Best Picture

Now that I've seen each of the films nominated in the Best Picture category, let me give my final analysis and prediction.

The eight nominated films (click any one to go to my review)


A Star Is Born

Blackkklansman

Black Panther

Bohemian Rhapsody

The Favorite

The Green Book

Roma

Vice


Blackkklansman is probably the most deserving.

Bohemian Rhapsody, while formulaic, probably was the most enjoyable film, thanks in large part to the music of Queen.

I wouldn't be surprised if Black Panther wins.

Hopefully this coming year delivers a stronger contingent of contenders.

Vice

Director Adam McKay's inspiration for Vice is clearly any film by Oliver Stone; this is an unabashedly a one-sided depiction of Vice President Cheney's time in office.

That McKay directed 2015's The Big Short isn't surprising, it was a film told with much the same energy and political slant.  What may be more surprising is that McKay directed Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers - maybe it's not so surprising, since he seems more concerned with getting a laugh than actually contributing anything substantive.

Christian Bale leads a cast of excellent actors and actresses who could easily use the caricatures they've created to Saturday Night Live.  There's nothing wrong with that considering this is a Stone-esque dark comedy, but please don't confuse this with dramatic acting.  Well, except for Christian Bale - his Dick Cheney is so much fun to watch that accuracy doesn't really matter.

Roma

Ok, so I watched Roma earlier today, and it was the last of this year's Best Picture films I had to watch.  The first two hours of this film were quite boring, and sometimes painful to watch.  Yet, here is the antithesis film to The Last Samurai - the last ten minutes of this film redeem everything that precedes it.  That's not to say that the first two hours are bad, they're just slow and uninteresting.  I'm not sure that the black and white contributed to the film, except to make it feel like it was from the past.  I'm not sure what airplanes flying overhead at key scenes what meant to signify.  I'm not familiar with the political unrest that was going on in the part of the world where Roma is set during the 1970s.  Honestly the film wasn't compelling enough to make me search for answers to these questions, but at least my final impression of the film is that it was a good one.

The Green Book

Jess and I saw The Green Book just before it was announced as one of this year's Best Picture contenders.  Everything about this film is adequate - I wish that I could say it's better than that.  The title refers to books that were available in the 1930s through 1960s to help black people identify hotels and restaurants that would serve them.  While the film does deal with the racial tensions in the United States during the 1960s, this conflict is simply used as a backdrop to create a challenge that the main characters must overcome.  Unfortunately the historic element feels forced, and is only adequate in its effectiveness in supporting the story.  The director, Peter Farrelly has made some truly stand-out comedies in his career including Dumb and Dumber, Me, Myself & Irene, and There's Something About Mary.  I think The Green Book proves that Farrelly should stick to comedies.  Viggo Mortensen is adequate as the white guy, and Mahershala Ali is adequate as the black guy.  Like I said, it's an adequate film.

The Favourite

I didn’t want to like The Favourite; the tidbits of reviews I was unable to avoid over the past few months led me to believe that this would be a mean-spirited depiction of despicable people from a time period that is of very little interest to me.  My impressions were correct, but in spite of this I found the film to be quite captivating.  In the film, Olivia Colman plays a physically and mentally unstable Queen Anne, who has a twisted relationship with two manipulative women played by Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone.  The title of the film refers to the savage competition between Weisz’s and Stone’s characters to be the queen’s closest confidant.

This is the first film that I’ve seen from director Yorgos Lanthimos, and I must say that he brought a very distinctive style to The Favourite; the deep rich colors in the set design and costumes, the foreboding score, and the ostentatious cinematography all combined to great effect.  Just about every shot is low, looking upwards, giving a somewhat claustrophobic feel to the film; the audience never is on the same level as the characters onscreen.  Wide lenses are used throughout the film, which was distracting at first, but as I became accustomed to the perspective, it became clear that everything in frame had purpose.  It’s actually quite impressive that Lanthimos was able to transition from one subject to another with a smooth wide angle lens pan. 

I cannot in good conscience recommend The Favourite, because it is all the horrible things that I expected it to be, without any redeeming qualities.  It is a well-made, effective film that showcases Hollywood’s obsession with depravity, and a culture that confuses technical mastery with beauty.

First Man

I was intrigued when I heard that Damien Chazelle was directing a film about Neil Armstrong and the events that led up to the first manned moon mission.  Would Chazelle be able to conjure the same energy that rocketed him to the top with Whiplash and La La Land?  Would the clout afforded top Hollywood directors make it possible for him to capture the best space sequences ever filmed?  The short answer is no.  Apollo 13 retains it position atop the list of most compelling space dramas, and to my knowledge holds the title for best rocket launch and space sequences.  That being said, Chazelle's First Man surprised me with a down-to-Earth look at Neil Armstrong.  The film focuses more on Armstrong's relationship with his wife, and their struggle to remain close within the context of a history-defining, seemingly impossible mission.  Ryan Gosling as Neil, and Claire Foy as his wife Janet find the right rhythms in their portrayal of these characters.  Foy's Janet understands how the Neil's mission is important on many levels; it has historical significance, it is her husband's passion, and ultimately it will be a reflection of her too.  Instead of treating a supporting character like a second class citizen, Chazelle emphasizes the importance of being a supportive partner.  A lesser film might suggest that Neil Armstrong's wife made it possible for him to walk on the moon, First Man makes it clear that he wouldn't have made it there without her. 

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

The Harry Potter film series had its high and low points - Prisoner of Azkaban being the high point, and any game of Quiddich or "wand duel" after the first film being the low points. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald reaches a new low in the Harry Potter universe; and I'll explain why in the next few sentences.  All the characters are disinteresting (I'm not sure that's really a word), and more than that, the main character is disinterested.  Some of my favorite cinematic protagonists are the reluctant heroes (i.e. any Humphrey Bogart character), but Newt Scamander is so reluctant that I'm somewhat surprised that he even showed up for auditions.  The only clear memory I have of the movie is an extended long awkward moment between Johnny Depp and Jude Law - I believe that one of them is supposed to be playing Dumbledore, and I believe that the scene was meant to be somehow erotic.  But wait, I thought one of these guys is really evil...  Why would a woke Dumbledore fall for the bad guy?  Well nevermind, I'm not really sure why I'm labeling anyone the "bad guy", I can't really remember either of these two character doing anything interesting.  I do remember Newt swimming in some subterranean fish pond, I think he was feeding something, most likely some really fascinating computer-generated mythical creature...  Well that's my review, and now I plan to never think of this movie again.

The Equalizer 2

Director Antoine Fuqua and star Denzel Washington bring a level of professionalism to The Equalizer 2, effectively elevating it above its B-movie source material.  But why do we need professional B-movies?   Some may argue that Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill are glorified B-movies, but they'd be wrong.  Tarantino created a new genre, the homage to B-movies, that rises to the level of a new artform.  Fuqua and Washington are simply making a better B-movie, but it's still just a B-movie.  I do wonder why men who brought us the genre-defining Training Day are making relatively standard revenge flicks.  Perhaps it's for the money, or maybe they genuinely enjoy making these movies.  Personally I'd rather see something a bit more substantive.

Deadpool 2

Why did I see Deadpool 2?

I'm a guy.

Part of me wishes that I could turn my nose up at movies like Deadpool 2 and stay home, sitting by the fireplace drinking a nice glass of Scotch while reading another Graham Greene travel book.

I can't speak to the qualities of Deadpool 2, in the same way that it's impossible to describe the qualities of most popular culture from the last 2264 years.  So really what's the point in writing a review? 

I can say that I laughed at some of the jokes, winced at some of the moments of violence, and marveled at the special effects.  Overall it was another unfulfilling experience at the movies - at least I didn't rack up exorbitant library fines like the last time I read a Graham Greene travel book.

Christopher Robin

When I write a review many months after seeing the film I have a tendency to describe my impression of the film; the details are somewhat fuzzy.  I remember liking Christopher Robin for the reasons that I've always liked Winnie-the-Pooh stories; the childlike honesty and charming naiveté are a refreshing departure from the cynical worldview portrayed in most movies.  I liked the way that Winnie-the-Pooh and the other animal characters were portrayed in the film, from an artistic standpoint the look and feel was just right.  I also liked Ewan McGregor in this film, his performance as a grown-up Christopher Robin captured the character well and found the right tone.  The film wasn't without flaws, as is so often the case with digital effects, there were quite a few moments when Winnie-the-Pooh and his animal friends were portrayed in a way that distracted from the story.  In the books (and animated Disney films) these characters quite often find themselves in misadventures, but the level of zaniness and cartoony action in this film was out of place.  Overall I remember liking the film, and could recommend it in good conscience.

Braveheart

Braveheart is a nearly perfect film.  The following is not a review, it is simply an exercise to help me understand better how the film is structured:

I. Introduction.
a. Central characters are introduced - including love interest.
b. Traumatic event sets protagonist on life's journey.
c. Antagonist's depravity is established.

II. 1st Act
a. Protagonist returns home after a time of personal growth.
b. Central characters are reunited, and deeper relationships develop.
c. Tension between protagonist and antagonist is released in the form of violence.
d. Protagonist rallies people to his side - their movement builds momentum.

III. 2nd Act
a. The tide changes, it becomes clear that the antagonist's depravity knows no bounds
b. Characters true natures are revealed - new enemies and allies emerge.
c. The odds appear overwhelming, but the protagonist struggles forward.

IV. Final Act
a. A final confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist is set in motion.
b. The way in which this final confrontation unfolds is more important than the outcome in its affect on the remaining central characters.
c. The protagonist defeats the antagonist, even if it is not yet evident to the average onlooker.

V. Epilogue - The protagonist's victory is revealed, and the message of the story is clearly affirmed.

Bohemian Rhapsody

The "progressives" of the world, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, tell us that we should be sympathetic towards the Freddie Mercury's of the world because we've been born with an unfair advantage, or privilege.  Bryan Singer's Bohemian Rhapsody latches on to this concept and suggests that no matter how many other advantages Mercury might have been born into, a wealthy family, loving parents, natural talent, etc., having just one progressive-approved disadvantage entitles him to behave however he likes.  And please don't think that I'm somehow misrepresenting Ocasio-Cortez on this issue, you can listen to her here, if you so choose.

Of course Bohemian Rhapsody is about a creative genius, whose music rises about cultural strife - I find it difficult to believe that anyone, of any race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, disability, etc. doesn't enjoy a rousing performance of Fat Bottomed Girls.

I think it would be unfair of me not to give credit to Rami Malek (who plays Freddie Mercury) and Bryan Singer for making Bohemian Rhapsody such a strong film, in spite of the unfair advantages discussed in the previous paragraphs.  Malek plays Mercury convincingly, and there were moments in the film when I was sympathetic towards the man I saw onscreen, which is a testament to his acting ability.  Singer's direction is intentional and effective, he knows when to hold the shot on grandiose concert scenes, and when to focus on close intimate moments.  It's important to remember though that Singer is the same director who made The Usual Suspects, he's working with quite a bit of filmmaking privilege.

Blockers

I heard an interview on NPR with Kay Cannon, the director Blockers, in which the audio from a scene in the movie was played as an example of its witty writing.  Shame on NPR for playing the only funny part of the movie, and suggesting that this was indicative of the entire movie.

BlacKkKlansman

Spike Lee's Blackklansman is a well made film, contains some compelling characters, and tells an interesting story.  For most filmmakers this would be enough, but Spike Lee seems intent on making it clear that Blackkklansman is a poignant and important film too, which it is not.  I went into the film under the impression that it would be the story of a black man somehow infiltrating the KKK, which I found fascinating because I'm sure that would be frowned upon by the majority of members...  It turns out that a black police officer did infiltrate the KKK, albeit over the phone, and one of his white counterparts handled all the face-to-face meetings.  This was pretty clever, and the situation lends itself to many humorous (and sometimes sad) phone conversations between the KKK grand wizard and the black police officer.  Ultimately it's the white police officer who is risking life and limb, but the film isn't so much about bravery as it is about exposing how deeply racism is rooted in American society.  At its heart, this is a film about two police officers who, regardless of race, are committed to making their city a better place.

If the film had ended there, so would my review, and it would have been overwhelmingly positive.  Instead, Spike Lee jumps forward 40+ years to a white supremacist rally, showing footage of the incident where a white man drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters, killing a 32 year old woman, and injuring many other people.  Does Lee include this clip to remind us that there is still racial tension in this country?  Does Lee feel as though its his moral duty to convey a serious message in a film that otherwise could be simply seen as entertainment?  As I ask these questions, I realize that I don't really have an issue with Lee's approach; after all it is his film.  Maybe more films should have a closing statement, something thought provoking to make the 2-hour runtime a little worthwhile.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Joel and Ethan Coen have made some of the best movies in the past 35 years.  My first Coen brothers' movie was The Hudsucker Proxy back in the winter of '94, and I've been a fan ever since.  They've made some really funny movies, some really great films, and some quirky near misses.  The Ballad of Buster Scruggs has its moments, but overall must be placed in the "near miss" category.
Unfortunately, this made-for-Netflix feature length movie feels just like a made-for-Netflix feature length movie.  Now I realize that Netflix and Amazon have produced films that become Oscar contenders, but those are definitely in the minuscule minority.  I'm concerned that The Ballad of Buster Scruggs could be part of a trend, where filmmakers see the opportunity to make a quick buck without fear of too much criticism, because bad movies are the norm on these streaming platforms.  That being said, I really enjoyed the first of The Ballad of Buster Scruggs' four episodes - it was laugh-out-loud funny and had the quirkiness of O Brother, Where Art Thou?  I'm not sure why the brothers ran this episode first, perhaps it's because they saw the metrics showing that the average streamer only gets through the first 10 minutes of a movie before switching back to watching The Office or Friends...  If you don't front-load a Netflix movie, no one will ever see the rest.


FYI - I completely made up the statistic used towards the end of this review, but it seemed to support my argument.

Avengers: Infinity War

I thoroughly enjoyed Avengers: Infinity War while I was watching it, but walked away feeling unsatisfied.  My first draft digressed into a fanboy rant focused on how commercialism has stripped all weight of death from the Marvel universe.  Disney might be willing to sacrifice one superhero in the name of art, but wiping out (spoiler alert) half the superhero population is laughable in its transience.  Thanos might have well just shot the Avengers with a paintball gun; their vaporization will be reversed with the stroke of a pen.  Alright, so the fanboy rant survived to the final draft (there were only two after all).  Avengers: Infinity War was enjoyable because anything could happen.  The universe is the Avenger's playground, you never know where they're going to be next, or who they'll run into.  Even the psychopathic villain who is hell-bent on committing genocide is somehow likable because the special effects by which he is rendered are so amazing.  Yet every character is a slave to the plot, which wouldn't be so bad if the plot were any good.  Doctor Strange seems to have a plan, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he's in collusion with the Disney executives to keep the sequels coming.  Here's the weird thing, I'm looking forward to the next movie (and the one after that), but I'm not necessarily looking forward to the drive home from the theater.

A Star is Born

It's fortuitous that A Star Is Born comes alphabetically just before Avengers: Infinity War, because it gives me the opportunity to examine the shallow end of the pool.  I'll start with this, my review of A Star is Born: 

I have to hand it to Bradley Cooper, the director of, and leading man in A Star is Born; he almost had me convinced that his movie had depth.  Some of the most entertaining movies keep you questioning their value up until the final moments, when the significance of everything preceding it is revealed.  Bradley Cooper made the opposite movie.  I was moved during a scene early in the movie when Bradley Cooper playing a veteran rock star invites his new girlfriend (played by Lady Gaga) onstage to perform a duet.  This scene was moving because Cooper (as a director and an actor) had effectively established each character as sympathetic, and only teased us with their singing ability.  Together they were far better then apart.  If that was the message of the movie, I would have quickly forgiven the cliché, but that's not what this movie is about, it's just the setup.  And believe you me, I'm ok with a depressing movie from time to time, but at least have the decency to own your pessimistic world view...  A Star is Born is a movie about a man with no depth who tries to teach the importance of being true to yourself, whose student has no depth and doesn't get the lesson.  Perhaps there's some irony to be found, but not enough to be worth looking for. 

The moment I previously described from early in the movie when Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga sang together was great, and it was followed by other scenes showcasing their amazing talent.  It's too bad that a certain AA counselor didn't pick up on Cooper's foreshadowing during a speech towards the end of the second act... and he was laying it on pretty thick.  And that's why you should always listen when a rock star is telling you a tragic story from his childhood.

A Quiet Place

I have seen A Quiet Place twice now, which should be sufficient testimony of the film's worth.  I first watched the film because I found the trailer to be intriguing, I was hoping that the necessity for silence would be more than a gimmick, and I was pleased to find that "a quiet place" has a much deeper meaning than the trailer implied.  I was captivated by the complex relationships that were explored in such an interesting and thoughtful way.  I watched the film a second time because the first viewing was a surprisingly uplifting experience. 

A Quiet Place isn't a perfect movie; it follows certain rules of the genre that require the viewer to suspend in-depth logical analysis.  My primary criticism would be with its creatures, while much could be said for the artistic creativity in their production, overall their visual representation was anti-climactic; an unseen terror is far more effective. 

Criticisms aside, A Quiet Place has on of the best "silence breaking moments" in recent history.  I'm referring to a wonderful moment where two characters share one pair of earbuds.  What are your favorite moments like this from other films?

The Wolf of Wall Street

Apparently I wrote the following review a few years back, and probably didn't post it for good reasons...  This isn't an endorsement, just a review:

Any movie that can make me question long-held beliefs must be doing something right.  If you listen to the leftists of the world (i.e. Al Gore) you would conclude that Capitalism is a pervasive evil that must be dismantled before it destroys us all.  On the other extreme we find Rush Limbaugh, who equates Capitalism with Godliness.  I would suggest that our country wouldn't be what it is today without Capitalism; the good and the bad.  Greedy, selfish Capitalists placed us in the unique position to save the world from Nazism and Japanese imperialism at the same time.  You might argue that it was our country's Godly foundation which led to a World War II victory.  Or you might point to the blessings of natural resources, or the motivating power of good vs. evil...  Sure, that's all true, but greedy, selfish Capitalists played an integral part. 

Now you're beginning to wonder, what has this to do with The Wolf of Wall Street?  Martin Scorsese has made a movie which should be both inspiring and totally offensive to any reasonable person.  There is no aristocracy in the United States, everyone has the opportunity to better him or her self.  Inherent with this freedom is the potential for devastating failure and degradation.  Scorsese has crafted an allegory; warning all viewers of the pitfalls associated with Capitalism.  In an early scene, Matthew McConaughey's character offers his advice on how to be a great stock broker.  He carefully plots a routine of drug and alcohol use to maximize his effectiveness; the ultimate goal is to make as much money as possible.  Health, kindness, peace, love, integrity,... none of these are even factors in his approach, only self-gratification and money.  The main character in the film, played by Leonardo DiCaprio takes this advice to heart, and the result is an empty life of excess.

I don't think that Scorsese is so hypocritical as to be criticizing success, or the competitive nature of Capitalism.  Rather, this film plays more as a warning to those who would naïvely assume that any system is run by "good" people.  We are the sheep.  The guys dominating on Wall Street are the wolves.  The most poignant moment in The Wolf of Wall Street comes during an explanation; making money for investors is unimportant to the broker, because making money for the broker is the only thing.  In a perfect world Capitalism would be wonderful; a flawless balance of supply and demand would bring peace and harmony.  In a perfect world Communism would be wonderful too... 

Where this film made me question my beliefs has to do with the infectious nature of evil.  I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish Capitalists helped win World War II, with no negative side effects.  I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish, white Capitalists settled this country (relocating and murdering along the way), with no lasting negative side effects.  I'd like to believe that greedy, selfish Capitalists can run our banks, corporations, churches, etc. with no negative side effects.  Scorsese is telling me to wake up.  That's all this film is, an exposé.  What should be done next?, well that is a really important question.

Best Picture

Now that I've seen each of the films nominated in the Best Picture category, let me give my final analysis and prediction.

The nine nominated films (click any one to go to my review)

Get Out
The Post
Lady Bird
Dunkirk
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri
Call Me By Your Name
Phantom Thread
Darkest Hour
The Shape of Water

• My favorite was Phantom Thread, although I may never watch it again - the experience will live in my memory.
• The most entertaining was Get Out.
• The most uplifting was Darkest Hour.
• Call Me By Your Name was the best from a filmmaking perspective, and thus deserves the award.
• I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy gives the award to The Shape of Water, because Hollywood has a depraved sense of beauty.

Get Out

Get Out is formulaic in its structure, yet surprising in its presentation. The plot could be explained in a few brief sentences: A young black man hesitantly agrees to go with his white girlfriend to visit her affluent parents. His apprehension quickly transitions into fear as he realizes that something isn’t quite right with the girlfriend’s family. The family and their social circle exude cult-like vibes; all the white people are too friendly and the few black people are in a trance. As the truth is uncovered in the third act, it is clear that the protagonist is in real danger, and a series of violent confrontations drives the film to its final reveal. Back in 1960 Psycho used the same formula, as have a plethora of psychological thrillers and horror movies in the years since. The director of Get Out, Jordan Peele doesn’t try to reinvent the formula; honestly the film is quite predictable. Where directors like M. Night Shyamalan makes thrillers that have legitimately scary moments in the vein of Hitchcock, that’s not what Peele is going for. Instead, Peele is using this genre as a vehicle to comment on the state of racial relations in society today. He points out that bald-faced racism of past generations has been replaced by a self-righteous short-sighted attitude amongst those who consider themselves ‘enlightened’. Peele suggests that pretending no racial divide exists is just as offensive as open racism – his heroes are the honest people of the film, the ones who see what’s really going on.

I liked that Peele didn’t veer from the tone that he established early on in the film, the temptation to shock and splatter the screen with blood must have been there (and I realize this is relative), but he chose moderation. The result is that the audience is allowed to process what the film was about, instead of how gruesome the last 20 minutes were. It bothers me that so many movies resort to graphic violence, when a good story and compelling acting are much more effective. I will also mention that the main character’s friend, a TSA agent who serves as a voice of reason (and comic relief) throughout the film, is a great example of Peele’s talented sense of timing and balance. Peele masterfully uses this character as a sort of narrator; he’s seeing the events unfold much in the same way we are. My question would be, is he a reliable, or unreliable narrator?

Black Panther

I can unequivocally say that Black Panther is the best comic book film adaptation since Thor: Ragnarok, and it very well may hold that distinction until May of this year.  Perhaps you sense a little comic book fatigue, which would be an accurate assessment.  Singer's X-Men and Nolan's Batman Begins heralded a Golden Age of comic book movies, but also opened the floodgate to studios greenlighting every project that comes their way.  For every excellent adaptation, there are at least five or six mediocre offerings.  The director of Black Panther, Ryan Coogler should be given credit for a valiant effort, but there are flaws which have become all to common in recent comic book movies:

1.  Too many uninteresting characters steal precious time from the central characters.
2.  If you can't make the digital effect look good, just leave the scene on the cutting room floor (or drag and drop to the recycle bin...).
3.  If you want the film to be a political commentary, own it.  Don't insult the audience with thinly veiled allusions to contemporary politics.

Coogler got some really important elements right, enough to redeem an otherwise bland movie:

1.  Costume design is amazing, vibrant, and is the visual thread that holds the film together.
2.  Casting Chadwick Boseman as the Black Panther, Lupita Nyong'o as Nakia, Forest Whitaker as Zuri, Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger, and Andy Serkis as Klaue was right on, each of these performers were excellent in their roles.
3.  The soundtrack by Kendrick Lamar and score by Ludwig Göransson combine fluidly to create a distinct atmosphere throughout the film. While I liked Thor: Ragnarok's multiple uses of Zeppelin's Immigrant Song, I can admit that the action sequence montage is one of the clichés that detracts from comic book movies. Coogler smartly avoided this by using fresh music instead of depending on classic or popular compositions, which makes the film feel new and distinct.

The Post

As an exercise in filmmaking, Spielberg's The Post pads a resume that's already bursting at the seams (I realize that I'm mixing metaphors).  Everything onscreen supports Spielberg's vision; it would be difficult to find any flaws with this film, and the virtuoso newsprinting sequence alone is worth the price of admission.  So, if you want to see one movie in your entire life about the heroics of journalists, then go no further than The Post.  But if you saw Spotlight a few years ago, or All The President's Men, or any other film in this sub-genre, then you've already gotten the general gist of The Post.  In a nutshell, every journalist is full of unbiased integrity, seeking the truth, and is a defender and champion of the Constitution.  I have to give Spielberg credit, the two main characters call each other out on relationships that threaten their impartiality.  But Spielberg's conclusion is that his heroes are immune to corruption, and their sympathetic nature makes them better people, and thereby better journalists.  This may be the most one-sided Spielberg movie ever made, and I'm including the fact that you couldn't even see the Nazis during the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan.  I don't think that a great film must give equal time, or even pretend to be objective, but I found the preachiness of this film to be intellectually dishonest, and somewhat offensive.  That the Government tried to prohibit the publication of classified documents was met with righteous indignation, yet only a few throw-away lines addressed the possible consequences of printing national secrets.  The irony is that the outcome of history is used to justify decisions that, given a different outcome, would be considered treasonous.  There is even a point in the film when one of the lawyers representing the journalists is asked whether he would have supported printing documents that would have undermined the D-Day invasion; this question goes unanswered.  You might be surprised to hear that overall I liked the film; if someone is going to piss me off, it might as well be one of the best directors of all time...

Lady Bird

Lady Bird is a film that follows a seventeen year old girl through her senior year of high school.  She has a father who's struggling to provide for his family, but does what he can to encourage Lady Bird.  She has a mother who sometimes burdens her with the family's problems, but is ultimately preparing Lady Bird for life.  She makes bad decisions when it comes to school, friends, and boys.  What separates this film from the typical "coming of age" teenage comedy/drama is that Lady Bird is pretty well grounded; she knows when she's made bad decisions, she regrets being selfish, and she is sympathetic to her parents' hardships.  While this is a refreshing change from the standard Hollywood portrayal of teenagers, it honestly isn't very entertaining.  Call me shallow, but I prefer Clueless and 10 Things I Hate About You.  Those are examples of films that don't honestly reflect the typical teenage experience, but they sure are fun to watch.  Lady Bird is a well made film which contains a wonderfully nuanced performance by Laurie Metcalf as Lady Bird's mom; but it wan't enough to keep me interested.  I know that life can be monotonous, and I realize that sometimes great films exist to remind us of that, but this didn't quite rise to that level.

Dunkirk

I'm not sure why I didn't write this back in July, but better late than never...

Dunkirk was an interesting project for Christopher Nolan to undertake, more than anything else I get the impression that this is a story that is important to him.  Nolan's strengths as a director are apparent in Dunkirk, but the film suffers because his focus is not tight enough.  Nolan's greatest works have begun with a simple premise, which were expanded upon with just the right amount of narrative and details: The Prestige was about commitment, Inception dealt with belief, and Memento delved into the intricacies of loss.  Dunkirk is about any number of things; perseverance, ingenuity, and hope.  It's probably about many other important ideas too, which is why it is a good film.  What keeps it from being great is that Nolan never seems to know where the film's center should be, and this results in weak sub-plots and unnecessary characters taking up valuable screen time.  That being said, the cinematography, acting, effects, and sound are all superb.  It's not surprising that Nolan chose to focus on the Battle of Dunkirk's closing days and the ensuing evacuation; there are important lessons to be learned, and expressing those ideas is a challenge worthy of a great filmmaker.  It also should be noted that this film pairs well with Joe Wright's Darkest Hour, which is about Churchill making decisions that ultimately decide the fate of those at Dunkirk.  Nolan's Dunkirk will not have the lasting impact of Saving Private Ryan or Bridge on the River Kwai; that's because those films stayed on target from start to finish - Dunkirk is too much of a good thing.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Martin McDonagh’s Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri tries to be too many things, and doesn’t really succeed at any.  At its core, the film may fall into the revenge flick genre, but to its credit (and to its detriment), it doesn’t follow the formula.  Typically we would be presented with a revenge-worthy circumstance, then the protagonist would be presented with hurdles, i.e. solving the unsolved mystery of who deserves her vengeance, and finally there would be a climactic resolution.  Three Billboards alludes to each of these stages of the revenge flick, but never delivers.  In a better film, I could see this working to convey a lesson that revenge is never satisfying, but McDonagh never finds the right tone.  He doesn't follow the formula, but he doesn't present us with a cohesive alternative either.  His characters are not fully realized, and the plot doesn’t ever get traction - there is allusion to a deeper story, but nothing substantive is provided.  I don’t think it’s necessary to show the revenge-worthy crime, but somehow I never really was convinced that it had ever taken place.  While Frances McDormand usually plays persuasive characters, here her motivation seems forced.  Likewise, Woody Harrelson, and Sam Rockwell, while they gave entertaining performances, were not compelling.  I think that Rockwell’s character’s transformation was unique (it would have been unexpected if I hadn’t heard about it beforehand), and was probably the best part of the film.  That being said, Braveheart, The Princess Bride, and Kill Bill Vol. 2 each have dealt with the revenge in ways that are far more interesting than Three Billboards.  I will say that McDonagh surprised me, by going just past the point that I thought would be the perfect ending, and finding one that was just a little bit better.

Call Me by Your Name

I don’t usually consider the hypothetical when writing film reviews, but I think it may be useful in writing about Call Me by Your Name.  What if this was a story about a 17 year old boy attracted to a 24 year old woman, and the ensuing relationship, with an emphasis on their sexual exploits?  What if everything else about the film was exactly the same?  Call Me by Your Name takes place in an idyllic Italian countryside, circa 1983; which means things are just modern enough to be familiar, but retro enough to suggest a simpler time.   I especially found the scenes depicting bicycle rides to ring true to my ‘80s experience; whatever happened to kids on bikes?  The 17 year old boy is played by Timothée Chalamet, who delivers an excellent performance as a boy who is nurtured and loved by his parents, and is acutely self-aware.  Films that allow their characters to feel and think are rare, because it so often clashes with the plot.   The director, Luca Guadagnino employs an unobtrusive filmmaking style, which allows for an intimate view of his characters.  This approach, combined with exemplary acting is effective in conveying to the audience what is happening onscreen between the characters, and what is motivating them.  

If we stay with my hypothetical film premise, then I’d most likely say that this was a beautiful film; I only wish that filmmakers would stop promoting sex outside marriage, and wouldn’t it have been wonderful if the film could have treated a platonic relationship so gracefully.  Maybe I would have said that, honestly I probably wouldn’t have batted an eye at a heterosexual relationship.

Leaving the hypothetical behind, it should be said that Call Me by Your Name is about a 17 year old boy who is attracted to a 24 year old man, and the ensuing relationship, with an emphasis on their sexual exploits.  All the qualities I mentioned before hold true, this is a masterfully crafted film that contains scenes of beauty and honest depictions of humanity.  It is clear that the filmmakers intended this as a celebration of a homosexual relationship; I found it to work quite well as tragic exploration of our fallen nature.   The boy’s father, played by Michael Stuhlbarg* delivers a powerful monologue towards the film’s close, basically an “it is better to have loved and lost” speech tailored to fit as advice from a father to his son.   It is sad when good intentions have such devastating consequences.


*Michael Stuhlbarg also appeared in the recently reviewed The Shape of Water, playing a character who was called-out by Focus on the Family as a “negative element” because he depicted a “foreign spy”.  I assume that this made the review because of the 9^th Commandment, but I hope that it was meant as a joke.

Phantom Thread

There are two major surprises in Paul Thomas Anderson's Phantom Thread, and I'm going to tell you what they are right now.  First, this film sneaks up on you and absorbs you into its atmosphere, then its over.  After just one viewing, I can't tell you when the film took over.  Actually I remember thinking about 20 minutes in, 'I wonder where this is going?'.  And the funny thing is, I don't know that it really went anywhere, but it sure was absorbing.  Second, the young, naive, clumsy waitress (payed by Vicky Krieps) proves to be more than a match for Daniel Day-Lewis' mature, graceful, master of the house.  This was a major surprise to me because it was so unexpected, everything points to Day-Lewis' character domineering the relationship until the girl is discarded and broken like all the rest.  But Anderson only uses formula up to the point it suits him, then he abandons it altogether.  The importance of environment, color, and character is somewhat reminiscent of Hitchcock, and for some reason the film Rebecca comes to mind as a valid comparison.  But even the most atmospheric of Hitchcock's films had a plot.  I believe that Phantom Thread has some fascinating things to say about self-centered people finding ways to live "happily" together, but this isn't a character study either.  The genius of Anderson and Day-Lewis is that a collaboration like this requires an absolute commitment to a concept; everyone involved had to be in on the plan, otherwise it would have failed.  Their last film together, There Will Be Blood was similarly ambiguous in the story it told, and also was powerful in the tension it created.  I'm not surprised that these artists made a great film, I'm just amazed that they could do it again, and somehow even better. 

Darkest Hour

I was wary about Joe Wright's new film Darkest Hour for two reasons; the current political climate is strongly opposed to men like Winston Churchill, and Wright made a film a few years back called Atonement, which I really disliked.  Both my concerns were unwarranted; Wright has made a masterful film about a the greatest hero of the last century.  The film covers just the right scale, focusing on the behind-the-scenes details of Churchill taking over the office of Prime Minister.  There are enough shots of the battlefield to give historical context, but Wright cleverly uses a bird's eye view to make it clear that Churchill must consider the entire scope of his decisions.  Wright balances  Churchill's abrasive persona by highlighting two close relationships; one with his wife, and one with the young country girl who types his speeches.  In a lesser film (such as Atonement) this technique would have slipped into cliché, but here Wright finds just the right note, and we gain a greater appreciation for the context in Churchill's words and actions.  I would be remiss not to mention Gary Oldman's performance, and the makeup, which paired to truly bring Churchill to the screen.  Jude and I recently watched Leon the Professional, and the other night our entire family watched The Dark Knight - Gary Oldman has taken on some challenging roles, but the way he embodies Churchill is truly amazing.  I was moved by the powerful speeches, admittedly the source material and my admiration of Churchill was a contributing factor, but Oldman brought it home.

Back in 2010 I wrote Against the Grain, which covers some the same ideas that Darkest Hour focuses on, primarily that Churchill was precisely the man that the world needed at a turning point in history.  Read the paper.  See the movie.

The Shape of Water

There are three distinct thoughts that I've had since seeing Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water last week:

1.  What in the world?  Someone please tell me that this is a joke of some kind.  As the movie awards season is in full swing, how can this movie be getting any recognition, let alone win any awards?  Yet it has won, and more importantly the film seems to touching a nerve culturally.  The fable of the emperor's new clothes came to mind as the ending titles rolled, how are so many people being duped by this movie?  As one would expect from del Toro, the film is visually excellent, with a lush color palette and top notch effects and makeup (for the most part).  But everything else is so shallow and cliche, that it was awkward to watch.  The villain is one-dimensional, I literally laughed at the heroine's big musical number, and the Swamp Thing creature was one of the least interesting characters ever to be projected onto the big screen.  The producers could have saved a boatload of money by renting a dolphin.

2.  What is del Toro trying to say by graphically depicting a relationship between a woman and the Swamp Thing creature onscreen?  In a film that was definitely preaching against bigotry, is del Toro advocating bestiality?  Based on the context established in the film, I must conclude that del Toro is suggesting that all "love" between consenting individuals is acceptable.  That he intermingles this inter-species relationship with a sub-plot involving a lovelorn homosexual neighbor, and a racist shop owner, further supports my suspicion that del Toro is promoting tolerance well beyond the current social norms.  Maybe I'm just behind the curve on this...

3.  One week out - maybe all my initial impressions were right, and that's why this is such an effective film, and a work of genius.  Recent discussions with a friend and fellow film-buff have led me to conclude that a film doesn't have to be well made or comprised of compelling characters to be effective.  When a film sticks with you days and weeks later, when it gets under your skin, and mostly when it disturbs you, that is an effective film.  Some films, such as Schindler's List utilize technical expertise and tell a story that combine for maximum effect.  Del Toro's trick is to break the rules, deviate from the expected, dabble with campiness, and push right past the envelope of what is socially acceptable.  Perhaps I  made the mistake of thinking that del Toro is on a soap box trying to promote an agenda, maybe he just wanted to make a movie that I would remember.  Of course he may be doing this at the cost of degrading our moral fabric just a little bit more, but that's a small price to pay for entertainment, right?

Logan

I started writing this review in March of 2017 - I added a little bit more today.

Logan a.k.a. Wolverine isn't a very complex character.  As Professor Xavier notes in the film Logan, Wolverine was found wasting his abilities bar fighting in the Pacific Northwest.  He's forever been the reluctant hero, in the vein of Humphrey Bogart (in just about every one of his films).  The director, James Mangold is able to make a film that's compelling in spite of the fact that the central character hasn't changed much in the last 137 years.  What Mangold does with Logan is boil down the formula, dispensing with all the convoluted elements that typically accompany X-Men movies, making a film that's really about a man on a quest to protect someone he truly cares for.  I think we like this type of movie because it's like comfort food; we all know that the calloused alcoholic brute is really a cuddly teddy bear at heart.  Maybe that's an exaggeration, but our satisfaction with these stories corresponds with how extreme the transformation is from antihero to hero.  Most importantly, Mangold gets the underlying elements of filmmaking, character and story, correct, but Logan is also a visual achievement for film with comic book origins.  The action, stunts, special effects, and makeup is a jolting departure for the genre.  Unlike some other recent comic book movies that use graphic violence to shock the audience (or to cater to a desensitized demographic), the style of Logan fits with the story that is being told.  Logan is abandoning his colorful Uncanny X-Men compatriots - he never was really one of them to begin with...

Star Wars Episode Eight: The Last Jedi

I like that the director Rian Johnson spent time developing the characters of Rey and Kylo/Ben.    While The Force Awakens introduced these characters, it was very much a film about passing the torch from one generation to the next.  Johnson is not subtle in his approach; having Kylo smash his mask represents both a symbolic and physical rise to prominence.  In much the same way, Rey displays a fierce self-determination that motivates her to take action and do what is right, even when her reluctant mentor (Luke Skywalker) discourages her at every turn.  At first I wasn’t a fan of Johnson’s deviation from the well established Star Wars formula, but with time and reflection I have come to appreciate it.  My expectations were not fulfilled, but that’s only because I anticipated a predictable plot and character arcs.  It is far more interesting to watch a story unfold in unexpected ways, and it’s more satisfying to witness character growth instead of those who are slaves to the plot.  I have described about one third of the film, the other two thirds consist of the slowest chase sequence in the history of cinema (ironic considering the fact that the ships involved are capable of traveling at light speed).  I found that most of the film was boring, unnecessary, and sometimes not Star Wars-ish, but the sequences involving Rey and Kylo progressed the series, and I’m already looking forward to Episode Nine.

Blade Runner 2049

The underlying theme of 1982’s Blade Runner questioned the definition of humanity.  Man is created in God’s image.  A replicant is created in man’s image.  Does the creature have the right to make demands of its creator?  While Blade Runner definitely contains an intriguing science fiction premise, what ultimately made it a masterpiece is the atmosphere, wall-to-wall dystopian noir atmosphere.  While the effects are dated, those who saw Ridley Scott’s vision of the future back in the 20^th century have mixed emotions as we quickly approach 2019.  We’re definitely happy that urban sprawl has been kept in check, and it’s nice to see the sun on a regular basis.  On the other hand, it kind of sucks that our cars are still restricted to boring roads, and there’s not enough Vangelis in our daily lives.

Enter Blade Runner 2049; I’m happy to report that all the elements that made the original great have returned for the sequel.  As I have thought more about the film over the past 24 hours, I have concluded that director Denis Villeneuve has accomplished something truly amazing; he crafted a film 35 years after the original that is a stand-alone great sci-fi story, a genuine sequel in every sense, and is an homage without feeling mushily sentimental.  There are some stand-out scenes, including the opening, that will place this film in the same category as its predecessor.  There’s also quite a bit that doesn’t necessarily contribute to the narrative, but then the same can be said about the original.  It’s not so much the story that is so captivating, rather it is the world in which that story takes place.  There were times that the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch seemed overbearing and heavy – that was awesome!  If I hadn’t Googled the composer prior to seeing the film, I would have been sure that Vangelis was back…  Now does anyone have a hypothesis for the origami sheep? 

John Wick 2

John Wick 2 wasn't released in time to be a contender for the upcoming Academy Awards, and I'm pretty confident that it won't get any recognition next year either.  But who really cares?  There is a sequence involving handguns, a shotgun, and an assault rifle that is so energetic and fluid, it's like giving an award to the audience.  Please strike that last sentence, it was inappropriately corny.  Probably my favorite part of John Wick 2 is that his dog {spoiler alert} doesn't die.  Now if you've seen the first movie, you'd know why that's so important.  The gun-fu gets old after a while, but it's quite amazing through the entire aforementioned sequence.  The reunion between Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne brought a smile to my face - this almost made up for the third Matrix movie.  Thanks so much for bringing up that piece of crap!

Best Picture

The following films have been nominated for Best Picture:
La La Land
Manchester by the Sea
Hacksaw Ridge
Arrival
Lion
Fences
Hidden Figures
Moonlight
Hell or High Water

Out of these nine films, I'll definitely watch La La Land again, because it was light, fun, family friendly, and Ashley really liked it.
 
Manchester by the Sea was deeply depressing, with Casey Affleck single-handedly bringing a dark cloud of bleakness to an otherwise sunny coastal town.  For this role he deserves the award for Best Actor.

Hacksaw Ridge honestly doesn't deserve to be in the running for Best Picture; I can only suppose that its anti-war message won favor with the Hollywood crowd.

Arrival was a really good character study packaged in a decent science fiction film.

The first half of Lion was a moving story about a boy lost in India; unfortunately he wasn't in the second half.

Fences may be a good play, but the film version isn't a good translation.

I'm glad to have seen Hidden Figures, it's a good film about amazing women.

Moonlight is the most dynamic film of the nine, and while I grieve the message it delivers, it deserves to be Best Picture this year.

I had my very first Shiner Bock after seeing Hell or High Water.  I had my first White Russian the night I saw The Big Lebowski.  Characters that Jeff Bridges plays in movies have good taste in adult beverages.

As for Best Supporting Actress, I'd say Viola Davis in Fences gave the most powerful performance.

Best Supporting Actor is the hardest to choose from, but I would probably vote for Mahershala Ali in Moonlight.

I've only commented on categories for which I saw all the nominees.  On a side note, Jess and I tried to watch the all the feature length documentaries nominated this year, but after 7 hours and 47 minutes of O.J.: Made in America, can you really blame us for not seeing the rest?  By the way, it was quite good.

Captain Fantastic

Captain Fantastic is the best movie about homeschooling ever made.  

Viggo Motensen plays a fierce, modern day Transcendentalist, father of six children.  He and his wife decided to raise their children in the forests of Washington...  At this point Mortensen's character would interrupt me, and point out that I'm merely describing the plot.  He would prompt me to provide an analysis of the movie instead:  I found it surprising that the director, Matt Ross commits an entire film to a man who, by all societal standards, is in the wrong.  That we see the story from this man's perspective, makes us sympathetic because we feel his emotions.  Yet we also find him reprehensible because we see his actions.  Ross' film handles this contradiction like a great novel, not seeking to draw clear conclusions, rather allowing the viewer to absorb the information and contemplate what it all means.

Other than the profanity, field-dressing deer, and anti-Christian rhetoric, this movie is a pretty accurate representation of the homeschooling experience..

Hell or High Water

To paraphrase the great Roger Ebert, a movie about why people do what they do is far more interesting than what they do.  Director, David Mackenzie's Hell or High Water follows two brothers as they rob a string of banks, with an emphasis on why they've chosen this path.  In the vein of No Country for Old Men, the lawman on their trail is a central character, whose motivation is also relevant to the story.  In a lesser film, these three characters would be one-dimensional, good for a few laughs, with a focus on the action, likely with a plot twist to keep things interesting.  Hell or High Water rises above its genre to give us a thoughtful (without being heavy-handed) film about brotherly love, and a reminder that justice and vengeance are not the same thing.

Jeff Bridges as the Texas Ranger had the most interesting role in this film, and once again inhabits his character so completely.  While he plays-off his racially-charged derision as merely joking around, we sense that there is some emotional damage that has skewed his personality.  He's not talking this way (as he claims) to toughen-up the recipient, rather he's doing it to protect himself from being hurt.  This comes abruptly apparent after a sequence of raised tensions during a hilltop pursuit; the Ranger's response is involuntary and represents a complex range of emotions.

Some of the dialog, and certain plot points seem a little forced, but these are minor quibbles.  A film like this reminds me of how amazing No Country For Old Men is; only once in a great while does practically perfect film come along.  In the meantime, Hell or High Water will do.

Moonlight

People can inadvertently be on the right side.
People can knowingly be on the right side an misbehave quite horribly.
I suggest that the opposite of these statements can also be true.

Moonlight is a film in three parts, following Chiron from boyhood to manhood, as he struggles to survive on the streets.  Chiron catches the attention of a drug dealer named Juan, played by Mahershala Ali, who cares for the young boy as an adoptive father.  Juan is the central character in Chiron's life, being his teacher, confidant, and ultimately his role model.  At its heart, this is a film about the importance of fatherhood, and a cautionary tale to those of us who are fathers:  What we do and say will have a serious impact on who our children become.

From a young age Chiron is teased for being "different" and eventually comes to the conclusion that he is romantically attracted to one of his male classmates.  The film presents this as Chiron's natural path, portraying those who mistreat him as cruel and primitive... and cruel they most certainly are.  In a fallen world it is often impossible to distinguish the righteous from the wicked; everyone's in the wrong.  I found this film to be extremely sad, partly because I felt such compassion for Chiron, but mostly because such an effective film can be subversive.

Moonlight is an effective film, beautifully shot, with precise editing, an excellent score, and great acting.  I believe that the director, Barry Jenkins set out to portray someone knowingly on the wrong side (Juan the drug dealer) behaving quite honorably (in the way he cares for Chiron).  Now if only we could get people knowingly on the right side to behave accordingly.

Hidden Figures

Hidden Figures uses a well established formula to tell a compelling, and sometimes surprising story.  This is a rare combination; typically filmmakers try to surprise us with their storytelling style, here it's the story itself that's surprising.  Hidden Figures, directed by Theodore Melfi, shines the spotlight on historical figures that usually don't get any recognition.  Melfi does a good job keeping this film focused, understanding that an intimate examination of a few people is most effective.  I liked that the characters were allowed to develop, and while much of this was predictable, it still was a pleasure to watch.  One of my favorite scenes happened towards the end of the film, when a supporting character surprises one of the main characters with a demonstration of extreme generosity and humbleness.  This stood out to me because Melfi had taken the time to set up this scene in such a way that it enriched the entire story with a moment of true joy.

I hesitate to say anything bad about a good movie, so I won't.

Fences

Fences is quite simply a film about a family in Pittsburgh, spanning from the late 1950's through the 60's.  Race, economic status, religion, work ethic, etc. are all topics addressed in the film, but ultimately I believe that family is the subject.  Denzel Washington directed and stars, playing the charismatic, and domineering father.  Children from three different mothers are being raised by the current wife, which complicates the definition of family.  The worldview presented in this film is a messy one, wherein Denzel's character is definitely the central character, but is not the hero of the story.  Actually, it would be difficult to argue that any of the characters qualify for this title, everyone here is flawed, and there isn't much hope for redemption.  The film suggests that each of the family members contribute to their own suffering.  The wife enables the father, the sons become their father, and the best friend does nothing substantive to make a difference.  Ultimately all the characters are trapped in a hopeless cycle of despair... that may have been a better title.

The film is unique in it's portrayal of a family, where not much happens, and there isn't a plot to speak of.  Unfortunately this film suffers because it feels so much like the play on which it is based.  The actors often sound as though they are reading their lines; they're well written lines, but still it's distracting.  With the exception of David Mamet and Quentin Tarantino, I'd prefer not to hear the writer when the actors are speaking.

Lion

Lion is a story told in two very distinct parts.  The first half is almost a documentary in the way that it follows the main character, Saroo as he wanders through the streets of Calcutta.  The second half of the film feels 'movie-ish' in comparison, with recognizable actors who find themselves in situation that feel somewhat contrived.  I will leave my review of the second half of the film at that, and focus instead on the opening act.

The performance by Sunny Pawar in Lion is reminiscent of Quvenzhané Wallis' performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild back in 2012.  It is extremely effective when such a young actor is able to be so convincing in a role.  Of course I realize that anytime you place a child in such horrific conditions it is only natural to have an emotional response, so much credit must be given to the production designers and editor.  That being said, Pawar played his part so well, showing a wide range in his reactions to various situations.

I believe that this film has a good message, which so often is lacking in movies today.  Even though the second half doesn't rise to the level of the first, it's still part of the film, and seeks to deliver an uplifting conclusion.  For these reasons I liked the movie, and would definitely recommend it to anyone.

Star Wars: Rogue One

That I saw Rogue One on opening day, yet I am just now getting around to writing a review should tell you something.  This movie is well crafted, entertaining, and cleverly fleshes-out the a backstory which was briefly mentioned in A New Hope.  It's actually the last three or four minutes of the movie, where everything ties together, that Rogue One is at its best.  That's good news for the moviegoer, because a good ending can redeem an otherwise blasé offering.  The bad news is that a good ending can punctuate just how blasé the rest of the movie was...  It wasn't until days after seeing the movie that it struck me how all the main characters had {spoiler alert} died, but I didn't really care because I had seen Darth Vader go medieval on some Rebels and Princess Leia circa 1977.

More than anything else this probably proves that attachments formed in youth are strong, while attempts to recreate experiences from youth are impossible... because we are no longer that person.

Arrival

Arrival is a deliberately paced science fiction film that effectively uses chronological disorientation to enrich its story.  The real danger in making a movie that deals with aliens is that almost assuredly the aliens will disappoint.  If we’re honest with ourselves, the only aliens we really like are the ones who look exactly like us, i.e. Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, and Chewbacca.  We find all other aliens either scary or irritating.  Therefore every great film that contains aliens (excluding Star Wars) must be about something other than aliens.

It doesn’t take long to realize that the aliens in Arrival are not its focus; rather the film is centered on a linguist played by Amy Adams.  The storyline involving a race to interpret the alien’s true intentions before the rest of the world starts World War III is the films weakest point, allowing clichés from the genre too much time.  Yet interwoven into the standard plot is a more interesting thread of self-sacrifice.  The question is asked, if you knew how painful the consequences would be, would make the same decision?   The choice that Adam’s character is faced with is unambiguous; either she can pursue happiness, or she can save the world.  Let me suggest that another layer is alluded to; not only does Adam’s character have to make this terrible choice, but she’ll also be eternally subject to experience the effects of her decision.  This concept was explored in a lesser movie earlier last year; Doctor Strange had a really long battle in which the title character locked the antagonist into a seemingly never-ending loop.  Because nobody wants to leave a superhero movie without a conclusion, Doctor Strange devised a clever technicality to end the never-ending loop.  Arrival doesn’t give it’s protagonist a loophole; the difficult decision she must make is final.

Arrival also deals with the concept that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, but I’m out of time for today’s review.

Hacksaw Ridge

I imagine that people who don't like movies are unable (or unwilling) to detach themselves from reality long enough to appreciate a movie for what it is.  Even the most realistic movie is still just a movie, even a documentary isn't actually happening (it already happened).  I think that I have levels of detachment, depending on the movie there is a sliding scale of what I'm willing to accept in the pursuit of entertainment or enlightenment.  La La Land gets a wide berth, while Manchester by the Sea receives greater scrutiny.  On that note, it is difficult for me to give Hacksaw Ridge a favorable review; while it contained a great story and challenged my preconceptions, its set-up kept jerking me back into reality.
 
The first half of the movie felt more like Captain America than a dramatic WWII film.  Instead of fleshed-out characters, the central cast were simply caricatures, with Vince Vaughn and Hugo Weaving setting entirely the wrong tone.  Both of these actors are great given the right roles, unfortunately this movie was seriously miscast, and the first half poorly directed.  I have struggled with being overly critical of this movie (as you'll see in the next paragraph), but it almost feels like the first half of this movie was made simply as an afterthought.  Backstories in comic book movies can be entertaining.  The first half of a war film shouldn't feel this cliché.

The second half of the movie was effective and thought-provoking.  Director Mel Gibson has often used violence gratuitously, sometimes with great impact.  The violence and gore in Hacksaw Ridge is shown in stark contrast to the self-sacrificing determination of the movie's hero.  The one person who is unwilling to shed any blood is covered with the most.  The person ridiculed and misunderstood is most willing to give everything he has for others.  Even if you find yourself disagreeing with him on principle, you would be calloused indeed if you don't appreciate his commitment.  Therein is the greatest strength of this film, it presents a seemingly enigmatic contradiction, and solves it.  This may have been one of the most interesting war films ever made, if it only it had a better first half.

Manchester by the Sea

Manchester by the Sea is a deeper, and more honest observational study than its spiritual prequel, Good Will Hunting.  Both films center around a man who has concluded that he has potential, he has the capability to achieve a good life, but knows that he doesn't deserve it.  Casey Affleck gives a depressingly tragic performance, portraying a man who feels obligated to punish himself.  His friends and family plead with him to stop, attempting to relay how his behavior is harming those closest to him.  Yet his conviction is so deep, and his commitment to complete, that rational arguments hold no sway.  Will Hunting had a gift that was recognized by the right people at the right time.  Will is encouraged and challenged in ways that turn him from his path of self-destruction.  Affleck's character in Manchester by the Sea isn't rescued from his downward spiral.  I would suggest that the difference here, is that his heart has been hardened.  There is a moment in Good Will Hunting, between the title character and his counselor (played by Robin Williams) where Will Hunting's heart is softened.  Manchester by the Sea doesn't contain such a scene, and with that the chance of hope and joy vanishes.

Nocturnal Animals

Have you ever been sitting there in the theater, the screen fades to black, and you think to yourself "this would be the perfect place to end the movie"?  If the first closing title appears, you've just seen a great film.  I'm not referring to your run-of-the-mill Hollywood fare with a predictable ending; I'm talking about those rare films that could go on to tie-up loose ends or explain every last detail, but instead choose not to insult the viewer's intelligence.  Nocturnal Animals has a perfect ending.

I'm going to break from my typical approach, which shies away from revealing too much about plot; so consider yourself warned.  Nocturnal Animals slowly reveals itself to be an allegory told in parallel with real-life events.  The main character doesn't recognize her role until the very last moment of the film.  There were times at which the chronology of the film was difficult to follow, the lines between time and reality were blurred.  The director, Tom Ford uses this storytelling technique to explain the motivations of his characters, interweaving the connection between allegory and real-life.  There's a lesson to be learned here:  Quite often we aren't the characters in the story that we want to be.

Now if the movie picks up again after it fades to black, and continues for another 45 minutes, you're watching Return of the King.

The Jungle Book

Back in August of 2016 I wrote the following:
"The Jungle Book is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.  Director Jon Favreau has successfully created a modern retelling of this classic story."
I'm not sure where I was going with this.  Discuss amongst yourselves.

Split

I guess it was inevitable that eventually M. Night Shyamalan would choose to utilize absolutely-no-twist-at-all as a twist in one of his films, and believe me, I was surprised.  Split is the greatest argument so far for not watching trailers; if you've seen one, you've seen the other.  The crafting of this film was excellent, Shyamalan's storytelling, the editing, and James McAvoy's acting were all top-notch.  Unfortunately, that was all evident in the trailer, along with the entire storyline, cast of characters, and for any experienced moviegoer, the obvious ending was clear.  That's how I knew that the ending would be significantly different; but I was wrong.

Perhaps this is Shyamalan's commentary on pop culture, and fanboys with too much time on our hands.  He gave us exactly what the trailer promised, and nothing more.  Maybe I'll learn my lesson and never watch a trailer again.

Once good thing has already come out of watching Split; it prompted me to revisit one of Shyamalan's other films, one that I had only seen once 17 years ago.  It's better than I remembered.

La La Land

After a 5-month hiatus, La La Land is bringing me back.

I'm going to start with a minor complaint, then I promise to tell you all the things I really liked about this movie.  The people who love movies the most have inadvertently ruined the them.  Star Wars is no longer a space fantasy, it has become Saving Private Ryan in space.  Batman has more in common with The Godfather than his comic book origins.  And La La Land feels more like a tragic Woody Allen film, than the musical that it could have been.  It's not that the filmmakers are more cynical than a generation ago, rather the critics and film snobs have become harsher.  La La Land could have been our Singin' In The Rain; unfortunately it's too cool for that.  I understand the irony here, if the characters spontaneously burst into song too often, or dream sequences had a few too many neon lights, I'd probably be making fun of the movie right now.  La La Land hit all the right notes; it's just a shame that so many people are just as jaded as me.

I liked the scenery.  I liked the costumes.  I liked the character development; while it was quite cliché, the characters were so likable that it worked.  I like the music; while not to the level of Singin' In The Rain, is that really a fair comparison?  I liked the ending; it works for the romantic and the cynic, not an easy task.  I like that this movie is getting so much buzz; after so many difficult-to-watch movies, I like being reminded of why I love movies.

Jason Bourne

Jason Bourne follows the same pattern and delivers the same action/espionage thrills that we have come to expect from Matt Damon Bourne movies.  I contend that the first two Bourne films had convincing plots, while the third film and this (the fourth starring Damon as Bourne) have plots that seem to primarily exist to give Bourne another movie.  That's a minor complaint though, since Bourne is an intriguing character, Damon plays him so well, and the director Paul Greengrass certainly knows his craft.  From a technical standpoint this film is extremely impressive, the choreography of the mob scene and the editing is spot-on.  Sometimes Greengrass' proclivity for using handheld cameras is distracting, but when the action gets intense he makes us feel that we're right there in the middle of it all.  I think that casting Vincent Cassel as the antagonist is always a good idea, although seeing him in another movie up against Damon where he will not be allowed to succeed (as in the Ocean's movies) is somewhat frustrating.  I wonder if Matt Damon would consider playing a similar character to Cassel's in French movies.
  
My wife Jess commented that the ending of this film seems to be setting up another movie, and I tend to agree with her.  I hope that the producers of this series can find a way to give Bourne some peace, because up to this point his life has been extremely tragic.

Suicide Squad

So I’m going to work my way backwards from my most recently viewed yet unreviewed movie.

Suicide Squad is a mess, but did anyone really doubt that it would be.   When people attack comic books as juvenile, they could easily point to the plot (and I use that term hesitantly) of Suicide Squad and unequivocally win their argument.  Each and every character is motivated by a strong commitment to cliché.  Suicide Squad follows the current trend of comic book movies by inexplicably using CGI to detach the audience from the antagonist.  Perhaps the makers of these movies are concerned that they might hurt the main characters, so they give them ridiculous cartoons instead of formidable foes.  Or maybe the Animation Union hired the Russian mafia to strong-arm their way into all comic book movies.  Or perhaps it’s just another indication of our country’s cultural decline.

You may be surprised to find that overall I enjoyed the movie.  I’ve become so accustomed disappointment in non-Nolan comic book movies that even the briefest well-made scenes make me happy.  Suicide Squad has quite a few well-made scenes interspersed throughout, just enough to make the whole movie seem alright.  Will Smith as Deadshot was quite funny, Killer Croc had some pretty cool makeup, Batman underwater, and colorful clothing dissolving in acid.  I will close by saying that Joker is the Joker we deserve right now.  Somehow he seems to fit in with today’s political climate.  I am a little concerned with what it will take to entertain us with the next iteration of Joker – perhaps it’ll come full circle and we’ll get Cesar Romero again.

Biting the Bullet

I will soon write about The Good Dinosaur, The B.F.G, Tarzan, The Jungle Book, Jason Bourne, and Suicide Squad, but please allow me a brief detour into politics:

A few years ago I was extremely critical of a couple I know who voted for the Constitution Party presidential candidate.  During that election there were two, and only two candidates who could realistically win the general election.  If given the choice of only two candidates you choose neither, you have at best wasted your vote – more likely you have made the path easier for the candidate whom you should have opposed.  I believe that it is reasonable to suggest that two votes for the Constitution Party candidate in 2008 were essentially two votes for Barack Obama.

This year the conundrum is worse, both candidates are so repugnant that it seems unthinkable to vote for either.  At the risk of coming across as flippant, “rending unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” back when there was a Caesar seems a whole lot easier than performing one’s civic duty of voting in America today.  If you are planning on voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump this November, you are only doing so to appease yourself.  Your vote will be meaningless.   Let me suggest that those who refuse to choose when confronted with the lesser of two evils are actually responsible when the greater evil wins.

Neither candidate believes in the sanctity of human life.

Neither candidate believes that our country’s greatness is irrevocably tied to God’s grace.

Neither candidate respects our country’s Constitution.

Neither candidate is wise, humble, brave, respectful, or has a heart of service.

So don’t try spreading any lies about why you’re voting for one or the other – neither of these people deserve to be the President, and either one will be detrimental to this country.

 

And don’t lie to yourself and vote for the Constitution Party candidate – you might as well write-in “Kanye”.

I for one will begrudgingly vote for Trump, he represents the lesser of two evils.

This country is in God’s hands.  His will isn’t constrained whether Clinton or Trump is the President.  I for one will be on my knees asking that the plans of the wicked are thwarted.  I do believe that God can change hearts; Clinton and Trump are just as savable as I.  I also believe that God could miraculously influence the election; He has blessed us for the last 240 years, why stop now?  That being said, I fully anticipate Election Day to be a somber experience, and I pray that God has mercy on us. 

Batman V Superman

Zack Snyder pissed me off with his outrageous fight scene between Superman and General Zod in Man of Steel.  In that movie, Superman allows General Zod to wreak havoc on Metropolis; thousands die because of Superman’s self-imposed do not kill rule.  I’m usually a big fan of these kind of rules in fiction, whether it be D'Artagnan’s honor, MacGyver’s no gun code, or Dennis Hopper’s 50 mph policy… these all present challenges which make the stories more interesting.  But in Superman’s case, his unwillingness to kill General Zod makes him a hypocrite at best, and quite possibly an accessory to mass genocide.

Bruce Wayne is pissed too.  Therein lies the motivation behind Batman V Superman, it doesn’t matter who you are; you don’t want to piss of Bruce Wayne or (spoiler alert!) you’ll have Batman to contend with.  The opening scenes of Batman V Superman show Bruce Wayne helplessly witnessing the destruction that is being rained down on Metropolis by Superman and General Zod, from that point on it becomes his mission to eliminate Superman.  On the other hand, as we spend time with Superman it becomes clear that he is offended by Batman’s vigilante brand of justice.  Superman’s holier-than-thou attitude is our first indication that Zack Snyder has chosen sides.  This is an interesting premise; two men with contradicting philosophies cannot be good neighbors, there’s only room for one hero in the Twin Cities of Metropolis and Gotham.

Had Zack Snyder tightened his focus, this could have been a great movie; but for better or worse Lex Luthor is added to the mix – he’s either the catalyst or the third wheel, depending on your point of view.  I personally found Jesse Eisenberg’s performance as Luthor to be distracting and unnecessary.  While his character fit into the plot as an instigator, someone who was stirring up the feud between Batman and Superman, his motivation for doing this was never satisfactorily explained.  Additionally, Eisenberg’s performance was heavily reminiscent of Heath Ledger as the Joker; his psychotic behavior seemed out of place.  I realize that all of these characters and plot lines are being pulled from a variety of source material.  If you try to make everyone happy, you’re bound to fail.  But I would contend that making a great film, telling a good story, and presenting convincing characters will always trump trying to make fan-boys happy.  I wish someone would tell that to Zack Snyder.

Overall I found this to be a much better movie that Man of Steel, and I can sum it up with two sentences:

Batman hated the end of Man of Steel just as much as I did.

Man of Steel lowered my expectations so low that Snyder’s next film had to be better.

Bridge of Spies

Bridge of Spies is the best film from the past year.  I would like to personally apologize to Steven Spielberg for not going to see this film in the theater, I finally saw it streaming a few weeks back.  Spielberg tells a good story, a story that is relevant today.  Tom Hanks plays a man who defies our preconceived notions of lawyers, principled, thoughtful and patriotic.  The standout performance is by Mark Rylance as a captured Russian spy; his subtlety and the relationship developed onscreen between him and the Hanks character was excellent.

*Full disclosure:  I just saw Mark Rylance win (deservedly so) for Best Supporting Actor.

Room and Spotlight

I’m in a little bit of a rush, because the Academy Awards have already started, and I want to have reviews in on all the Best Picture nominees before the winner is announced.  So I am going to tell you why I liked each of these two films:

The makers of Room believe that hope and healing are possible after even the most traumatic of conditions and experiences.  It also has a policewoman who does some excellent police work, a boy who is extremely brave, and a young woman who definitely deserves a Mother’s Day card this year (and next).

The makers of Spotlight believe in the pursuit of truth.  I think that truth and the pursuit of truth can be two completely different things.  This movie focuses and glorifies the pursuit of truth; journalists are portrayed as society’s heroes.  While the filmmakers could easily have gone too far and ventured into preachy cliché territory; I was pleasantly surprised that the film stayed grounded.  

Brooklyn The Big Short

Halfway through Brooklyn Jess asked me why it had been nominated for Best Picture.  We had gone to see The Big Short the night before, and the same question could be asked of that film.  Both films are entertaining, and both have been expertly made, but neither of them are The Godfather Part II or Braveheart.  That being said, I would suggest that films that achieve the level of greatness are few and far between.  I’ll review Brooklyn and The Big Short for what they are, not what they aren’t.

I lied.  Brooklyn is exactly like The Godfather Part II except that it doesn’t have any gangsters.

The Big Short is essentially a remake of Braveheart except that the main characters don’t wear kilts.

I hope that you realize that I am exaggerating; yet please bear with me while I expand upon my comparisons…  Brooklyn is about the immigrant experience, specifically about a young Irish girl’s experience in Brooklyn, New York circa 1952.  The Godfather Part II is also about a young immigrant who is both a product of and a manipulator of this land of opportunity.   While Brooklyn is exactly one horse head short of being The Godfather Part II, it’s still a pretty decent film.

The Big Short is about underdogs who take on the Big Bad Banks, and as everyone knows underdogs are always good, and banks of any kind (except the Bailey Savings and Loan) are unabashedly evil.  I have exactly two problems with this movie; the first being that it has no purpose for existing.  Nothing new is revealed, nothing is very interesting.  We all know that the banks totally screwed us over, then we bailed them out, and now they’re doing t again.  Sure it’s more complicated than that, but my summary is pretty much all you need to know.  The second problem I have is the intention cutting-short editing; cutting a scene short should have a purpose, not be a style.  So I guess The Big Short has little to do with Braveheart, but maybe I kept you reading.

Jeremiah Johnson and The Revenant

There is nothing that appeals to me about being cold, wet, and sleeping on the ground.  If rugged individualism requires this kind of misery, count me out.  While I admire the skill and determination that is necessary to survive in harsh wilderness conditions, I am confounded as to why anyone would choose this life.  Therein lies my problem with the premises of both Jeremiah Johnson (1972) and The Revenant (2015)… what are these guys doing out there in the first place?  Jeremiah Johnson is a disfranchised veteran looking for a clean start, while Hugh Glass (central character in The Revenant) is a scout for a trapping expedition… both of these guys would have avoided much heartbreak and grief if only they would have invested in a good pair of long-johns and some bear repellent.

My inability to identify with the protagonists robs the films of any emotional effectiveness.  There are elements about both films that I genuinely appreciated, but I was constantly aware that “it’s just a movie” and my appreciation became purely technical.  Both films feature excellent cinematography, and the costumes and makeup contribute to the illusion that the characters are actually when and where the filmmakers purport them to be.  Since I just saw The Revenant last night, I will focus on its technical attributes:  The camerawork and choreography is distractingly amazing; the one-shot technique that was employed in last year’s Birdman (by the same director, Alejandro González Iñárritu) is used here with such virtuosity.  There are no constraints on Iñárritu’s camera.  Of course DiCaprio’s performance is exceptional, but its impact is negligible partly because we have come to expect greatness from him, and partly because the story is shallow.  Tom Hardy occupies the juiciest role; let me suggest that an antagonist in such miserable conditions doesn’t seem quite as evil as he would in civilization.

So if you’re looking for a fun time this weekend, go see The Force Awakens again.