowder. Here he is Maithias Vogel, the minion of some vast conspiracy that is attempting to control the world. I'm sure that "Trinity" will feature prominently in any successive films but her it is barely a shadow. Vogel is the villain and as a man trapped on an island, searching for what he thinks is a treasure, surrounded by slaves that he dispatches like swatting a fly, he is appropriately mad-eyed. Goggins has a good voice and speaks in an interesting rhythm when given a chance. Unfortunately here, there is rarely an opportunity. The screenwriters just stick a gun in his hand and move on to another sequence.
The National Treasure/Raiders of the Lost Ark/Mummy vibe is pretty strong. When they finally do enter the Tomb, it was sufficiently booby trapped to make the last section pretty effective. We don't really get any sense of how Lara Croft figures out the puzzles that she solves. This was especially true of the combination that unlocked the chamber in the first place. I would think that gamers, used to having to solve these sorts of elements to make their games work, would want to have that as part of the process, but the film makers are in a hurry to get to the next piece of exposition or action.
"Tomb Raider" is a brisk two hours with enough story to make the action work, but only barely. Whether or not we get further adventures that the story clearly is setting up is a mystery that could only be discovered by Lara herself. Stay Tuned.
You can listen to the episode here. Tomorrow I will post my draft choices and share a link to where you can vote for them. We had a very fun time talking all things Spielberg so you should take advantage and spend a couple of hours debating our positions.
In
the world of Science Fiction, most readers of novels, viewers of
television and movies will always remember a strong ending to a story.
The "Twilight Zone" was famous for the twist sucker punch finale of most
of the episodes. In the popular culture, when an image or a quote
becomes a meme understood by all, it is clear that the work has tapped
into something important to the times, politics or people. Charlton
Heston is the star of many a movie meme. Moses standing at the Red Sea
parting the waves, Ben Hur, either chained to the oars of the Roman
Battle cruiser or with rein in hand on a Chariot. His most famous image
however is as a dismayed misanthrope pounding sand on a beach in front
of the ruins of one of the most recognizable symbols in the world at the
end of "Planet of the Apes". Heston has at least one other great
moment of Science Fiction history in his vita, the denouncement at the
end of the movie "Soylent Green". It is another moment parodied and
understood by masses of people, most of whom have never seen the movie. I
don't want his refrain to be the only thing people know about the film
so this week "Soylent Green" is the movie I want everyone to see.
"Soylent
Green" is one of those great 1970s Science Fiction movies that is more
about ideas than about special effects. Before the juggernaut that is
"Star Wars" came along, most Science Fiction lived in the imagination
more than the vision of a story. There were occasional exceptions like
"Forbidden Planet" and "2001", but for each of those visually rich
movies, there were a dozen other films that made do with small budgets,
limited effects and big ideas. Films like "Seconds", "A Boy and His
Dog", "Damnation Alley" or "The Omega Man" drew in audience mostly with
interesting concepts. Sometimes like with "Planet of the Apes" there was
spectacular art direction and set design, but even in that film the
visual factor relies on our willingness to accept the story in order to
then accept the vision. Most of these films are cautionary tales that
try to speak to the worries of the times in which they were made, and
"Soylent Green" was one of the finest examples of playing on those
contemporary fears.
Stanford
Biologist Paul Ehrlich published a book called "The Population Bomb"
that predicted a coming world of Malthusian Nightmares. It spawned a
whole industry of doomsayers and environmental prophets who suggested
that the Earth was over populated and over polluted. The theme of
"Soylent Green" is derived from this stream of fearful environmentalism
of the early 1970s. This dystopian world is not threatened by nuclear
annihilation but starvation and overcrowding. Of course there has also
been a substantial amount of global warming to screw up the planet's
food supplies as well. Most of this is brilliantly summarized by the
title sequence which uses a combination of photos, pacing and music to
show us what has happened and is coming.
It
was simple and to the point. It was also forty years ago, so perhaps it
is a little premature to send us all to a living hell but once the
premise is set up the story follows it quite well. William Simonson, a
director of the Soylent Corporation is murdered and although there are
hundreds of murders a day in the overcrowded world, one detective is
unwilling to accept that it is a random burglary. Simonson lives in a
luxurious apartment that comes equipped with special security, a
bodyguard and living furniture that he can enjoy to his hearts content.
It just seems too convenient that the bodyguard was out shopping for
groceries with the furniture at the moment this important man was killed
in his building. A building where the security system is on the fritz
when the apartment is broken into.
Heston plays the determined cop
who engages in the kind of casual corruption that seems to be as
prevalent in the future as it was in the 1970s with Al Pacino's
"Serpico". Detective Thorn is not a bad guy, but he appears to be a
vulture at the scene of the crime, scooping up whatever luxury item is
likely to go unmissed. Everybody gets a little taste, from his boss to
the grunts that remove the body. Thorn takes some vegetables and meat
which are incredibly rare commodities in the future. Most people have to
survive on manufactured nutrition wafers of different composition,
including the recently introduced "Soylent Green". He also acquires a
couple of rare technical books that he will not be able to make sense
out of but which ought to please his partner Sol Roth, an elderly man
who serves as the equivalent of Wikipedia for the future police force.
Most
of you know an old timer or two who provides a link to the past. They
share stories of the good old days and relate how the world was a better
place in their youth (much like your current narrator). For the most
part we can dismiss those stories as the nostalgia of an older
generation (you know, they walked five miles up hill to school in the
snow and then five miles uphill home at the end of the day). This movie
posits that the memories of the older generation are not rambling
condemnations of change but accurate histories of things that have in
fact been lost. The collective of older "books" is known as the Exchange
and Sol takes the information from the two Oceanographic Reports that
Thorn brought him to the Exchange for evaluation.
The film is a
police procedural about a conspiratorial secret which the powers that be
are determined to keep a secret. Most of this was pretty standard
stuff, but several aspects of the setting make the story so much more
compelling. The way in which the citizens have to live, on rationed
water, limited food supplies, sleeping on staircases shows how the
environment has decayed. The world of the dead man stands in stark
contrast to the rest of the population. A rich man with a sex partner
who comes with the apartment and access to items that are incredibly out
of reach to the rest of the population may seem an unsympathetic
victim. We have seen however that there was a sense of guilt in his
death, we are aware that there is a conspiracy and we watch Thorn as he
picks at each link and follows his instincts to arrive at the truth. In
the process the future world is revealed to us bit by bit. The
term "bromance" has cropped up in the last few years to describe stories
that are about the friendship between two men. Buddy pictures have been
around since the days of silent film, and up through the point this was
released so was Edward G. Robinson. The partnership between Sol and
Thorn is the real relationship in the movie. Heston's character does get
involved with the "furniture" of the dead man, but all of the really
emotional moments of the film involve him and the old man. From some of
the earliest of sound films, Robinson played gangsters, doctors and
bureaucrats.
He was the definitive gangster for the first decade of sound movies as
"Little Cesar". "Soylent Green" gave him the opportunity to go out on a
high note. This was his last film and he played it for all that was on
the page. The scene where Sol prepares the purloined food for a meal for
Heston is a good example. Sol, enjoys it with relish and equally enjoys
watching Thorn, who has never had anything like this enjoy as well.
Robinson waves his plastic utensils as if they were a baton and he was
conducting an orchestra. The crescendo of the piece is the belch Heston
gives at the end of the most satisfying meal of his life. Apparently
this scene was not in the script and was improvised by the two actors
with the prompting of the director. It was a special touch to show their
relationship and the world of the time. At one point Heston's boss
suggests he might need a new "book" but the detective demurs and
continues to have faith in his room mate/partner/father figure.
The
other great sequence featuring Robinson, and one that is sadly ironic,
is Sol's decision to end his own story. When advocates of euthanasia
speak of giving patients back their dignity
and providing comfort at the end, they must surely envision a scene
like the one that takes place at the end of the second act. Older people
desiring to die, troop into a modernistic building, fill out a form and
then have some final comforts attended to. Robinson was dying of cancer
when the movie was made and he was almost completely deaf. We would all
hope that his passing would be as beautiful as was depicted here in the
processing center referred to as "home" by those seeking an end to
their time on Earth. Thorn gets the final proof for the motive of the
executive's murder by following his friend through his passage home. As
you watch what is really a simple sequence
of wonderful pastoral scenes and listen to the comforting and thrilling
classical score, you realize how devastating the loss of the world as
it was would be to those able to remember it.
The themes and
characters have been shared with you a bit, now let's talk about the
production. In today's world, this would be a movie crammed with
futuristic CGI vistas and sets that were created in a computer. The
costumes and equipment would be imagined in fantastic ways to make us
feel as if we were in the future. The science fiction films of the
seventies were often done on modest budgets and almost always had to
make due with creative use of location and existing props. A luxury
apartment of the future comes equipped with the latest video game (here
it is an early version of Pong). Food riots need to be staged on a New
York City back lot, but to make it more futuristic, garbage trucks are
modified to remove people rather than trash. The euthanasia center is
the googie architectural structure of the L.A. Sports arena and it's
futuristic clean style lobby. The focus stays on the ideas rather than
the "wow" factor of the look. Even the two books that Thorn confiscates,
they are not digital readouts on an i-pad style device, they are simply
over-sized volumes given slick covers to convey an advanced type of
publishing, nothing fancy but slightly noticeable.
The
horrible secret of "Soylent Green" has probably been used as a
punchline by thousands of people who never even saw the movie. The fact
that the last line has reached into and grabbed the public consciousness
is evidence of the effectiveness of the idea behind the film. We are on
an environmental brink that may change the relationship of human beings
to one another in catastrophic ways. The immorality of a choice might
be mitigated by the exigencies of the moment. The movie is an action
based detective conspiracy story, but the thought it contains is
provocative and the story highlights that issue rather than pushing it
aside for action. Just five years after he stands in for the sucker
punched audience in front of the Statue of Liberty, Heston finishes
another iconic Science fiction thought with his dire warning and
outstretched hand. Another entertaining science fiction movie is capped
off with a thought that is frightening and thought provoking.
Special Note:
This
is the first of my series on Fogs Movie Reviews [Now, Movies I Want Everyone to See] to cover a film I wrote
about on my original Movie A Day Project from 2010. If you are
interested in a comparison of the posts click here,
I did not refer to this earlier post when writing this so you will see
some differences in voice and view but probably not too many in attitude
or style. Enjoy.
Richard Kirkham is a lifelong movie enthusiast
from Southern California. While embracing all genres of film making, he
is especially moved to write about and share his memories of movies from
his formative years, the glorious 1970s. His personal blog, featuring
current film reviews as well as his Summers of the 1970s movie project,
can be found at Kirkham A Movie A Day.
I love a revenge film. The catharsis and emotional satisfaction that comes from seeing justice being played out against reprehensible people is pleasing at the most base level. I think most people recognize that films like these are fantasies and not guidebooks on how to act. I can't say on an intellectual level that vigilante action is something we should approve of, but for two hours in a movie theater it can be very therapeutic.
The original version of "Death Wish" from 1974 was one of the most controversial films of it's time. It was also commercially successful. So much so that the character returned in a series of decreasingly relevant and quality sequels. It was a film of the moment, when urban crime was overwhelming cities and turning them into dystopian outposts in the real world, not some fictional future. The script for this remake is written in a manner to play off of that paranoia, but do so in a modern context. Screenwriter Joe Carnahan has mixed the urban danger zone that Chicago has become with the suburban setting occupied by the protagonist and his family. This changes the way the character might be perceived and it allows the fear of random violence to be part of a more contemporary story.
Another important change in the plot involves the lead now being a trauma surgeon rather than an architect. The avenging grim reaper now has a pipeline of bad guys coming through the emergency room, they provide him with a link to specific criminals. Charles Bronson's character was not seeking the specific criminals that destroyed his family, he had become a moral cudgel to thrash the unrepentant criminal element in a somewhat random manner. He actually begins to bait criminals into their actions to be able to take them out. Bruce Willis does engage in a couple of random acts of vigilantism, but he mostly is pursuing leads that will bring him in contact with the particular gang that robbed and murdered at his house. The criminals in this film are an organized crew with a plan and an M.O.
Bruce Willis has been making straight to streaming movies for the last five years and his enthusiasm as an actor is not very apparent in most of this movie. He still has enough charisma to make us watch in some sequences but he seems to be disengaged in some of the others. It is only when he starts killing people that he seems to come to life in the film. His sequences with the family or interacting with the police lack the edginess and sarcastic humor that mark his other roles. Vincent D'Onofrio is his brother, and it is not clear in any way how he is essential to the plot. There are a couple of scenes near the end where the brothers confront some emotional issues between them, and D'Onofrio seems like he is effortlessly creating a character while Willis is just standing there.
However, director Eli Roth, has managed to inject some life into this film by making Dr. Paul Kersey, a relentless inquisitor and fledgling killer. In the original film, Bronson gets inspired by a visit to Arizona where a business contact encourages him to take up shooting. Dr. Kersey goes to Texas to bury his wife, and it is his father-in-law who inspires him indirectly by pulling to the side of the dirt road they are coming back from the graveside on, and unloading his rifle at a couple of poachers on his ranch. Coincidences become the staring point for his human hunting expedition when he recognizes a trauma patient as the kid who worked as a parking valet at his families favorite restaurant. Add a cell phone and a dropped firearm and he becomes a hooded FBI unto himself.
Roth is known for the horror films that he has made and his touch with gore is clearly visible in many spots in this film. Kersey as a doctor, knows exactly how to torture someone to get information that he needs and Roth is happy to show us the process. There are brains splattered in a couple of scenes so the violence quotient is pretty high. Early in the film, there is a set up of a device that becomes pivotal in the climax of the story. Progressives are going to hate this film but the NRA might want to use it as a commercial for membership. The unfortunate real world events that have brought gun issues to the center of national attention recently, may find that the narrative they are creating about semi-automatic weapons, will be problematic to those who have an interest in owning them for a variety of reasons other than creating mayhem.
The film lacks the grit and social relevance of the 70s original but tries to compensate with plot twists and higher levels of violence. The cop character in this movie is not as interesting as the Vincent Guardina cop in the original, but the perspective is effectively conveyed in a much more casual and subtle manner. If Bruce could manage to put just a little more effort into the non-action scenes, this could potentially be another franchise for a few years. Whether or not that happens, the revenge story is basic, brutal and as politically incorrect as you can imagine. All reasons for me to like the film at least.
Dunkirk Christopher Nolan's film was the most visually impressive, forward moving, and meaningful film of the lot. Listening to the score and watching how he masterfully integrated three separate time lines into a single narrative with clever overlaps and great timing, I know that this was the best directing job this year. Nothing against Guillermo Del Toro, but this complex story, logistical nightmare and historical memorial is simple better constructed than the odd fish love story. This is a film that tells a real historical story that will last long after the fashion of the fairy tale set in a mythological era in U.S. history, is a charming oddity. Some people complain that the characters here are not well developed, that is true. This however is not a character piece but a prism on the events that were taking place during a military disaster that became a turning point in a manner that was most unexpected. Darkest Hour This film was even stronger the second time I saw it. The first viewing I was overpowered by Gary Oldman's performance. He will surely be the winner in the acting category. I admired the film before but I have come to really respect it on this second encounter. Joe Wright manages to make a tale of political intrigue into a fascinating study of a character and the country who's character he came to represent for the duration of the war. The one clumsy moment is a scene set in an underground train car. The only reason it is clumsy is that it feels so distinct from everything else, like a deliberate movie moment. That shows that the rest of the movie does exist as something more than the typical fare. But even that scene works emotionally because it bespeaks of a real sense of what the British people felt at the time. Call Me By Your Name I am being a little facetious when I say this film is a pain in the neck. That's because in the first half I went to sleep and got a crick that is staining my muscles still. My least favorite of the nominees, this film is slow moving, meandering and confounding. I felt like I was listening to a play frequently, with dialogue written eloquently but sounding artificial. A couple of podcasters that I listen to love this film and especially the sequence with Michael Stuhlbarg as the father of Elio, consoling his son on the "special" friendship he had with Oliver. It ends on s deliberately false note when the Dad tells his son that he doesn't think that Mom knows about the nature of their friendship. The mom had just picked up a near weeping Elio at the train station and she dropped hints for the previous hour that she knew how special Elio thought Oliver was. When Mr. Perlman says he never had a relationship with anyone like Elio had with Oliver, we can believe him because he so obtusely ignores how insightful his wife is. This will probably win the Screenplay Award, and it shouldn't, if it takes the big prize I might yell loud enough to ruin my voice for a month. The Post So this was the one new film we saw on day two. This has the phrase "Oscar Bait" pasted all over it. It features Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, a ton of high end supporting players and it was directed by Steven Spielberg. The subject matter concerns the fight of the press against preemptive shut down of news publication. It is a first amendment issue that was understandably important, yet at the same time it ignores some pretty egregious behavior. We can always applaud someone after the fact when their actions seem just and there was no blow-back, but there were issues regarding the acquisition of the Pentagon Papers that probably still need to be discussed. Spielberg and co-screenwriters Josh Singer and Liz Hannah, manage to make a bureaucratic legal process look and sound like a courtroom drama with some mystery tied in. Singer in particular is working on familiar ground since he won an Academy Award two years ago for a very similarly structured newspaper story "Spotlight". This is supposed to be a resistance film, about the Media vs. the President in a time when everyone wants to be standing up to the current administration. The parallels are not really there to give this much resonance. This is a two hour commercial for the Washington Post and the heavy handed feminist slant in some of the visuals makes it feel too much like a lecture at times. That said, it is well made and the John Williams score is excellent as usual. Because "Bridge of Spies" and "Spotlight" are just a couple of years old however, this feels like it is old territory and not quite as distinctive as it needs to be. Get Out This one is the outlier. You rarely get a horror film nominated for Best Picture, but if you do, it is usually more of a big budget film. This Jordan Peele written and directed film seemed to come in under the radar, it made a huge splash, and it is getting some end of the year accolades. The intersectionality of this film is in keeping with all the film buffs who are much more woke than I am. I just enjoyed the twist and the characters in the film. Rod from TSA is a saving grace that adds more straightforward humor to the mix. Instead of a haunted house we get a upscale suburban plantation. The need for subtlety on the race subject is probably eliminated by the DNA of the movie. Being an outsider in an nearly all white environment makes Chris, our lead character played by nominated actor Daniel Kaluuya, mildly uncomfortable but also keenly aware of how different the culture he is visiting is. While most people will consider the "Sunken Place" to be the most horrifying image in the film, to me it is the silent auction with bingo cards. We still don't know what is going on, but the suggestion is truly awful. Seeing it for a second time, I could pay more attention to some of the interesting choices that were made. Grandma and Grandpa are certainly clever twists, although it seems strange that for the duration of Chris being a guest, the force required to hold those characters would be counter-intuitive to the actual plan. The creepy factor also takes Chris a little too long to respond to. His buddy is right, and he should be listening to him sooner. There is an outside chance this could take the award, the voting system gives weight to the number of ballots a film appears on, and this would be a popular ad to the list but not necessarily high on the list. Should it when I expect to see some "Get Out" Memes that mine the fertile teen speak use of the terminology.
As an aside, let me rant about the misquotes being used to decorate the entry way to the theater. Both "Cool Hand Luke" and "Jaws" are misquoted in the floor below.
Three of the shorts this year are not short on one thing, and that is tension. This film focuses on what is essentially a two person sequence that could easily have been a massive tragedy. A disturbed young man arrives at a school and a confrontation ensues with the school's receptionist playing mediator. This is apparently based on an actual 911 phone call, the two actors are excellent but special mention should be made of actress Tara Riggs who maintains a level of composure while also being frightened to death. Her character is the kind of everyday hero we hope is present in our lives somewhere.
The recent shooting at a school in Florida will be on everyone's mind right now and the tie in to this movie is unavoidable. Because of the timeliness, I suspect this must be the film that will be favored for the award next Sunday.
The Silent Child
It turns out that this movie is basically a public service announcement, disguised as a drama. There is a disturbing phenomena among families with children who have special needs and the schools they attend. This is a British film so it may model the culture and schools there more than it does in the U.S. Here I see parents who are aggressively assertive in trying to care for their children's needs. Our school system creates an expectation that all are welcome. It was a little hard for me to believe the character of the mother in this story, although I am sure there are instances like this. In the U.S. the Social Worker would file a report that accuses the parents of neglect and the story would proceed in a very different manner. We are less polite.
Because it seems so unique an anecdote, I don't know that it is as convincing as it wants to be. The special needs tutor and the little girl in the story are both very solid. I thought the child performance seemed really effective for the circumstances. Everyone else came across as a little too pat and almost caricatures of indifferent people.
My Nephew Emmentt
This is another historical film based on an actual incident and it is one that most of us will have heard of. The murder of Emmentt Till, a young black man from Chicago who has moved in with his family in Mississippi is one of the turning points of the civil rights era. The facts that took place after his murder are not the subject of this startling film. Rather this story focuses on the sense of impending doom that a family could feel and do nothing to prevent.
For a short film, this one felt the most deliberate and slowest. The actor playing Mose Wright, the Uncle, looks dignified but also beaten down by time. He can sense doom coming but despite the nightmares and the reasoning, he ends up in a defensive position with survivor's guilt to come. This movie looks like it was shot through a bronze filter in some of the night time scenes. It is even more haunting as a result.
The Eleven O'Clock
This was a straight out comedy. It feels so different in tone that you might wonder how it got nominated, but I can actually explain this pretty well. The actors have incredible timing and they play their parts to a tee. The script reminds you of a screwball comedy, with maybe Cary Grant and the Marx Brothers thrown in for good measure. It gets to the point and makes you laugh without having to have a lot of exposition. It is like a very well told joke, with just the right amount of detail thrown in to make it sparkle.
Mistaken identity plots have been around for as long as there have been movies, so you may be able to tell where this is going after a few short minutes. Don't worry, that will not detract from your enjoyment of the film at all. The escalating frustrations of the two main characters is simply great to soak up and laugh at.
Watu Wote
This is another film that builds tension for it's whole duration. The story does have to rely on a series of title cards to set up the events we are going to witness. It is a harrowing trip being taken by people who just want to get on with their lives, but they live in a part of the world where bad things happen everyday and everywhere. This is also a film based on real events and to think that these things happen in the world we live in is frightening. The subject concerns conflicts between Islamist terrorists and Christians living in Kenya.
A simple bus trip is never going to be simple in the part of the world where roads are not always paved, there may not be a hotel available, and you pray for an armed escort getting on the equivalent of a Greyhound. People with different faiths are all subject to risks in this world. One woman's experiences of tragedy sometimes blind her to the wellspring of human decency that can pop up anywhere. The film is dedicated to a man who stood up to oppression and represents the faith he adheres to in a most reasonable manner. If the Award is going to go to a politically and socially charged film, this could also be a dark horse.
I did not make it to see the documentary shorts but I did see the animated films and the live action films. If you click on the link here, you can go to ShortsTV and find the films that are available on line or where they might be playing near you.
The Animated Shorts
"Dear Basketball" is the Kobe Bryant created film. There is some pushback from the #metoo movement because of Kobe's rape charge. This film however was directed by Glen Keane, an old hand at Disney. The music is from John Williams, so the film has a pedigree. Kobe narrates an ode to the sport that he loves and some lovely line and pencil animation accompanies his words. The simplest of the designs but still very effective. It is almost enough to make you like him if you did not already.
"LOU" is the charming Pixar film that played in front of "Cars 3" last summer. It is a brilliant realization of how story can be told without dialogue and through character. There is a lot of humor but also a touching moment or two in the seven minutes that this runs. Because John Lassiter is currently in the dog house with #metoo, this film probably has a reduced chance at taking home the award.
"Negative Space" represents a claymodel approach to animation with a somber mediation on a father son relationship. The design is a bit odd but the story works and the payoff is a bit heartbreaking. It does however hold some very practical advice for packing your luggage, so if you are traveling, make sure to check it out.
"Revolting Rhymes" Here is a twisted take on fairy tales that will give the little ones nightmares but offers a lot of humor that adults will appreciate. One of the voices was from Tasmin Greig, an actress that I know from the Showtime series "Episodes". Let's just say that Red Riding Hood and Snow White have more elaborate finishes to their stories than "Happily Ever After".
"Garden Party" This short starts out as a frolicking nature film. It has distinctive animated animals as characters and there are several whimsical interludes. In the background however, we begin to see signs that things are not exactly as light as they may seem. The computer animation on this is gorgeous, it reminded me quite a bit of "Rango". The last shot in the film also makes "Revolting Rhymes " only the second most gruesome of the five nominees.
Because the animated films are all relatively short, the program included three additional and worthy Honorable mentions to go along with the nominees:
"Lost Property Office" is a cardboard and claymation film from Australia that focuses on a lonely man responsible for a lonely job in a lonely location. Everything turns out better than you might hope. Dialogue free and easy to underestimate.
"Weeds" This is the little flower that could story that might be a little cloying but ultimately has it's heart in the right place. It is inspiring to kids but a nightmare for homeowners trying to keep a yard in ship shape.
"Achoo" I was really surprised that this was not one of the nominees. The animation is excellent, it tells a cultural story and it is pretty funny as well.
It's late, so I'll wait and do a second post on the live action shorts tomorrow.
As is our custom , we visited the Best Picture Showcase to catch up on all the films nominated this year. Also as usual, we have already seen most of them so it is a revisit for some of these movies but each day of the showcase this year will feature a movie that is new to us.
Phantom Thread was maybe the most divisive film my family seen this year. My daughter loved it and so did I. My wife hated it, she compared it to "The Tree of Life" a film that I personally also I hated. The film is extremely funny but also extremely tight and I mean that in a literal sense. Daniel Day Lewis' character is so tightly wound that he could fracture at any moment, he makes Samuel Jackson in "Unbreakable" look positively rubber like. I'm not sure if the film is supposed to be a comedy but it definitely played incredibly humorous.
The story is hard do explain. Reynolds Woodcock is a dress designer at the highest level of passion who has difficulty relating to anything except his own self interest. He finds a woman that he falls in love with for reasons that are hard to understand. Both he and his work are effected by her for her. Everybody experiencing his personality would be incredibly frustrated and angry. If our partners behaved in the manner that either of these two engage in, the relationship would end, but somehow it brings them closer together. I thought that the whole point ultimately was for the film to show how meticulous they are in their relationship, in the same manner that he is meticulous in the dresses that he makes. I can see however why my wife found it frustrating be because it is incredibly slow moving and deliberately paced.
Obviously the dress design are fantastic but the film barely lingers on them instead it focuses on the quirks and idiosyncrasy of Daniel Day Lewis' character and his relationship with Alma the woman that he may be in love with. It turns out to be one of the most amusing and twisted love stories you will ever see, and it is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, who knows how to make even a slow moving train [of a gown] look compelling.
Lady BirdSo I liked this film much better the second time then I did the first time I saw it. I think I came in better prepared to appreciate the characters and since I knew what the story involved I could pay attention to the details of how main characters interacted instead of worrying about the plot. Both actresses are excellent and Laurie Metcalf especially impressed me more as her character truly does act in frustrating ways but also in very loving ways. I do think that if I were Sacramento I'd be a little bummed out about the way I was referred to by Lady Bird. At the end of the film there is a nice pay off and maybe I could be more forgiving just as Julie is when Lady Bird returns to her and tries to renew their friendship. Once again my favorite scene in the movie remains the prom moment when the two girls re-established their friendship. It felt real in very satisfying coming of age manner.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing MissouriMy level of respect for this film went up seeing it a second time and I already thought it was one of the better films at the last year. Francis McDormand is clearly the future Oscar winner. I think Sam Rockwell will definitely win this year is well, which is too bad because his competition includes his costar Woody Harrelson. Harrelson is really excellent in this film and deserve the nomination. I also think that the theme of the movie is a little different on my second go round. While it may be hard to believe, I do think that the movie has something to say about forgiveness. There at least four major character who have to make a decision to forgive something. That act does not come for each character in the same place and for the same reasons but it is critical to appreciating the characters who are not all likable. I still think the film is about the rage Francis McDormand's character goes through passions that are conveyed in her eyes and vocal tone. The film does have redemptive arcs but they do not attempt to whitewash the negative characters but rather they are presented as much more complex than we might have thought. "Three Billboards" remains a film that goes in directions that you never expect.
The Shape of Water I suspect this will be the eventual Best Picture Winner. I say that not as an advocate of the film itself but rather as an analyst of Academy tendencies. This fairy tale, told with extreme moments of unpleasantness interspersed with moments of great beauty has the qualities the Academy will want to award. It has a director with a background in foreign films and independent movies, who also happens to not be the least preferred heritage of the moment. There are several heavy handed moments and a very clunky musical interlude that detracts from the tone the film developed. The imaginary oppression in this film is a surrogate and companion for actual oppression that is shown in the movie. The actors are all very good but their parts are a little too on the nose when it comes to the themes. The production design is really top notch and the movie looks great. If there is a film that will deny Roger Deakins his Oscar, it will be this movie for the work of Dan Laustsen.
