Friday 28 April 2017

The Circle (2017)

"What are you most afraid of?"

"Unfulfilled potential."

These are the most prophetic words in The Circle, a heavy handed, no, smash you over the head with it's message film from writer/director James Ponsoldt. It is set up to be a critique of the pervasiveness of social media but the film focuses so much on its construction of this it fails to tell a compelling story. The script is clunky and eye rolling. The performances are  stiff and one dimensional. The sets are starkly boring, as starkly boring as the film's plot. I haven't seen a film fail as badly as The Circle in a long time.

The plot is contrived and simplistic. A trendy tech corp is offering us such convenience and connectivity in our modern lost lives but in reality it's "secretly" taking over our lives. Yes, yes, we get it. But to make sure we get it, the film makes it villains so clearly and unabashedly evil. The film needed to find a way to make them seductive, to show how they coerce the applauding hordes into selling out their individuality. But instead the film practically playes "dun, dun, duuuuun" every time the corporation starts to push itself into our lives.

Emma Watson, in a role she is phoning in, acts like a heroine in a cheap horror film, running head long into the danger as we scream at her to run the other way. And then once she figures it out, there is a dues ex machina moments and she just manages (practically single handedly) to one up the big evil corp that is supposedly omniscient and all powerful.

If there had been a centimeter of depth to this piece, to any of the characters, the story could have been a fascinating and terrifying morality tale. This whole idea was handled much better on the TV series Black Mirror where at least it was handled as satire. Here it just feels like amateurish whining.

This Circle managed to attract some A-list talent but don't let that fool you. It completely misses the target and and opportunity.

The Circle 
Starring: Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, John Boyega, Karen Gillian, Patton Oswalt, Ellar Coltrane
Writer/Director: James Ponsoldt

Friday 21 April 2017

Born in China (2017)

Disney Nature has produced a string of enjoyable and inspiring documentaries aimed a families featuring animals from around the world. Born in China focuses mainly on 3 different species, pandas, snow leopards, and golden monkeys. Like the previous films in this series, Born in China does a fairly straight forward circle of life story following a set family of each species through infancy to adulthood.

As usual the film is stunningly beautiful. Disney Nature hires some of the best nature documentarians to handle their films so you get some amazing footage. Born in China ranks up there with the best in the series for sheer gorgeousness and the cute factor is high too. However what impressed me most is how far the film was willing to go with its circle of life motif.

Spoiler warning, not all the animals have a successful story arc or happy ending. There is tragedy and it's not avoided. As en educational piece that is an excellent choice. It's handled in a manner that is appropriate for the age of the target audience so the story will have impact without being disturbing. It would be easy for the film makers to just chose the happy stories but they chose to show us all sides of life in the wild.

Born in China
Starring: pandas, leopards, monkeys, John Krasinski
Writer/Director: Lu Chuan

Free Fire (2017)

Free Fire isn't so much a misfire. It's more that it is shooting blanks. Free Fire is this idea, that you take the exciting, climactic  part of an action movie, the final shoot out, and make it into the whole film. Why not focus on the part we came for? The idea is incredibly workable. Throw a bunch of fascinating characters into a confined space, each with a reason to be a bit trigger happy, and let it play itself out. But Free Fire misses on so many counts leaving the audience rather bored.

First the characterization. This would have been the clincher. If we could have cared about the characters, if we could have believed in them, likely Free Fire would have been more entertaining. But no one here is anything more than a two dimensional cliche. The film apes Tarantino but comes no where close to approaching his ability to give us rich twelve dimensional characters within a few lines of dialogue. I mean, who can? But the problem is, in a film like this, we needed that as a grounding. Otherwise it's a big room full of bland people shooting at each other and it's hard to care. Sharlto Copley's character is the biggest waste. It is clear what they are trying to do with this character but he is so plainly an uninteresting version of the character he should be.

Then there is the dialogue. Again, shadows of what we would have hoped for. The plot is there. There is enough to set up the action without dragging it down. But the characters' interactions are so paint by numbers, so been-there-done-that, it pulls us from the film. There is supposed wit that just isn't funny, but we can tell we're supposed to laugh, so we attempt a half laugh cause that's really all the script can muster. Again, what I would have given for a Tarantino rewrite. Even at his most phone-it-in his back and forth is more interesting than this. Plus the dialogue is riddled with sexist homophobic language. You can make all arguments you want about "historical accuracy" but there is a way to paint characters as sexist and homophobic through their speech and there is a way to just seek laughs at the expense of part of your audience. This film falls on the side of the latter.

And then there is the action. Director Ben Wheatley hasn't mastered an action sequence yet. This is a single big room basically yet he finds he is incapable of setting up a sense of that space. We are so often just watching random shots of firing. For most of the film we have no idea where anyone is in relation to anyone else. There are long moments of the film where characters just shoot randomly. It's boring. Boring. In scenes like this you need to build up a sense of relevance, gravity, jeopardy. Most of that felt missed.

So even at it's blissfully short running time, Free Fire feels drawn out. The charisma of its cast is sucked out by bland character development and tiresome dialogue. The action is muted by a lack of sense of jeopardy as characters are able to take bullet after bullet without anything more severe than a limp.  It's a great idea wasted.

Free Fire
Starring: Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Sharlto Copley, Armie Hammer, Jack Reynor
Director: Ben Whiteley
Writers: Ben Wheatley, Amy Jump

Thursday 20 April 2017

Colossal (2017)

Colossal is a trip. Like last year's Swiss Army Man, the idea is just a bit crazy and you have to just sort of go along for the ride, but it is what the story ends up doing which makes it so fascinating. Colossal may not totally work all the way through but mostly it does and it's one hell of an enjoyable film. A warning though as it also gets extremely dark, exploring themes of abuse, control, and domestic violence.

The plot: a kaiju creature (for those who don't know, think Godzilla) is terrorizing Seoul when a woman on the other side of the world (America) discovers that the creature is mimicking her actions, that in a way she is inadvertently controlling it. Yes I know. That's the gimmick. The rest is about how she is struggling with a number of relationships which border on abusive. Colossal is about her struggle for autonomy in a culture which values women's subservience. Got all that?

So going in knowing much about the story isn't really important or even advisable. The best thing to do is just go in knowing you're watching something that isn't like anything else you'll see. Also know you're in for a treat. Colossal may occasionally collapse under the weight of its own conceit but overall it is a success, mostly because of the cast the writer/director Nacho Vigalondo's penchant for dark humour.

Anne Hathaway knocks this out of the park. Her character is a difficult one to pull off, not because the character is that complex, but because of the unreal world she finds herself in while navigating very real world issues. Her Gloria is an everywoman, stuck in the microagressions that every woman deals with, self-medicating a bit, and finally liberating herself, becoming the hero she needs to be for herself (as well as Seoul).  She brings an air of effortlessness and honesty to Gloria. She does real things, smart things, dumb things, honest things, and she makes us get her. Her very last moment is remarkably funny and heartfelt.

Jason Sudeikis is also strong in a role that could also have been one dimensional but he brings a terrible darkness to it. I found him terrifyingly pitiful by the end of the film and a great deal of that is how well he makes Oscar's motivations real. I loved how Colossal also gives us Tim, played by Dan Stevens, who, while not evil, is also a great deconstruction of what's wrong with the male ego in the western world.

There is a great deal about Colossal which is absurd, that's the point. Some of it doesn't work but a lot of it does. Hathaway works well giving a hilarious and profound performance in a very entertaining movie.

Colossal
Starring: Anne Hathaway, Jason Sudeikis, Tim Stevens, Austin Stowell, Tim Blake Nelson
Writer/Director: Nacho Vigalondo

Monday 17 April 2017

Guardians (2017 American release)

A big budget Russian superhero film very much in the style of Marvel's Avengers had the internet buzzing for a while. It turns out it is very much an attempt to ape the American blockbuster model and unfortunately, like its inspirations, it doesn't live up to the hype.

There is a lot going for Guardians. The story, while basic, is strong enough to carry the film and the characters, again a bit archetypal, are geeky cool.  It is visually impressive for the budget it has, and the cast give earnest performances which don't tend towards to much camp. In fact, the film seems to hit most of the right beats and I generally enjoyed what I was watching most of the time.

I think the real problem with Guardians, which wasn't well received even back home in Russia, is that the "superhero movie" has moved on from what Guardians is doing. The proliferation of the genre has forced it to grow up. They are more complex and audiences are becoming more demanding. So something like Guardians, which does err on the side of the simplistic, feels a bit cheap. Russians watch the same Hollywood films we all do so they likely feel similarly to us.

I kept hoping there would be something "Russian" about the film, something that would make it feel unique or different, something that would distinguish it from the abundance of western blockbusters. But other than surface stuff, it truly didn't feel different. Perhaps that's another disappointment for audiences in Russia and abroad, that it just felt like a copy, and not an innovative one.

So over all I didn't dislike Guardians, but it didn't thrill me enough to care. And other than introducing me to hot Kazakhstani actor Sanjar Madi, the film was relatively generic.

Guardians
Starring: Sebastien Sisak, Anton Pampushnyy, Alina Lanina, Sanjar Madi, Valeriya Shkirando
Director: Sarik Andressyan
Writer: Andrei Gavrilov

Personal Shopper (2017)

I kept changing my mind about what I was watching as I followed director Olivier Assayas' ghost story Personal Shopper. To put it into American film references is it Ghost? Is it The Sixth Sense? Is it The Others? Is it Shutter Island? I don't want to spoil too much, and I don't think I spoil it all at, but if you are a spoiler purist stop reading. Generally I will just say I don't think it is any of the above. I took it as a full on ghost story and don't really think the other theories hold up.

For me Personal Shopper is about fear of death mixed with this idea of drawing to us the fears we walk around with. This made the ending (again no spoilers) quite terrifying for me. Is she summoning her own demons? If so what is coming for her? Would ignorance perhaps have been bliss? I don't see that as a reality for Stewart's Maureen. She needs to know at all costs. The typical tragic hero bringing about her own downfall? And is that downfall classic horror movie downfall (being murdered) or more existential terror sort of downfall?

The movie has her say (or text) explicitly that she doesn't like horror movies because the characters always run towards the danger. This movie is all about her running towards the danger. Asssayas has crafted this incredible horror movie, completely within the scope of the horror genre, without making it feel like a horror movie at all. He drops the cliched aspects but boils down the essentials into something quite chilling. But it may not be recognized as such because it doesn't ring the traditional horror movie bells. But I came out of it quite creeped out, more so than most horror films.

But the movie remained less than perfect for me for a couple of reasons. The first is Stewart who I am still not convinced deserves the praise she gets from the indie crowd as a performer. I find her always quite wooden and her emoting feels stifled, awkward. Here is mostly works because it fits what the character needs but she didn't grab me in the way I needed to be fully immersed.  Until the end. Her acting in the final scene is spot on and enthralled me.

The second is Assayas' almost arrogance towards his audience. I struggled with his previous film, the much loved The Clouds of Sils Maria, because I felt it was all about ideas and not about story. While I felt he gets into story telling more with Personal Shopper, he retains aspects of this intellectual snobbishness by disposing of plot threads that are no longer relevant in a dismissive, dishonest way. It is hard to discuss without spoiling it but there are parts of the movie which just get pushed to the side without getting wrapped up without integrity and this takes away from the power of the story somewhat. 

Still he won me over with this, as did Stewart in the end, and Personal Shopper haunts me, which is exactly what a ghost story should do. I have only seen it once. I will see it again. But films like this are the kind that you can only experience in a certain way the first time. Once you see it again, knowing what you know, it will be a different experience. It will still be a rich one, perhaps richer, but it will never be the same as the first time. I am currently living in that space of being the first time viewer and I'll let that sit with me for a while.

Personal Shopper
Starring: Kristen Stewart
Writer/Director: Olivier Assayas


Sunday 16 April 2017

The Fate of the Furious (2017)

Is there any point is reviewing a movie like The Fate of the Furious? People don't go to these movies to appreciate them as they do other films. The plots are thin, the characterization nil, the spectacle ridiculous, the titles laughable. They fail all tests of what makes for a "good" movie and yet, we love them anyway.  We cheer them on while laughing at it and ourselves. It's a different kind of appreciation than we have for most films. And this film series has tapped into a formula that audiences love despite themselves.

As most blockbusters are moving in a different direction, a direction which incorporates film making elements more along the line of an auteur's film, the kind of elements that get award consideration, and aim for critical approval. The Fast and Furious movies eschew that for full on macho bullshit. It unabashedly embraces simplicity, silliness, stereotypes, and shallowness. All in the name of fun. They play to the lowest common denominator by just being bigger and badder with no desire for logic, physics, realistic characters, or plot. It's all fast cars doing impossible things, tits doing impossible things, and celebrities saying cringe worthy lines.

So there is no point criticizing a movie like this for any of that cause that is what it promises to give and it gives it and we pay for it. So let's instead look at the film for what it tries to be and if it manages it.

Sure it does. As I said it's bigger and badder than any of the FF movies that have come before. It's story is about as coherent as it needs to be to carry us through even if it's filled with plot holes.. scratch that, I almost forgot I wasn't reviewing a normal movie. Plot holes are just something to drive a flaming car through in this world. The whole Dom-goes-evil plot is overly simplistic and rather clumsy to be honest but don't worry, the characters continually provide you with spoken plot exposition just so you don't get lost while you're looking at all those hot cars. The FF series is infamous for its ludicrous (no pun intended) action sequences but they have even managed to top themselves with a set piece involving Theron's villain driving hundreds (if not thousands) of cars at once. Just don't let your brain think about it and you'll have a fun time.

Director F Gary Gray delivers state of the art action and Kurt Russel plays the ironically cool slimeball these movies love to have. The cast (as interchangeable and vanilla as ever for such a diverse crew) is perfectly cast to be as crowd-pleasing as possible although the FF series seems to be taking a play out of the Marvel handbook of just throwing as many characters as possible at the screen to build excitement. Charlize Theron adds a dash of prestige here even as she acts like she's channeling Norma Desmond just as she's ready for her close up. More fun is Helen Mirren whose cameo is performed like every one of her performances, impossible not to enjoy.

So yes, if you love yourself some FF action then The Fate of the Furious is for you. You won't be disappointed. For anyone who isn't enamored with Dom and his crew are likely to shake their head in wonder at how this sort of film packs theatres. At least until Fine the Furious, or whatever ridiculous name FF9 will have.

The Fate of the Furious
Starring: Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Dwayne Johnson, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, Jason Statham, Scott Eastwood, Kurt Russel, Charlize Theron
Director: F Gary Gray
Writer: Chris Morgan

Saturday 15 April 2017

Gifted (2017)

Gifted shows some growing up, both on the part of director Marc Webb and star Chris Evans. Evans appears to be moving into his post-Avengers mode of his career by trying to build up a resume filled with little, quality films that give him a chance to show that he can act. Gifted is clearly a chance for that and it shows him to be a competent actor although nothing in this performance stands out. I think that might be a good move on his part as he doesn't need to own this movie or give a "stand-out" performance. He just needs to show he can be something more than Captain America. While his role here isn't much more than a stones throw from the all American hero he is most known for, the film is enough of a step away that he's clearly showing his desire for range and he does a respectable job.

For Webb, who is likely smarting after his much maligned attempt to reinvent Spider-man went horribly wrong, He is trying to show that he is a serious film maker again. His breakthrough (500) Days of Summer was a lovely treat but the work of a much less experienced film maker. With Gifted he is trying to show a more reasoned and thoughtful approach. And like his star he does a respectable job. Gifted does feel a bit paint by numbers. It doesn't rock any boats like Summer did. But it is effective and charming and just not straight forward enough to feel fresh.

Gifted has that irresistibly lovable quality that charming "indies" often do, giving us an uplifting story that plays to our fears of not having perfect lives. This is commonly in contrast to the rom-com trope of presenting us with the perfect lives we wish we had and telling us this could be yours if you just follow the prescribed formula. But as is often the case with these films, Gifted's ending takes the easy, and unfortunately unbelievable, route out by wrapping up the problems with a nice, reassuring bow which just doesn't fit into the realm of reality.

But Webb and Evans brings a charm to the whole thing that makes Gifted remarkably watchable and enjoyable even when I was rolling my eyes at the legal aspects of the film which were mostly nonsensical.  Part of Webb's strength here is casting McKenna Grace, Lyndsey Duncan, and Octavia Spencer in critical roles, each of whom is luminescent on screen, bring their characters to life in complicated and fascinating ways, and refuse to comply with the stereotypes they could have fallen into. 

So Gifted is one of those films that can be enjoyed even while we know it's not all that, an imperfect but well intentioned charmer. Perhaps like it's star and director who show they have a lot for us to look forward to in the future.

Gifted
Starring: Chris Evans, McKenna Grace, Lyndsey Duncan, Octavia Spencer, Jenny Slate
Director: Marc Webb
Writer: Tom Flynn

Thursday 13 April 2017

Belko Experiment (2017)

There is something incredibly fascinating about the idea behind The Belko Experiment. The general idea has been tried before, the idea of putting people into a survivor style fight to the death scenario, from the brilliant Battle Royale to the blockbuster Hunger Games. How do we justify the way we aquiece to the fact that some of us get exploited for the benefit of others? But tying the idea directly to a corporate environment and explicitly making the reference between capitalism and dog-eat-dog morality, is a clever and sophisticated metaphor. The problem is that The Belko Experiment doesn't handle the set up of this problem in a clever or sophisticated way. The inspiration is compelling, but the execution is weak.

There is something undoubtedly truthful about exploring the kill or be kill culture that is inherent in the corporate structure and capitalist societies in general. There are moments in The Belko Experiment which begin to scratch this surface but generally this is overshadowed by the lack of realistic world building behind it. It's hard to feel the debates and struggles with morality in such a climate when the climate hasn't been crafted in a way that we buy it.

The Belko Experiment's gimmick is an involved one. The plot of the movie, and the lengths they hvae to go to to set it up takes a great deal of suspension of disbelief. Yet the film sort of clumsily builds up its premise just relying on us to buy it. I never quite did believe that this scenario would play out this way. It needs to convince us to be powerful and they never quite pull that off. As the film goes on, the scenario seems less and less realistic and therefore becomes harder and harder to swallow. Just as the film needs us to buy into the plot we become less likely to get into it.

And it's too bad too cause when the film is in its analytical moments it shows a great deal of depth and insight. There are moments when characters are debating the "greater good," when they are making choices in moments about what is the right way to behave or "participate," that they were just doing what they were told to do, where the film becomes fascinating. If that had been tied into a better set up, one we could have been swept up in, instead of being jarred into, I think the film could have been remarkably powerful.

The film rushes itself a bit. Certain characters just fall into their roles quickly without much consideration into their motives. The film's run time doesn't allow for the kind of narratives that it would need to truly tell such a tale. And then the film's main story finishes too quickly.  All of the sudden they are at a climax which likely would be more satisfying if it had more time to build to it.

The film does reach some intense moments. There is a palpable and disturbing portrayal of mob mentality and certain turns characters take are dark. There is also the idea of how evil becomes easier and easier to perpetrate the more you see it around you, the more normalized it becomes. And in the end there is the over arching idea of how lives are taken for the profit of others and how closely that is tied to our capitalist culture. It is a horrifying idea that sticks with you, even after the credits roll.

Characterization is rather thin too. The "good guys" are good and likeable from the beginning and its easy to pick out the "bad guys." The film would have been stronger with more complicated character arcs. In the end the film falls into typical hero/villain arcs which dilutes its message a bit. Its final scenes are fairly heavy handed driving its metaphors home. 

While not a complete failing, The Belko Experiment makes you wish it was something more.

The Belko Experiment
Starring: John Gallagher Jr., Toby Goldwin, Adria Arjona, John C. McGinley
Director: Greg McLean
Writer: James Gunn

Wednesday 12 April 2017

Aftermath (2017)

One doesn't often think of quiet movies when they think of Schwarzenegger. His post-gubernatorial film career has been mostly attempts to reclaim his action hero status, especially in franchises which play on his past. Which makes Aftermath quite a detour for this actor perhaps trying to find a new way forward.

Based loosely on true events, Aftermath follows the, well, aftermath of a plane crash on the air traffic controller who may be responsible and the average man who lost his family on the flight. Director Elliott Lester approaches the story very matter-of-factly. He doesn't egregiously create melodrama, instead walking through the rather mundane nature of how the business of addressing all the details which must be attended to after an accident like this. We watch as Arnold is given the horrible news, how the air traffic controller reacts when he realize what's happened, how life has to go on, and how the business of cleaning up the situation plays out.

In Schwarzenegger's favour he pulls it off. After all these years he's learned to act. His performance is mostly restrained but I think that works as the film simmers towards its tragic conclusion. Scoot McNairy, who I always find very compelling to watch, is also powerful in a role which easily could have been over the top. Lester just lets us watch them struggle. He doesn't set up major set pieces to tell his story but focuses more on their day to day lives as they both try to figure out how to live again.

Unfortunately the hook of this movie is its ending, based on what occurred in the real story.  The movie does what I felt was a great job of just showing us people surviving through something unimaginable. And then it comes to its end moment and loses much of the reality it had built until then. I never felt the film built up to that moment and made it feel honest, organic. It just sort of happens. And it feels somewhat contrived.

But the film ends on a note more like what it had done until then, exploring the mundane nature of the extraordinary moments in our lives. I think if the film had simply spent more time building to that moment it may have been better. The film does give Arnold some catharsis and the film offers us something mostly interesting, including a strong and subtle performance by one of Hollywood's biggest stars not known for giving strong or subtle performances.

Aftermath
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Scoot McNairy, Maggie Grace
Director: Elliott Lester
Writer: Javier Gullon


Friday 7 April 2017

Salt and Fire (2016)

Has legendary film maker Werner Herzog forgotten how to make fiction films? In his over a decade long abstinence from fiction where he focused on a hip documentaries, has he lost his ability to infuse passion into narrative film making? His last two outings, the Nicole Kidman snorer, Queen of the Desert, and his latest, Salt and Fire, seem to indicate so.

The plot sounds intriguing enough. An envoy of ecologists arrive on behalf of the UN to investigate an environmental disaster (reminiscent of Herzog's recent documentary subject) only to be kidnapped by a powerful CEO of a "conglomerate." There is potential for fascinating political intrigue and edge of your seat action. But Herzog eschews all of this for a series of rather boring talking heads moments. It is remarkable how little passion he imbues in his characters as they discuss the world and the meaning of life.

The film is remarkably short and perhaps that is why the film feels like he rushes his characters into a dialogue about their personal lives that feels jarringly unnatural. He films his characters against incredible backdrops yet sucks all the excitement of those vistas by making it to boring to listen to them. He already made his volcano documentary but here he seems intent on making it again in fiction form. So he has his characters just discuss it.

Shannon and Ferres are both excellent actors but they don't do anything here but speak plainly. The kidnap scenes start out tense, showing signs of some energy, but all of that tension feels sapped rather quickly so that Herzog can get to his monologuing. The uncomfortably beautiful score doesn't save the film any more than the lovely backgrounds. It ends up being boring talk. The documentary is more successful in highlighting the issues, and more entertaining.

But the real problem is how nonsensical the film ends up being. Never is there a logical reason for the abduction. And the film falls into a silliness near the end which can't be overcome. It makes you wonder what you've watched, and why?

Salt and Fire
Starring: Michael Shannon, Veronica Ferres, Gael Garcia Bernal
Writer/Director: Warner Herzog


Going in Style (2017)

The idea sounds like irresistible slumming. Michael Cain, Alan Arkin, and Morgan Freeman in an "old man bank heist" film. Three cooler seniors of the screen would be hard to find. And it's directed by Zach Braff who has a hipster esthetic to his films so one would assume this isn't going to be your grandfather's Going in Style (a 1979 film starring George Burns). But then you go see it...

Um...

Turns out this remake of Going in Style is as "Grumpy Old Men" pedestrian as the trailers make it look. The jokes are as old as the leads. The story is recycled from the headlines. It becomes clear early in the edited down run time that this film isn't going to showcase some of the greatest talents of their generation in a smart, ironic satire of the exploitation of their generation. Instead it's going to be paint by the numbers crowd pleaser that needs life support of its own.

Going in Style has no style and barely goes anywhere. The plot is predictable but bordering on ridiculous as it descends into head shakingly stupid moments. Yes the movie thinks police are going to use the testimony of a 6 year old girl witness. Sure I guess it's okay for a film like this not to worry about silly details like realism. We're just supposed to laugh at the same old jokes about old people and we're supposed to be uplifted as they find new lease on their sad tired lives. We've seen these jokes all before in similarly benign movies like The Bucket List of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. That's exactly the demo Going in Style is going for, but without even trying that hard.

The of the moment update of the plot to involve the banking scandal feels one note and lacks any real pathos. Even Christopher Lloyd is wasted in a role that is just well, pathetic. 

So it turns out it is slumming after all. It's just pretty resistible. If you are a fan of any of these guys, perhaps resisting seeing them slum in this is the best choice.

Going in Style
Starring: Michael Cain, Morgan Freeman, Alan Arkin, John Ortiz, Ann Margaret, Christopher Lloyd, Matt Dillan
Director: Zach Braff
Writer: Theodore Melfi

Sunday 2 April 2017

Paterson (2016)

I have noticed a trend lately of aging film makers who, in their youth, made revolutionary films, now, having matured, focus on the most mundane aspects of life and perhaps making even more satisfying films. Indie darling Jim Jarmusch has made a film which focuses on small details, day to day details, and it is surprisingly beautiful.

He films Paterson in a manner which captures a loveliness to the little New Jersey town. Paterson the town is quiet and everyday yet completely habitable, layered in romantic brick and held together by quaint power lines. And in the middle of that he places Adam Driver's Paterson who is equally hospitable and lovely without appearing extraordinary. Both the town and the man are lovely and average, a little quiet, a little special. A big part of Jarmusch's success here is how much he makes us like them.

Paterson is a series of moments in Paterson's days over one week.  He gets up. He drives bus. He listens to divergent conversations by his riders. He walks the dog. He engages with his long time girlfriend in the way long time couples do about small things. Jarmusch brings a beauty to these daily routines.

Paterson is about poetry. Paterson, the man, the bus driver, writes on his breaks. Here is where Jarmusch lets the magic show through. The poetry (provided by poet Ron Padgett) is beautiful and Jarmusch visually represents it. This evoked the similar Poetic Justice by John Singleton. The juxtaposition of Driver's deadpan delivery reading and his artful words creates this wonderful sense of salience, of power. 

The film reaches a very banal yet devastating crisis and its resolution is also prosaic. Paterson is about words, beautiful words, meaningless words, words said in passing. It is about finding ones words, perhaps finding what makes us unique and special among all the others.

Paterson
Starring: Adam Driver, Golshifteh Farahani, Barry Henley
Director: Jim Jarmusch
Writers: Jim Jarmusch, Ron Padgett

Saturday 1 April 2017

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

I'll start out by saying the American live action remake of the anime classic Ghost in the Shell, is problematic for all sorts of reasons. I am of the opinion that the original Ghost in the Shell is somewhat overrated. I struggle with the impulse to remake every wonderful movie instead of just enjoying the original movie. I don't feel animation needs to be translated into live action without a reason. The issues of race and gender which are wrapped up in the politics of making this film as complicated and you could do a whole piece on just that. I'm not going to get into those things. I am just going to speak to my experience of the film.

People like to praise "visuals" in movies. Recent examples like Doctor Strange, Neon Demon, and even Beauty and the Beast are films which get a pass on a lot of other faults due to how great they look. I am a big believer that film is a visual medium and films should find an artful beauty in the way they are presented. In fact some of last year's best films succeed in big part to how gorgeously they are crafted (Moonlight, Midnight Special). My point is that films need to be visually stunning AND engage us intellectually, emotionally. They aren't JUST something to look at. Films are something we watch but we hear them too, we feel them. There needs to be more.And the thing about Ghost in the Shell's so called impressive visuals is that they feel like stuff we have seen before. Ghost in the Shell suffers from being so narratively and stylistically pulled from films like Blade Runner. Heck even Attack of the Clones has everything we see here from a visual effects point of view. I'm not sure I felt like this film showed me anything new. I wasn't wowed or impressed because it is neither innovative nor used in an innovative manner.

So if the film's look and direction is average does it succeed in its story? As I said, I am not the biggest fan of the original it is based on but I appreciate the themes it explores. Sure I think the themes have been explored better (more intriguingly for my tastes) in other films, but they remain interesting ideas of identity and the nature of existence. Once again, the live action Ghost in the Shell feels like a copy, a facsimile of something else.  The plot feels more "dumbed down" like the film makers needed to make things more explicit for us. I felt the film makers were holding my hand through it in case I didn't understand it all. I found myself bored a bit watching this version. I guess I find myself bored watching the original a little too to be honest.

Which brings me to my original beef with these sorts of films. Why? I need a reason to experience a remake. Offer me a new take, something original which makes me enjoy it in a new way. The purpose of Ghost in the Shell appears more to be to expose the story to a new audience, folks who won't see it otherwise. That's not me so this film didn't speak to me.

I didn't hate the film and perhaps for new eyes the story could be interesting enough for an action movie. Other than critiquing it's casting choices which are disappointing at best, the film works on basic Hollywood blockbuster standards. But it didn't give me what would have made me watch it ith wonder. I shouldn't be surprised as director Rupert Sanders' only previous film is another I feel generally ambivalent about, Snow White and the Huntsman.

Ghost in the Shell
Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Juliette Binoche, Pilou Asbaek, Chin Han, Takeshi Kitano, Michael Pitt
Director: Rupert Sanders
Writers: Jamie Moss, William Wheeler, Ehren Kruger