Tag Archives: at the movies

Brett the Wiese vs. Batman v Superman

brett_wiesenaurIn the review of Deadpool on this newsblog, the author noted the slump comic book movies have been in since Marvel has hit their stride. Some may have queried as to why the lack of mention of DC properties in the post-Nolan age. Well, at that time, the public had only been exposed to one entry in the now-expanding DC Film Universe, and that was the terribly flawed Man of Steel. For the past three years, fans and critics alike have been arguing and dissecting Zack Snyder’s vision of Superman with venom, online screaming matches, and shallow low blows, in print as well as in conversation. The film caused a rift between fans of the material, one that still hasn’t quite recovered at the time of the release of the newest entry, also helmed by Snyder.

What does this mean for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? Well, it really depends on who is going to see it. Short version, if you didn’t like 300 or Man of Steel, you will most likely take issue with this film’s continual lack of actual character content in place of EXPLOSIONS! If you just want to see Batman and Superman duke it out mano-a-Supermano, you’re going to be in for a long sit since the climactic battle has a lot of setup. And it gets chaotic narrative-wise long before the anticipated battle.

After a brief prologue recounting Bruce Wayne’s tragic family life, the opening scene plops us back into the climax of Man of Steel, where the now retired from crime-fighting Mr. Wayne (a super-serious Ben Affleck) has arrived to evacuate his Metropolis outlet of Wayne Enterprises. Unfortunately, Superman and his nemesis Zod melt the buildings beams in course of their battle royale and a fair share of Wayne’s employees are killed or maimed. To be frank, the 9/11 imagery is strong with this sequence. Director Snyder seems intent on trying to access some emotional recall by referencing this horrible day in American history like his own version of the Easy Button from Staples. We get it, man! ‘Twas a day that shall live in infamy. Enough!

2988068-bvs-posterAnyway, cut to 18 months later, where Bruce Wayne has returned to the mantle of the Batman, beating sex traffickers and the like to bloody, broken pulps and branding them with Bat symbols as a warning. Across the bay in Metropolis, Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) finds the unlimited reach of the vigilante to be worrisome and strives to editorialize his concern at the Daily Planet, but his editor Perry White (a caustic Laurence Fishburne) is having none of it. Meanwhile, Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is recovering from a spat in a desert country with some terrorists who seemed set on icing the Man of Steel. She discovers a unique brand of firearm was used that, of course, doesn’t match any on record. She heads off to Washington, all while a Congressional committee, headed by a fiery Holly Hunter, is gathering to call out Superman for his selfish and catastrophic actions.

Anywho, billionaire lunatic Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is out to discredit Superman and inspire Batman to rip the Man of Tomorrow a new one in one fell swoop. He discovers in the wreckage of the Kryptonian battleships from the previous film a substance that could prove weakening to Superman. Batman also discovers this and steals said item in order to further his own vendetta against Superman. Thus, a titanic conflict is ignited between the Bat of Gotham and the last son of Krypton. Who will emerge victorious? Do audiences actually care?

There’s a strange sort of moral ambiguity at play that rivals the Batman titles helmed by Tim Burton almost thrity years ago. In those movies, this reviewer likens them to movies of “Batman as played by The Punisher”, seeing as Michael Keaton’s incarnation had no obvious qualms with dropping petty criminals off roofs and blowing up whole factories of bad guys. While not as outlandish as those films stylistically, Batman v Superman still doesn’t hold our heroes to the high standards of previous characterizations.

Superman outright causes collateral damage to the citizens of Metropolis people in the leftover footage from Man of Steel, and then he enters this film by flying an arms dealer through a rock wall and to his screaming end because the poor schmuck pointed a pistol to Lois Lane’s noggin.

Batman also causes some questionably over-powered damage to some henchman using crashed vehicles as missiles and outright blowing some poor villains up with their own weapons of choice. Note that it is not necessarily bad that these two anti-heroes don’t quite have a “no-kill-code” in these iterations, but we as audiences need to have such qualms or lack of established early on rather than popped on us halfway into the film.

As with most movies of the genre, there are great things as well as crummy things in this adaptation of the World’s Finest mythos. Ben Affleck is smugly inspiring as Bruce Wayne, and downright terrifying as Batman. I would argue he makes a better Caped Crusader than the previous titleholder, Christian Bale, if only for the fixing of the Dark Knight’s voice to be more like that of Kevin Conroy’s voice modulations in the classic Batman the Animated Series.

Henry Cavill is passable as the Man of Tomorrow, still struggling with issues held over from the previous film including the death of his Earth father as well as his destructive battle with General Zod. Amy Adams is pleasant to watch, as always, as Lois Lane, lover of Superman and the American way. Holly Hunter is also enjoyable in her brief screen time as seemingly the only person in the country who will say no to both Superman and Lex Luthor.

Speaking of, onto our primary villain of the week: Lex Luthor, as played by Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network). Ho boy, where to begin. To put it plainly, he is awful. We’re talking as-directed-by-Joel-Schumacher levels of badness. He is trying so hard to be quirkily evil, he comes off as spastic and idiotic rather than intimidating. He practically cackles his lines like Caesar Romero would have in the 1966 Batman TV show. He is clearly meant to inspire fear, since he is basically Bruce Wayne with an even more-so misguided savior complex, but since he is so goofy and has only one real sinister moment (involving a jar of urine, of all things), audiences are going to question why this performance is in this movie when it does not mesh. It’s jarring and inspires cringes for all the wrong reasons.

The music in the film is a curio in and of itself being from the same composer as the Dark Knight trilogy as well as Man of Steel, Hans Zimmer. But he brought in industrial composer Junkie XL to work on the Batman half of the score, since Zimmer didn’t want to be tempted to reuse material from the Nolan movies. Aside from some outright theft from classical Profokiev in the crafting of Luthor’s theme, the new music melds well with the chaos onscreen. The scenery has a smidge more color than the previous DC entry, which is a plus. And then there’s Gal Gadot’s glorified cameo as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. Every time she appears, you want to know more about her, which can only mean good things given we will eventually get a Wonder Woman movie out of this. In addition, Jeremy Irons as Alfred takes over well from Michael Caine in previous installments, giving a biting repartee to the relationship between Master Wayne and his loyal butler and confidante. This gives hope that Affleck’s now in-production solo effort as Batman will be a solid step up from this tripe.

Interestingly, for the past week, super-fans have been loudly and venomously reacting to Rotten Tomatoes’ collection of negative reviews against the film, where the film currently sits at a certified Rotten 29% score. These fans are not realizing that RT is not the source of the bad reviews. RT only collects and aggregates the reviews. It is not a grade like in school environments, it is a measurement of how many critics recommend and liked the film.

In short, there is just too much happening in this movie. There are at least 15 storylines crashing together in this film desperately trying to stick in order to set up the Justice League movie in 2017. And it all lands with a dull flop as audiences try to keep track of motivations and actions and catchphrases and ugh! It just gets to be too much, and director Snyder is not skilled enough to streamline the elements into the movie smoothly.

The film still looks grim and bleak, which is fine, but he needs a change in style and aesthetic for a while. He’s not great at comic-book adaptations. He needs a change, to give some other director a chance at saving DC’s cinema properties. But what do I know? The movie’s still going to break the box office and set up sequels simply because of brand recognition. The average moviegoer doesn’t care about quality at this point, they simply want big, bad, superhero brawls, and even then, this movie will skimp on that in the end.

New and Classic Japanese Animations to debut in West Michigan

brett_wiesenauerI love to promote animation from anywhere and everywhere that’s not Disney. Audiences have grown lazy in supporting flicks that don’t descend from the House of Mousecapades. I for one will always look to view things that challenge me asides from hammering messages into me like “RACISM AND CLASSISM ARE BAD, Even With Animals”.

-ahem-
-ahem-

 

Luckily, the next two weekends hold promise to showcase wonderful Japanese treats that, while not implicitly for kids, look like exciting experiences for animation fans and non-followers alike to feel free to dive into.3997_the-boy-and-the-beast_24E7

 

Opening this Friday at Woodland Mall is the latest from Japanese artiste Mamoru Hosoda, The Boy and the Beast. The tale concerns a boy who falls into a strange apprenticeship to Kumatetsu the Beast Lord, who is currently involved in a competition for succession with another beast warrior who is more popular in standing than our Beast Lord.

 

The film was the second-highest grossing film in Japan last year and is from a creative talent who has been honing his skills over the last decade with visually pleasing and stimulating projects like Summer Wars and Wolf Children. As a fan of the whole of the directors work, going back to Digimon The Movie back in 2000, I look forward to exploring a whole different culture (of animal-warrior hierarchy) via the lens of another culture (Japan), and seeing how Hosoda seeks to delight audiences with a good story and unique character archetypes.

 

If you are in the mood for a less fantastic trip into Japanimation-Land, boy do I have good news for you. West Michigan is also receiving a dose of classic, classy Studio Ghibli within the week, in tandem with The Boy and the Beast.

oy_hd_poster

 

Opening at the Kalamazoo Alamo Drafthouse this weekend and spreading to Celebration Cinemas and select AMC theaters on March 11th is a special revival of the previously unreleased-in-America Studio Ghibli work, Only Yesterday. Featuring the voice talents of Star WarsThe Force Awakens ingenue Daisy Ridley and helmed by Ghibli legend Isao Takahata (director of the Oscar-nominated Tale of Princess Kaguya as well as the tearjerker classic Grave of the Fireflies), the film promises to be a beautiful adult tale of nostalgia in youth and adapting to womanhood. Animation circles have whispered on the beauty and grace of Only Yesterday for years, due to it never acquiring proper release outside of Japan due to its non-fantastic story and setting, which is the image Ghibli has presented internationally for most of its filmography.

 

Best of all is the relic quality of Only Yesterday, being released in Japan in 1991, when cel animation and hand-drawn family flicks was still the prominent animation style before computer animation made a hostile takeover thanks to Disney and Friends deciding putting pen to paper was old-hat and wasn’t worth the effort of maintaining. I miss classically drawn epics like the original Sleeping Beauty and Princess Mononoke. I want to see actual effort onscreen rather than glorified computer coding. Yes, computer animation can be impressive, as Tangled and Frozen showed in slow spurts, but due to the shrinking successes of mid-2000s releases like Home on the Range and Princess and the Frog, the Disney studio gutted the hand-drawn department and decided to focus more on computer technologies. But the companies mistook the failure of their products to be good and memorable films as the failure of the medium rather than the product.

 

Hopefully the two flicks will live up to the unearthly expectations I have planted on them as an animation fan.

Oscarwatch 2015: Bridge of Spies VS Carol

brett_wiesenauerOf all the Oscar nominees, Bridge of Spies is the one I’ve been dreading writing about the most. My feelings on the latest Spielberg drama are complicated, due to my internal struggles to classify it by that terrible, outdated binary distinction of it being a “good movie” or a “bad movie”. It’s almost as if my inner film snob is trying to strangle itself, Dr. Strangelove-style.

In terms of technical craft, it is fine.

But I don’t talk technicals in my reviews. I talk about emotions, characters, stories, images, concepts, and interesting and memorable events. And when the first thing that comes to mind after a STEVEN SPIELBERG MOVIE of all things is the technical craft, the alarms start to go off. This is a director whose whole of his image is based in his innate ability to play the audience like the orchestra, swelling emotions like string sections under the hand of maestro John Williams. And yet, here is a film that left me feeling… nothing.

I walked out of the movie acutely aware that a craftsman, whom I have respected as an artist for years, had tried to manipulate my feelings for the characters and story before me, and he failed hard. Like the far, far worse The Danish Girl, I find that the more I think about it, the less I appreciate it. And I just loathed The Danish Girl from frame one save for Alicia Vikander, while initially I did try to defend some of the more troubling aspects of Bridge of Spies as soon as I viewed it before Christmas.

The acting is just unimpressive on the whole. Tom Hanks played his role as you’d expect Tom Hanks to play any role outside of the realm of the Wachowski siblings, and I didn’t care. Amy Ryan as his wife makes no significant impression, whatsoever. Alan Alda makes his rounds as still relevant older actor, yawn. The kid playing Francis Gary Powers, of the U-2 Spy incident, doesn’t make any sort of impact that he’s supposed to. Character actors come and go portraying various degrees of hostility, strong-arming, and intolerance that you’d expect from any message movie.

Of the whole cast of characters, the only one who makes a substantial impression is Academy Award-nominee Mark Rylance as the incriminated spy Rudolf Abel. In a movie filled with stuffy and stale archetypes, he brings a quiet precision to his character, sighing at the complexities of American justice systems prejudiced against any semblance of equality for his petty actions. The direction is where this movie falls short in terms of audience sympathy for the American characters, or any characters actually.

Granted, a good portion of the screenplay was at one point in the hands of the Joel and Ethan, the Coen Brothers. They bring a fast-paced banter to the story that certainly Bridge of Spies Launch One Sheetlifts it above uninvolving period drama and upgrades it to a level of ambition that is still mildly entertaining, just not successful in winning me over. That being said, classy banter does not a good movie make. Take for example the 1992 remake of the classic, low-budget noir Detour; that movie had an excellent hard-boiled script, but the actors just couldn’t handle it and the movie completely fails as thriller and drama. The difference between Bridge of Spies and Hail, Caesar is there were characters and situations that intrigued me in the latter, while I was nearly bored to tears in Spies.

The direction is where I realized just how unhappy I was with the movie. Spielberg tries on multiple occasions to grab on to emotions that were nonexistent on my end throughout. At the big trial, Tom Hanks makes a grand old speech for liberty and justice for all, and it lands with a hollow thud. I wasn’t swayed to his side as I should have been because I was already there. I believe in liberty and justice for all, this isn’t that ethically dubious, spy or no spy. Later on, we view youths in East Germany being gunned down as they attempt to cross the Berlin Wall. And again, it felt hollow. I felt like I was getting reheated outtakes from Schindler’s List, in a lesser package. I felt Spielberg simply going through the motions rather than making an honest effort.

The reason I mentioned technicals above is that, on paper, this film works fine. The editing, camera work, sound, music all do their jobs, but they overshadowed the lacking sense of story and investment/stakes. That is the sign of a truly flawed script and directorial duties. Trying to get involved in the storytelling and coming up empty save for “it looked nice, and sounded nice” is not the reaction this movie needed.

~Now let’s change gears and talk about a truly excellent movie that was snubbed in categories Bridge of Spies picked up.~

Carol is a much smaller scale movie than the latest Spielberg project, being the tale of a unique relationship ignited between an amateur photographer/full-time department store clerk and a married housewife. The film stars Rooney Mara of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Social Network fame, alongside screen demigoddess Cate Blanchett, two-time Oscar-winner and patron saint of screen actors, whom audiences may recognize from the Lord of the Rings saga and The Monuments Men.

The story does concern itself with certain subjects that are still in contention throughout much of the United States. The unique relationship of mention is a close friendship that does evolve into lesbianism. The first hour is foreplay and character buildup for the ingénue Therese (pronounced Teh-rezz) and the lovely titular Carol Aird. The film doesn’t jump headlong into the intimacies of the bedroom, rather it explores the intimacies of female relationships in the early 1960s.

003

The acting is utterly top-notch. Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are radiant whenever they get a chance to steal the focus from Ed Lachman’s gorgeous photography. Also along for the narrative are Kyle Chandler as Harge, Carol’s estranged husband and Sarah Paulson as Carol’s best friend and confidante, Abby. The characters transcend their performers and take on actual existence on the screen, which is the goal of all great film performances. Under careful, consolidated direction from Todd Haynes, the cast work alongside one another, moving the story along at a good pace, keeping the performances front and center in tandem with the imagery and Carter Burwell’s ingenious scoring.

Seriously, the music is incredible. As much as I loved the thrilling tones of Ennio Morricone’s soundtrack to The H8ful Eight, I feel the score to Carol is so much more moving and deserving of recognition. The score is most certainly Mr. Burwell’s most Burwellian score, since Fargo at the least. The best way to describe it is an Adagio for Love as influenced by Phillip Glass. The strings and piano combine to form a perfect ode of nostalgia and melodrama, like one’s memory of a first love.

Topping off my list of exquisite elements of Carol is the imagery, delivered through the lens of Oscar-nominated Ed Lachman. The film was shot on Super 16 millimeter film, exuding a sense of being shown a private stash of home movies. The generous amount of soft lighting and truly lush color adds to the dream-like quality of the pictures. I mentioned H8ful Eight previously, and I have to say, even with all of Tarantino’s grandstanding about his use of 70-mm film in that project, methinks this little film about love makes a better case for preservation of physical film elements than that film did in all of its bloated three hours.

Unlike Bridge of Spies, I was fully invested in the love story on-screen from the minute we are introduced to Carol and Therese. There wasn’t a single moment where I lost interest in what was unfolding between the lovers and struggled to reattach my attention to anything, be it a filmmaking or storytelling element. Through the emotional journey audiences are transported on, the romantic tension and surprising amount of dramatic involvement will catch audiences off guard.

See, Carol is going through a divorce over the course of the film, and her husband Harge does not approve of the relationship she initiates with young Therese. There is a single moment shortly past the halfway point where a betrayal takes place that truly puts the stakes of Carol’s marriage into focus. With such stakes present, the hardest of hearts will be hard-pressed to honestly say they can’t relate to Carol’s decisions, regardless of her lifestyle choices.

The Academy most ungraciously passed Carol over for Best Picture and Best Director. Initially, I felt
shocked and disturbed by the omissions. But then I thought about the Academy’s history with LGBTQ projects and then it hit me. The previous projects of queer intrigue recognized by AMPAS all contained a significant arc of tragedy. Brokeback Mountain, The Imitation Game, Midnight Cowboy, Dallas Buyers Club, and Milk were nominated for Best Picture, but only Midnight Cowboy took home the statuette, and all ended poorly for their characters. The sole exception to this pattern being 2010’s The Kids are All Right, but since that was a comedy, which the Academy has a terrible history of overlooking, it received nothing for its efforts.

Carol is not by any means a tragedy; it is a tad harrowing at times, but the tone of the film is not one of “woe is me, for I am queer”. And actually, the focus is not on the genders, but on the romance, something more queer movies should take note of. It’s an update on the Romeo and Juliet story with the tragic bits replaced with that of 1950s and 60s high melodrama, which director Todd Haynes mastered previously in the Best Director-nominated Far from Heaven.

The point of it all is that instead of gracing a daring and matter-of-fact presentation of queer romance with well-earned recognition, the Academy went with the lazy, easy choice of nominating the old-hat, typical choice that only points to how outdated and out-of-sync the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are with increasingly progressive movie audiences. For an organization that previously gave big awards and recognition to the likes of 12 Years a Slave and Philadelphia, the Oscars seem to act more like they are filling thematic quotas rather than actively recognizing quality film efforts that just so happen to push boundaries.

HAIL, CAESAR: A Classy Throwback to Golden Age Tinseltown

brett_wiesenauerThe Brothers Coen, or Coen Brothers as most describe them, are back in the out-and-proud business of entertainment with a rambunctious ride of a comedy, in the vein of Raising Arizona and the cult phenomenon that is The Big Lebowski. Their latest, Hail, Caesar!, is a period piece/melodrama/screwball comedy hybrid that functions as a nostalgia-driven look back at the celebrated Golden Age of Hollywood that produced epics along the likes of Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments, as well as the cheesy, but classy musicals featuring Esther Williams, Gene Kelly, and that guitar-playing gaucho, Roy Rogers.

 

Our leading player, Eddie Mannix, played to worn perfection by Josh Brolin, is a “fixer”, a man whose talents are put to use sniffing out and snuffing out potential scandals before they happen. A typical day involves a morning confessional at church, on-the-run schedule dictation with his world-weary secretary, multiple phone calls with studio heads and big-wig power players to keep the films on schedule, and meetings with actors and directors to work out their personal gripes.

 

On this day of days, a big name leading male star is kidnapped from his trailer, and that’s only the beginning of the shenanigans. Not only does Eddie have to pay ransom money for his missing male lead, he also has to deal with a furious director unsatisfied with his actors’ abilities, a pregnant starlet whose image is dependent on the public not finding out about her previous marriages and mishaps, twin gossip columnists on the prowl for juicy scoops, and on top of all that, he still has to make it home in time for dinner with the wife.

Eddie Mannix, the 'fixer' (Josh Brolin) Source: twitter.com/HailCaesarMovie
Eddie Mannix, the ‘fixer’ (Josh Brolin) Source: twitter.com/hailcaesarmovie

 

This film gets how to make a complicated narrative interesting to unravel, and still navigable without a color-coded map of characters, partially because they already are by their costumes. The Hollywood players wear suits to work, the mermaid has a tail, the kidnapped lead looks like a cosplayer from ancient Rome, and the song-and-dance men are all gussied up in their sailor outfits.

 

The cast of characters is eccentric to say the least, with a sizable portion of the film put aside to detail the confusingly offbeat path set for one Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), prominent star of singing cowboy B-movies, who is suddenly thrust into a big and fancy, A-list prestige picture, complete with tuxes and tails. Doyle struggles to make do, but it’s obvious to all that he’s out of his element. But, a chance meeting with Eddie in his office leads to Hobie getting involved in tracking down the missing Baird Whitlock. Of all the key characters, Hobie is the only one truly intertwined with the kidnapped George Clooney story, unlike what the trailer sold to audiences: an all-star team-up of Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Tilda Swinton, and Jonah Hill to rescue George Clooney.

 

Many have accused the movie of being uneven and not unjustly so, as the film juggles many plot lines, mostly played for grins, dealing in sexy scandals, undercover communists, and kidnappings behind the scenes of a major Hollywood studio, Capitol Pictures. The story meanders around and jumps to different locations and character point of views as much as most rambling stories told to us by friends do. But, realistically, the changes in tone and pace make sense, as the main character is being escorted from problem to problem in the expectation that he can “fix” it with minimal trouble, but that’s not always the case.

 

One single, simple case of covering up an unwanted pregnancy ends up involving two trips to a law office to scope out legal solutions and a visit to a sound stage where the potential father is directing a musical sequence. Not all problems nowadays come in single events or day lengths. Some days, problems just proceed to pile on top of another until the poor schmo of problematic stature throws up his hands and reaches for the hooch. This is a filmed version of one of those days, and it’s being treated like it’s unbelievable fantasy. Harsh.

 

A particularly memorable sequence involves Eddie organizing a meet-up between local religious leaders to discuss whether the appearance of The Christ in the titular film would be considered tasteful by audiences of faith. “So a Protestant Minister, a Rabbi, an Orthodox Priest, and a full-blooded Catholic walk into a movie studio…”, you see where I’m going with this? The dialogue crackles with dry, witty barbs and argumentative personalities who just can’t agree on who The Christ was in context of the film, instead picking apart the stunts in the script for being “unbelievable”. It’s a really fun scene that makes the film feel heightened in hilarity, yet grounded in realistic human personalities. Late in the film, an actor, crucified on high, is asked whether he is a principal or extra by the lunch organizer. The actor wearily replies with uncertainty, as if to say even the cast doesn’t quite know what’s going on, which is a nice touch.Hail,_Caesar!_Teaser_poster

 

The movie itself looks fantastic. Roger Deakins, up for an Oscar this year for his haunting work on SICARIO (a vastly different Josh Brolin movie), brings a true touch of class to the proceedings, providing lush and vibrant recreations of Hollywood Old with a new twist. The cast plays well together, with not just the big established stars turning in great performances, from the likes of Clooney, Johannson, and Jonah Hill. The up-and-coming support shine through the action, with special mention to Alden Ehrenreich as the sure-footed cowpoke suddenly thrust into stardom. Besides Brolin and Clooney, not everyone else shares a lot of the screen time, with Brolin rushing from problem to problem and Clooney staring bewildered at his mischievously political captors from time to time. There’s a cute moment with Coen Bros. veteran Frances McDormand showing up as a chain smoking editor locked in a suite with her current project, the prestige picture that Hobie was thrust onto. But it is mostly a “hey, it’s [that actor]” kinda movie, with two kind of central characters navigating a never-ending pool of eccentrics.

 

Hail, Caesar! is a worthy addition to the Coen catalogue of manic and truly original works that straddle genre boundaries and don’t care if the audience can keep up with its brand of joyful noise. It rockets along at a gleeful pace and just packs in the homages to everything from Anchors Aweigh to Ben-Hur. I have a feeling this could be the Grand Budapest Hotel of 2016; it comes out early, entertains the crowds, and silently pokes its head up around Oscar season to snag some Oscar nominations later in the year.

 

If you are in the mood for a jolly old time revisiting the tone and imagery of Hollywood Classics of old, this movie will thoroughly entertain. If you are in a No Country for Old Men mood, you best stay home and watch the Coen’s version of True Grit, or the bleaker Josh Brolin movie, SICARIO.

Oscarwatch 2015: ROOM

brett_wiesenauerOf the Academy Award nominees out and about this season, Brooklyn and Room are the two that are fighting against the bigger tent-pole projects that the studios are hedging their bets on, solidified with big budgets, big names attached, and saucy subject matter that grabs attention easily. The smaller projects have more to prove with tighter stories, up-and-coming talent, and much less promotional material compared to studio powerhouses such as The Big Short and The Revenant. This is not to say “big studios are undeserving”, but indie movies have to struggle in order to earn their own awards and accolades.

room-exclusive-clip
Jacob Tremblay and Brie Larson, a boy and his “Ma”

 

Alongside Brooklyn, Room is seemingly the movie to beat when it comes to the Best Actress race. With Room, the film concerns Jack, played with hesitant wonder by the young Jacob Tremblay, and his “Ma” (Brie Larson), who live in “Room”, a very small enclosure somewhere on the property of their guardian “Old Nick”. Jack has just turned 5 and celebrates with exercise and a birthday cake. Unbeknownst to Jack, “Ma” is not a willing resident of Old Nick. She was kidnapped by Nick over 7 years before, who impregnated her with Jack. The only thing that keeps Ma, whose real name is Joy, around is her undying love for her child. Since Nick has fortified the garden shed where they are kept with a special pair of doors that only open when Nick is around, Joy comes clean to Jack about the world that lies outside the shed where they are trapped. Jack, who has only known the “Room” all his life, doesn’t believe her and “wants to hear a different story”.

 

[(SPOILERS AHEAD)] In a last-ditch effort to escape, Joy comes up with a dangerous plan to fake Jack’s death and when Nick takes the boy’s body out, Jack can find the authorities to help. By the luck of a careful pedestrian, the effort succeeds, and after a brief stint in the hospital, the two are deposited at Joy’s mother’s house where they are descended upon by journalists. The remainder of the film deals with Joy and Jack coming to terms with life outside of the “Room”, and how they both deal with the new outside forces that neither of them had any intention of attracting. [(SPOILERS END)]

 

Like plenty of the other nominees, the key strength of the movie is in the performances rather than Lenny Abrahamson’s direction or storyline. Frankly, the story is glorified Lifetime channel movie material, literally ripped-from-the-headlines, as Emma Donoghue’s seminal book that she adapted herself for the screen was based on a lurid case of kidnapping that’s actually even more disturbing than the novel and movie are.

 

The director’s previous film was the delightfully offbeat musical comedy Frank about a band led by the eccentric titular character, dressed in a paper-mâché mask/head. In jumping to hard-hitting drama, Mr. Abrahamson is most certainly attempting to broadcast a talent for handling all types of movies, comic and dramatic. Granted, this is his 5th feature film, according to Wikipedia.

 

Brie Larson is a pillar of resilience in Room. Having done her time in the romantic comedies and bit parts in Big Hollywood movies, she has been biding her time, waiting for something to grab and make her own. And with 2013’s indie darling Short Term 12 and Room, she has made her presence known to the Hollywood establishment at large. That being said, she has a genre-spanning career, having appeared alongside Amy Schumer last year in Trainwreck, as a smoldering ex in Scott Pilgrim vs The World, and with Ma Newsome under her belt, she’s made it clear her acting prowess is something to behold.

 

Ma is memorable because of her balance of strength and vulnerability. Every scene is a balancing act along the lines of her keeping her mind sharp and being there for little Jack. Her skin reflects the pallor of one who has had no view of the sun for years, her eyes water constantly, but she keeps a smile on to ensure her son’s safe rearing and both of their survivals. In her dulled eyes are the personality of a woman near the breaking point, risking it all on a last ditch attempt for survival. Like Hugh Glass in The Revenant, she has moments where she breaks, but it is brief and never the real focus of the story, since at the heart, this is Jack’s tale.

 

Jacob Tremblay is a marvel as Jack, the precocious, yet exploratory child that’s yet to experience the world and its grand offerings. Many critics have complained of the irritating shrillness given by Jack at times, and those people obviously have no idea how children actually act out. Children are not just packages of smiles and laughs, not properly brought up children anyway. There is variance in their moods and behaviors. much like adults, but their emotions have more extreme poles of expression. And Tremblay nails the portrayal of a boy who, while possibly stunted, is still learning about the world and willing to explore, with his Ma of course.

room_xxlg-500x500

The film is not without detracting elements. The first half of the film is a closed off thriller, and the second half talky drama about feelings and experiences. These two halves don’t mesh very well as a whole product, and it’s not the fault of the director or the writer. It just feels off, and they tried to make it work. The best way I can explain it is you feel like you’re connected to these characters for the first half by umbilical, but after that passes, that connection is weakened due to the decrease in stakes. But on the bright side, Abrahamson has assembled a fine cast for support, including character actors Joan Allen and William H. Macy as Joy’s parents, worried beyond sick over the years of her imprisonment. Orphan Black cast member Tom McCamus adds solid support as Leo, Joan Allen’s new husband after separating from Joy’s father, finding moments to connect with young Jack over food and dogs.

 

To conclude, Room is a flawed film anchored by 2 stellar lead performances and a solid cast and script. While it won’t remain revered as a classic example of 2015 filmmaking, it is certainly worth a watch.

Brett the Wiese Champions the Un-Nominated Awards Contenders

brett_wiesenauerBrett’s Personal Picks: Championing the Un-Nominated

It is awards season, so I just gotta give some love to the flicks that the big Tinseltown award parades passed by, undeservedly so. Here be the nominations that Hollywood messed up, plain and simple.

Achievement in Sound Editing: Love and Mercy

l&m15

As much as I adored the hellish machinations of the sound crew on FURY ROAD, I choose to champion the smaller movie that got absolutely no love at the Globes or the Oscars. Love and Mercy, the Brian Wilson biopic, was a truly engrossing and emotional journey through the life experience of the boy genius behind the Beach Boys. Paul Dano, John Cusack, Elizabeth Banks, and Paul Giamatti were great performers in the film, but the highlight was the sound score. Not simply the music, but the soundscapes that emulate the inner workings of Wilson’s musical intuition that permeates the movie like an anarchic blanket that constantly buzzes, hums, throbs, and rattles over and under the action. It provided a perfect aural compliment to the musical charms and the emotional peaks and valleys that were presented over the course of the film’s length. By all means look for this one. I’m sorry to have missed it in theaters.

Best Production Design +Costume Design, Crimson Peak

Crimson-Peak-The-Art-of-Darkness-2

The artists who land the gig of working for Guillermo del Toro are among the most blessed individuals working in the industry, exponentially moreso than Kirk Cameron can claim to be. The settings and properties even outside of the massive mansion are dripping with period specificity. The film reeks of both Hammer horror and Victorian Sears Roebuck catalogue. Taking the horror elements out of the discussion, the film just looks right. The halls are as spooky as what you’d expect of a creepy mansion. The cities look classy, yet still natural without too much whitewashing of the presence of little things like mud and clay. And the costuming is simply superb, all threads looking lived in and actually wearable unlike those that Disney has it’s feminine characters clad in. It is a delight to see a slight case of naturalism injected into costuming, because your brain tends to flag things that just don’t look right in costuming, but Guillermo and his staff are already way ahead of that curve. I really need to own The Art of Darkness, the concept art book where I got the image from.

Best Supporting Actress of the Year: TIE Jessica Chastain, Crimson Peak + Alicia Vikander, Ex Machina

Both actresses had busy years, with Chastain pulling in double duty with Ridley Scott’s The Martian, and Vikander having the busy year to rival Ex Machina co-star Domhnall Gleeson, with roles in The Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Danish Girl, and Ex Machina. While Ms. Vikander is nominated for an Oscar for Danish Girl, I will argue to the last day that she was nominated for the wrong role, much like Leo is going to win for the wrong role. She only stood out in Danish Girl because her level of talent and ability was too good for that incredibly hollow and lackluster movie. I will say that she is an adorable dancer, though.

On the other hand, Chastain was the stand-out of the ensemble of Guillermo del Toro’s ode to gothic romance and ghost stories, exhibiting a mad tenacity reminiscent of the golden age of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford that some might call “scenery-chewing”, but I refer to as insanely entertaining acting. Every time Chastain’s Lucille Sharpe appeared on screen, all eyes are immediately on her, for fear if you don’t pay close attention she’ll sneak up and whisk you off to oblivion. Both actresses sent chills down my spine in an age when most movies are lucky to get someone pretty in them that can read lines with half-decent conviction. Alas, no one listens to the court jester when the enemies are at the gate. They’ll learn eventually.

Best Supporting Actor of the Year: Tom Hardy, Mad Max FURY ROAD

*Most probably expect me to go with Benicio del Toro in recognition of his harrowing turn in SICARIO, and while I did admire Benicio’s work, I take into account that he’s already won an Oscar before. My specialty is supporting those who have not yet been recognized; on that note, Tom Hardy!

Mister Hardy has proven to be a force of nature on-set, off-set, and online. And as with Vikander above, he is nominated for The Revenant. But I will argue he is actually more deserving for carrying the torch from Mel Gibson rather well in portraying “Mad” Max Rockatansky. He still has the anti-social ticks, the subdued to the point of repressed emotional responses, and the animalistic swagger that made Mad Max well and truly mad in all senses of the wording. Most viewers will tell you, Max is very much a supporting presence in the movie, though still important nonetheless. His name may be on the title but it could have easily been called simply FURY ROAD, had the bean-counters at Warner Brothers not insisted on name-dropping the franchise because why treat your audience like they are smart when you can double down and bet on the unintelligent flocking to your movie like sheep? Funny, CREED seemed to draw in crowds without Rocky Balboa’s name on the marquee…

One of the most memorable aspects of Miller’s epic action-fest was the smaller moments dealing with Max’s internal demons, taking form of a type of post-traumatic stress disorder, accentuating the times that he’s failed to save others from the dangers of the unruly Wasteland. These moments could easily have been throwaway moments, but they build to payoff after emotional payoff that only confirm the solidarity of Georgie’s storytelling and the wonderful dramatic presence that is Tom Hardy, Esquire. As good as Fitzgerald turned out in Alejandro’s brutally bloated take on the western, without Hardy or a similar Nick Nolte level of performer, the character would have simply come and gone as a decent villain archetype. Max needed proper and considered care in order to translate properly into a new generation, and Miller and Hardy undoubtedly succeeded in giving him that.

 Best Screenplay: CREED, Ryan Coogler & Aaron Covington

People went into CREED expecting only the bare essentials of a Rocky-caliber movie, and most crowds came out shocked and pumped. Coogler and his partner-in-crime Covington didn’t falter in keeping the spirit of Rocky Balboa’s Philadelphia alive, while infusing it with a fresh and culturally diverse perspective that is lacking in too much of the current Hollywood fare. He acknowledges the past work while ushering in a sense of new directions for the denizens of Philly. The opening scene alone deserves a mention for never stepping to the level of cheese or corny revelations that Stallone may have infused it with had he directed or written it. Nothing against Sly, but his writing style would not have meshed well with what Coogler was trying to convey in CREED.

Best Actress: Charlize Theron, Mad Max FURY ROAD

furThe Academy has always had a problem with recognizing exceptional performances in genre films. The only exceptions have been in such films that have art-house origins, typically in their director, such as in the case of that little science fiction called G R A V I T Y a couple years ago. Charlize Theron truly owns FURY ROAD hand in hand with the visionary director George Miller. Her Furiosa marches, fights, and screams like a primal being from the tribal days. She is the main driving force of the story line. Furiosa’s sense of maternal anguish over the women in her care and the obstacles she has to hurdle are palpable just by a glimpse of her eyes and body language. She tries to keep it together, but she has moments of wavering, and it is devastating each and every time. It doesn’t hurt that she is also the legendary Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley levels of badass, coincidentally an Oscar-nominated performance. <– The More You Know

Point is, you don’t mess with Charlize Theron, period. I know she’s already won an Oscar as well, but her work as Furiosa was an exceptional performance that redefines the scope of action heroine. She transcends the mere confines of action cinema and becomes an key emotional center for the film, alongside the Wives she protects, with her mechanical arm.

Best Actor: Michael B. Jordan, CREED

Of all the snubs that the Oscars could easily have avoided if they had made the effort, this one stings the most. Michael B. Jordan has been working his way up the figurative Hollywood ladder for a few years now, and unfortunately his 2015 resume was stained by the flop of Fant4stic, which certain critics, whose voice does not matter, will blame on the diverse casting of Johnny Storm in part. Frankly, an actor paired with a horrible script and sub-par direction is doomed to appear incompetent. With CREED, Jordan reunites with Ryan Coogler who directed him in his freshman effort, Fruitvale Station. And Jordan brings all the emotions to the forefront in his portrayal of the illegitimate offspring of legendary boxer Apollo Creed. Young Adonis has some abandonment issues, struggles with his personal anger and loneliness, and is not at all the gold-hearted bum like Rocky Balboa. And it never paints him as a jerk, with all his problems. He’s troubled, but not a bully. And that’s just what CREED needed in its protagonist.

Best Director: Ryan Coogler, CREED

As mentioned previously, Coogler’s handling of the Rocky universe really blindsided audiences and critics alike. As with his scripting, he keeps the material fresh through his kinetic sense of storytelling that hurdles over cliches like the pavement Adonis speeds down in training. The choices of direction shine within, never overshadowing the material like Alejandro’s visionary flourishes tend to in the likes of previous Best Picture BiRDMAN. He handles the camera similar to how Michigan-native Sam Raimi directed The Evil Dead in 1980, directing as if this was his last chance, though Coogler never strives into the extravagant as Raimi most likely would have. There are a few long takes in CREED, but they feel right for the narrative and don’t cry out for attention like certain directors would make them. They function more like fun Easter eggs that add to film lovers’ enjoyments on re-watches. Coogler was overlooked for Fruitvale Station back in 2013 and now it’s happened again. I hope this isn’t a shoddy pattern you’re starting, Academy.

Best Animated Feature: The PEANUTS Movie

I know I gave Inside Out a glowing review back in the day, and I do stand by that it is a marvelous comeback for PIXAR Animation. But, upon rewatch, several character and narrative flaws became evident that I was too starstruck to notice the first couple times I saw the film. That being said, the lifelong Charles Schulz fan in me will not stop promoting this gem of a film that was overlooked in favor of the PIXAR powerhouse, another example of how Disney just has the Oscars in their pocket. This film gets childhood like Inside Out gets mental development. But PEANUTS deals with interpersonal relations, carrying itself with good humor, fun for all ages to enjoy, and truly unpredictable aerial battles that give every recent war movie a run for its money. What makes me push for its recognition even more so is Blue Sky’s charming update of the classic PEANUTS animation style. The animation kept the style classic enough to keep audiences recognizing the classic characters, updating it but never pushing into the uncanny valley like PIXAR and Disney has been notable at fumbling into. All this present in a movie that at its heart is about a boy and his dog. What a film.

me_and_earl_4_large

Best Comedy: Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

Yes, yes. Trainwreck was surprisingly good considering the track record of Judd Apatow and co., and it undoubtedly was the most popular comedy at the box office this year, but this is not a measurement of the popular picks. This is a subjective article on what some pudgy, Caucasian film snob from the Midwest thought of the cinematic year. That said, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is like a lost Wes Anderson coming-of-age film set in a high school filled to the brim with teens at the peak of their inherent awkwardness. This story of a socially misanthropic amateur filmmaker who befriends a leukemia-stricken classmate is told with the goofiest of hearts and honest themes that grip your heartstrings and takes no prisoners. Beware of films with “thematic elements”; those are the flicks that’ll give y’all the feels. And your cheeks will be very teary by close, thanks in part to the humor and the great characters you feel for.

 Best Horror Film: Crimson Peak

crimson_peak_logo_1050_591_81_s_c1

The absolute best thing about watching Crimson Peak is the sense of detail and history that the director and his crew infuse everything with. Every set dressing feels real and like it was plucked from the best preserved Edwardian-era home on Long Island. Every costume breathes and ruffles appropriately without looking like it was just picked up from the local Kostume Room. The mood seeps through the celluloid and drips into your bones, like a harsh wind that subtly makes its way across the countryside. The cast glides through the brilliantly composed settings like specters of an age gone by. The sounds that reverberate down the cavernous halls of Allerdale Hall are super effective, like ice chips in homemade ice cream. And now every critic supreme will jump down my throat, demanding to know why It Follows, the obvious pick, isn’t sitting atop this title. Meanwhile, I’ll be enjoying myself just revisiting another Guillermo-helmed meisterwerk. More for me.

Best Science Fiction: Ex Machina

Ixm15 will never get the Academy’s attitude against the science fiction and fantasy genre, as I’m sure there is a dedicated group petitioning for The Force Awakens to be nominated simply for not being disappointing as the previous entries. But this little film from the writer of the acclaimed zombie actioner 28 Days Later and bloody superhero reboot DREDD (a personal favorite of mine) stunned all with its lurking sense of curious anxiety. As the protagonist further studies Ava, the artificial intelligence created by an arrogant software baron, he comes to question his own station in life and the hierarchy of first-world humanity and the toys they create. Long story short, the film makes you think about the world we live in by making us slightly uncomfortable with the advances we are making in technology. Alicia Vikander is perfect as Ava, Domhnall Gleeson makes a great protagonist, and Oscar Isaac is also a likable sleaze as the carefree whizkid who plays God with his circuit boards and “wetware” android brains. The film’s pretty neo/post-modern architecture adds to the isolation of the mood, and director Alex Garland’s ingenious scripting just tightens the screws until the audience has no choice but to squirm.

crl15

Best Drama/Best Picture: Carol

Undoubtedly the biggest missed opportunity of this year’s award nominations, apparent racial discrimination aside. This small-scale romance about the affair between an affluent, but troubled mother and a department store ingenue was a perfect theatrical experience. The performances from screen goddesses Blanchett and Rooney Mara, plus roles by cult favorite Sarah Paulson, and television’s Kyle Chandler were spot-on and heartfelt, never straying into one- or two-dimensional caricature. The imagery was lustrous and just stunning from frame one. The music was the most ingeniously Burwellian thing Mr. Carter Burwell has ever composed. And to top it all off, the film is the perfect length. I can’t think of a single extraneous scene or situation that needed trimming. It is so rare to find a film that doesn’t overstay its welcome in the age of 3-hour length Transformers sequels and pretty but overblown Oscar-bait. If you haven’t yet, by all means see this movie before it disappears. CAROL deserves the big screen appreciation.

 And, for the pièce de résistance:

Best Stuntwork, Mad Max FURY ROAD

What gives Academy? You have been flaking out on stunt performers for decades, and they actually made several of your movies classics. John Ford’s Stagecoach is legendary for the climactic chase with the Apaches, with guns a’smokin’ and performers leaping off and flying off horses. The Matrix owes its success solely to its originality in its stunt-work. Jason fricking Statham has been lobbying for recognition for stunt performers for years, and y’all just sit there pouting, refusing to acknowledge the people who actually risk their fragile well-beings for the sake of your entertainment. I anxiously await the day all the out-of-touch troglodytes are shuffled out of the system and we can retroactively give these people the respect and honor that the SAG Awards can manage to recognize, but the Hollywood Foreign Press and AMPAS are too self-centered to honor. Take my advice and don’t look both ways when crossing the street, you ungrateful snobs.

CREED: The Best Picture Not Recognized

brett_wiesenauerAmong the many films up for Academy Awards at the end of this month, there has been minor uproar over the lack of colored persons nominated for anything at all in the major categories. I briefly discussed my thoughts in my review of that hollowed out DiCaprio frontier vehicle. And again I iterate, this could have been easily resolved on two fronts: I- Giving Straight Outta Compton a Best Picture nomination for the sake of appeasing the crowds who flocked to it. II- Give Creed a Best Director and Best Actor nomination.

Now, to be fair, I had only read opinions at the time on the latest Rocky Balboa-verse installment. But, I had not yet seen the film to adequately surmise its merits.And I am here to stand by those words as I have now seen Creed, and I must say I did not expect to enjoy it nearly as much as I did. Not to say I expected to dislike it, not at all. But over the years of viewing the Rocky Balboa franchise, I never was truly struck with the story of the boxing worlds greatest underdog, aside from the classic first entry. The first two movies are considered classics in their own right, telling Rocky Balboa’s tale with care and tenderness, but quickly devolved into silly, showy camp once Stallone took over directing duties, starting with ROCKY III. True, he has been the one behind the writing and conception of the character, but sometimes creators need a bit of distance between their darlings and them.

The exception to the silliness was the seeming conclusion to the franchise, 2006’s Rocky Balboa, where the tone was much more morose and Lazarus-esque, with Rocky having lost his wife to cancer in between the last movie and had truly retired from the world of prize-fighting to be a restaurateur. The sixth entry had a tone much closer to the initial film, focusing on Balboa’s relationships to old friends and his family rather than the outlandish fight situations he manages to land himself in. True, there was a fight at the center of the picture, but the story was much more based in Rocky recognizing his paternal relations with his son and the one he has with his community at large. Seemingly, Stallone was content with retiring Balboa with that entry, ending it with a sense of grace not too common in today’s big and bombastic film community.

Ryan Coogler had other ideas, apparently. And with Creed, he injects fresh vitality into the weathered Rocky Balboa universe. Instead of remaking the original film as any other director or studio would have happily done, Coogler takes the risk of telling a side story, one taking place in the same shared universe and community of a franchise, but focusing on entirely new characters with connective appearances by key characters from the original franchise, in this case the only living in-universe lead, Rocky himself.creed

The new film focuses on young Adonis “Donnie” Johnson (Michael B. Jordan, Fant4stic, Fruitvale Station), illegitimate son of Rocky’s sparring partner Apollo Creed, who was killed in the ring during the events of Rocky IV. Johnson grew up in and out of foster care, until finally being discovered as a pre-teen by Creed’s wife, Mary Anne, and taken in to her home. As an adult, he nurtures a talent in the ring, and leaves for Philadelphia when L.A. refuses his services. He connects with Rocky Balboa at his restaurant over Creed’s memory and eventually Balboa comes to appreciate the fiery fighting man. Adonis starts romancing a local songstress and starts to train for small-time events to hone his skills. After his parentage is revealed in the aftermath of his first showcase, an opportunity comes to Johnson for a major headlining fight against world light heavyweight champion “Pretty” Ricky Conlan, where Adonis hopes to go the distance, as Balboa did in the initial Rocky.

Once upon a time, George Lucas infamously said of his Star Wars series, “it’s like poetry, they sort of rhyme” in reference to recurring plot developments and action set pieces. Now, The Force Awakens has received reasonable amounts of criticism for seemingly rehashing the storyline of much of the original STAR WARS for a multitude of its plot and structure. Arguably, Creed could be seen to suffer from the same problem, but here’s the thing that prevents me from calling both films lazy: differences in approach and the journey itself. In Episode VII, JJ Abrams had to keep the grounds familiar to fans of the franchise while taking baby steps in a different direction for the franchise, which he did.

Creed starts out a wholly different creature from the Rocky franchise as possible, a study of a young man struggling to make a name for himself doing what he enjoys and has a knack for. While Adonis does not quite have the ability to take punishment like Rocky could in his prime, he does have a constantly sensitive rage boiling underneath his seemingly zen demeanor. His is a story about finding and nurturing your talents with the right supervision, much like the original Rocky, with nods to Balboa in Creed acting as mentor to “Donnie” as Burgess Meredith’s Mickey did originally. As mentioned, there are parallels in this film, with the long shot chance to prove his worth being the most obvious, along with the rigorous training ol’ Rock puts Johnson through while Donnie simultaneously finds love with Bianca, a level-headed musician played with compassion by up-and-comer Tessa Thompson.

Most audiences and Academy patrons would write this film off as a Stallone comeback vehicle alone that just happens to continue with a black protagonist, but that is being unfair and cynical. Rocky has had comebacks before, and so has Stallone, proving his dramatic chops with choice titles such as Cop Land and First Blood. This movie does give Rocky a choice role, but he is not the focal point. If there is one, it’s shared by both Adonis and Balboa equally, as it is primarily Johnson’s story that happens to lead to Philadelphia, and Rocky by association. Coogler takes the existing material and takes what he wants freely from the mythos of the Balboa backstory, but fashions it into a lively and reborn sports drama that thrums with energy and skilled visual storytelling, one of my soft spots.

The prologue where we meet young Adonis in juvenile detention and learn of his parentage is shot not sappily, as Stallone may have, but honestly and it cuts to the title at the perfect moment. Immediately we are thrown into the seedy prize fights in Tijuana, where the now-grown Johnson seeks his sport. There are a couple of solid long takes during the fights that truly put audiences in the ring with the fighters almost as if participating as an unofficial referee, dodging hulking masses of muscle and spinning around the fighters without making viewers queasy.

Coogler crafts a magnificent picture more than worthy of awards attention, never stooping to the clichés creed_movie_poster_1that the Rocky franchise has set the stage for in previous years. There is never a sense that the writers insert conflict for the sake of scripting, the foils and foibles are organic to the characters and their faults. The camerawork is simply splendid. Michael B. Jordan was robbed of an awards nomination for no obvious reason. Eddie Redmayne has no standing for the Oscar this year compared to Jordan’s living, breathing sense of ferocious ingenious. He broods, lashes out at his loved ones, cries for recognition as his own man, not just living in his father’s immense shadow of legacy. And Stallone also has his moments of quiet understanding, watching Adonis as a sort of reflection of himself as a young fighter. Both are equally deserving of recognition is what I’m saying.

Are You Listening, Academy? You Goofed Again!

Creed is one of those near-perfect cinematic experiences that proves you can still instill life into an aged franchise provided the right point-of-view. I can only hope more filmmakers attempt to tell similar stories in other beloved franchises after Coogler’s success here. I look forward to his next work as well as the ongoing success of Mr. Jordan. Bravo, sirs.

BROOKLYN: The Oscarwatch Continues

brett_wiesenauer*Methinks I’ll do pieces on each of the Big Oscar Contenders, seeing as I have already done pieces on Trumbo, FURY ROAD, The Martian, and The Revenant, as well as mentioned that little gem Spotlight. Expect a CREED review soon, as well as something on Room, The Big Short, and possibly Bridge of Spies. No promises on the latter.

As far as the Academy Awards go, one of the easiest ways to impress the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) is to tell a unique, simple story really well, in a memorable way. Take as an example a movie about ambassadors trapped in a hostile country that have a fake film crew organized by the CIA to rescue them: Argo, the Best Picture winner from 3 years ago. A small-time boxer and low-rent enforcer overcomes his station in life to go the distance to spar with the heavyweight champion of the world of boxing, and finds romance along the way: 1976’s Best Picture and beloved franchise kick-starter ROCKY.

Now, I assume some readers presume the worst in me since I have been touting the praises of Mad Max: FURY ROAD since its release back in May of 2015, and could not be happier to see it as a big Academy Award contender. As an avid fan of genre films and the director’s work, I will chalk up a lot of my hype for the film as fan-boyish glee, knowing that one of my favorite things about film and fantasy is being recognized by the star-making industry event that is The Oscars(tm).

And while I hope it sweeps the technical categories (visual fx, sound, designs) instead of the STAR WARS juggernaut and possibly takes one of the Big 5 (Picture or Director) away from the clear favorite The Revenant, I don’t presume to call FURY ROAD the winner out of the gate, since I’ve been disappointed too often before by the powers that be.

And to those readers who curl their lips to my feelings on defending my post-apocalyptic ice-cream sundae of artistic chaos, I offer a concession: If the Oscar doesn’t go to FURY ROAD, I hope it goes to BROOKLYN.

Brook1

BROOKLYN is a film I would refer to as the “little movie that could”. ‘Tis the dark horse of a most competitive Best Picture race. The small-scale romance movie tells the tale of Eilis (pronounced AY-lish) a young lady who moves to the United States in the early 1950s to escape the droll life she leads among the gossips and the matrons of Enniscorty, a small village in southeast Ireland. Leaving her mother and sister behind, after a slightly harrowing boat ride, she arrives in New York, passes through Ellis Island, and finds quarters at a boarding house in the titular borough, with some lively boarders including some shopgirls who help her get her start in the busy world of American life. She connects with a kindly Irish priest, who starts her in a night class to learn bookkeeping. At a community dance, she meets a handsome, slightly shy Italian boy named Tony, and the two quickly fall into love with each other.

We as an audience proceed to follow a delightful little treat of a romantic journey between two adorable people and the trials that come up between them when Eilis suddenly has to return to Ireland to deal with a bit of family drama. Once she arrives back to the land of her birth, she is courted by another young man and is expected to settle down in her old community for the sake of her little village standing. Eilis must make tough decisions that could decide her life’s journey for the better. And it is beautiful.

What most people don’t know about me, judging solely on what I present to the world, is that while I give off the air of a desperate, sardonic adrenaline junkie and hardcore action man, I am a hopeless romantic at heart. And I love a good romance movie. None of that rubbish that Nicholas Sparks sells in his recycled works, not the uncomfortably by-the-numbers that pass for romantic comedies these days, I mean a true blue story about human beings, not stereotypes, who fall in love, and the sometimes harrowing emotional journey that love takes them on.

004-sunrise-theredlist
A scene from the early Academy Award winner SUNRISE

Confession time: My favorite movie of all time is SUNRISE: A Song of Two Humans. The story concerns a farmer, tempted by a woman from the city, who becomes convinced he should murder his wife in order to move to the city with his mistress. It tells a low-key, low-stakes story with graceful storytelling, careful performances from its two leads, and gorgeous photography that influenced modern filmmaking all the way back in 1927.

Fun fact that few people know or remember: At the first Academy Awards in 1929, they gave out two Best Picture Awards. AMPAS gifted SUNRISE the second one, titled “Unique and Artistic Production”, but scrapped its legacy by retroactively declaring the other winner, the war drama Wings, to be the better picture that year. I have seen both films, and I have to say, like too many times, the Academy is Wrong.

BROOKLYN reminded me heavily of the romantic tale at the center of Sunrise. I, along with other audiences and critics worldwide, was caught up in the beautiful story of love that blossoms among the backdrop of the big city, and the youthful tenderness that accompanies early love. The performances by the whole cast is superb, from Julie Walters as the head of Eilis’ boarding house to accomplished character actor Jim Broadbent as the friendly priest that Eilis confides in. Even Actor of the Year Domhnall Gleeson is enjoyable to watch as the bashful suitor awaiting Eilis back in Ireland.

But undoubtedly the heart of the film is the two leads, Saorise Ronan, (pronounced SIR-shah) and Emory Cohen. Ronan is charming to boot as the feisty young lady determined to make her own way in life with or without the aid of others, though she continually receives it because she’s just so adorable and admirable to those around her. And as much as I applaud the awards buzz Ms. Ronan is receiving for her darling role, the Academy missed out not nominating Emory Cohen for Supporting Actor. As Tony, he obviously aches for Eilis whenever she isn’t around and exudes an old-fashioned chivalry that transcends his humble roots as a poor plumber’s apprentice. To add to that, Indiewire included him on their list of the 16 Best Characters of 2015, among the likes of Furiosa from FURY ROAD, and Jack, the little boy from Room, another approaching Oscarwatch subject.

banner-brooklyn-Brooklyn_Film_844x476

I adored this little movie, and am most happy to have caught it while it was still humbling its way around the theatrical circuits. Catch it if you can while the Oscars are still promoting it, at the likes of Woodland mall, where you can see it for only $5! Peace and Love, y’all.

THE REVENANT review + An #OscarsSoWhite rebuttal

brett_wiesenauerAll right, it’s your favorite time, it’s my favorite time: It’s Unpopular Opinion Time! -wow- ~awesome~

 

Today’s first topic is that infernal Oscars controversy and then I’ll get on with my thoughts on the latest Iñárritu. Sound good? Alright.

 

ahem

 

Y’all should know by now that the Oscars are run by a group of middle-aged white men who tend to hand off awards to a specific type of movie [vanilla, slightly trendy period drama or ham-handed message movie about the environment/war/poverty/racism/mental illness/cultural malaise] and are as willing to change their ways as the modern Republican party. Is it any surprise these people are nominating prominently Caucasians instead of more than worthy people of color?

 

In the previous 25 Oscar ceremonies, Best Picture has gone to a movie prominently featuring non-whites only 3.5 times*. I count Dances with Wolves as half, since it is still primarily this guy’s movie:

'Murica by Kevin Costner‘Murica
by Kevin Costner

In defense of the current nominations, I will say this. I’ve seen a fair majority of the nominees and can’t fault the choices for the most part. That is not to say there is not room for improvement. On the contrary, I spotted a few spaces where the Academy stooped to the lazy nomination choice, for example Eddie Redmayne for that abomination The Danish Girl took a place that could, And Should, have been occupied by Michael B. Jordan for CREED. In addition, Ryan Coogler should have gotten a director nod for said film in place of Iñárritu, who already won last year for a slightly better film, plus Benicio del Toro should have easily secured a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his devastating turn in SICARIO.

 

Other than that, a lot of the people of color performances just couldn’t top what was chosen. I love Idris Elba as much as the next person, and I appreciated his role in Netflix’s flagship title Beasts of No Nation, but I can’t say he’d have been a better choice than Benicio or Mark Ruffalo’s turn in Spotlight, or Tom Hardy. The only one Elba had a chance to overcome was Christian Bale, who I feel was put on a pedestal above Steve Carell’s equally, if not more, compelling performance in The Big Short. Other than that, Straight Outta Compton was exceptional, and had a surprisingly good cast, but it would not have been on my personal list for Best Picture, and no one from the cast truly stood out. That is not to say the acting was lacking, far from it. But the strength in the performances was in the sense of ensemble that came about whenever they were together on screen. At least I would have considered the movie, unlike what AMPAS did.

 

In conclusion, there are issues with both sides of the issue. If you want to read some additional rebuttals I feel are worth sharing, The Rebel did a fine piece examining the Academy voters and their vision. And the Academy recently announced a few changes they are making to their populace in order to save face…by 2020.

 

I am now stepping down from my soapbox; we now return to your regularly scheduled movie criticism.

4evenantGetting this here joke outta the way now.

The Revenant is a good movie. I will not dispute its worth as a piece of entertainment to be viewed au cinema. It is a frustrating, self-importance-touting, frontier art-house flick that, at the end of the day, I feel deserves to be nominated as one of the 10 (8 *cough*) Best Pictures of the Year. But, it does not deserve to win anything.

 

What’s it all about, you ask?

 

Hugh Glass and his half-breed son are tagging along with a crew of frontiersman transporting furs, when suddenly a troupe of renegade Arikawa tribesman attack the men and send them fleeing down the river with massive casualties. Fitzgerald, one of the brigands whose sole livelihood was the abandoned furs, takes out his frustrations on Glass, causing tension to fill the group. While hunting further in the wilderness, Glass is viciously set upon by a mother grizzly, in one of the most anxiety-inducing action scenes of 2015. Afterwards, Glass is laid up and left in Fitzgerald’s care until he either regains his strength or dies and is buried.

 

But the treacherous brigand tries smothering Glass, is caught by Glass’ half-breed son, and dispatches the boy so as to wipe all evidence of his wrongdoing away, escaping to a fort to claim his rewards for “doing what had to be done”. But Glass is still quite alive, and now thirsts for revenge. He limps his way through the wilds of frontier-era territories to find retribution as well as civilization, dodging the renegade tribe after his fellow crew, and struggling to heal his wounds and survive long enough to confront his nemesis before nature claims him as well.

 

Let’s talk the look of the film as a whole: People get messed up, a lot. Arrows fly, men’s faces are bloodied in the worst of ways, people on horseback fly off cliff sides, Glass has to treat a horse like that poor Tauntaun from The Empire Strikes Back, he eats raw buffalo liver, it all gets pretty intense. The film looks great, in all its brutal glory. This is to be expected; it’s shot by now 8-time Academy Award-nominee and 2-time winner Emmanuel ‘Chivo’ Lubezki, who shot both G R A V I T Y and last year’s Best Picture BiRDMAN. Here’s the thing though, the entire movie reminded me of another very flawed, visually epic film adaptation: Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth.

 

Now, those of you who read my things will know that I mentioned that film as one to look out for come its release sometime in December. Welp, I saw it, and here’s one of the problems with both movies: Both films are filled to the brim with “trailer fuel”, shots that look amazing and will look great in the trailer for the film. But the whole film just screams “Look at me, I’m so interesting and pretty” and the audience tiredly nods like parents with over-excited children.

 

I feel most film should be like a good meal. The meat should be hearty and excellent, that is here. Every single shot is the photographic equivalent of a blue-ribbon slice of filet mignon. But, everything in the movie is a perfect shot, and I love filet mignon, but I can’t make a whole meal out of piece after piece of filet mignon. I need a side dish, one that’s not filet mignon. My champagne glass should not be filled to the brim with steak juice is what I am saying.

rev1Wow: That’s a great shot! The MOVIE

Onto the little director that could: Alejandro Gonzales Iñárritu. He proved last year he was a visionary, with wit, charm, and a limit to his pretense that made The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance a neat treat of narrative and visual flair that was certainly worthy of a nomination for Best Picture.

 

Here’s the rub: He thinks too much. Seriously, there could be a good 20-25 minutes cut out of this movie for the sake of making it less pretentious and slightly more palatable. I hold no issue with the brutal nature of the violence or things that happen to Glass and his fellow frontiersman. I hold issue with the fact that there can be small cuts made here and there to keep the flow going, narratively. The Pirates of the Caribbean series also has this issue. The director refuses to sacrifice a frame of their vision and it can be aggravatingly slow-paced.

 

This does not mean Alejandro doesn’t know what he is doing. I can see what Alejandro is going for, after all one of my all-time favorite flicks is Lawrence of Arabia. That film was later described by one of its stars as “four hours long…no women, and no love story, and not much action either, and he wants to spend a huge amount of money to go film it in the desert”. I can appreciate his efforts, but he ends just short of the mark. Please don’t give him another Oscar simply because he made something that looks nice.

 

^Long story short: The Man Won His Oscar Last Year. Give it to Georgie.

 

Oh, Leo. You under-appreciated over-achiever, you. I appreciate all you’ve done over the years to entertain us. Catch Me if You Can is still a delightful romp of fun and intrigue, The Aviator showed your acting chops just right, Inception gave you a little something different that still had strengths for you to flex, and Django Unchained was psychotic fun from the moment you arrived onscreen. I truly appreciate your breadth of work.

 

I think you could’ve done better here.revenant_0

 

My problem is not what Leo does in this movie. It’s what he doesn’t do. The character is two-note: Cautious Experienced Hunter & Revenge-seeking Revenant. He screams occasionally, like when he’s attacked by the bear, or when he finally confronts his adversary at the tail end of his journey. But in between those bursts, he is stuck with this comical scowl on his face that is supposed to stand in for emotion as he treks through the wilds of the American frontier for the sake of REVENGE.

 

At times, he will dream of his dead wife and his recently-deceased son, then he looks sad for a moment’s time. Then he wakes and he keeps on trekking, scowl plastered back on his face. There is no defined range that we saw in the likes of The Wolf of Wall Street or the under-appreciated grindhouse throwback Shutter Island. We’ve come to expect a range of things from this actor, and the film hobbles him by limiting him. That is wasting your talent. Not as in Leo is wasting it, but the film is wasting the talents of a gifted performer.

 

Now I expect a fair amount of backlash over my feelings on Leo along the lines of, “But you loved Tom Hardy’s rugged mug in FURY ROAD, and he spends most of that movie looking desperate and grunting every few minutes. You hypocrite!”

 

But, with Mad Max FURY ROAD, we have a franchise backlog of 3 other movies that contain Max’s backstory and experience to reference, and even with that the movie does a good job of catching us up without clunky exposition. Mel Gibson wasn’t exactly the most expressive Rockatansky after the first Mad Max. Tom Hardy did well carrying the torch as previous.

 

Speaking of Tom Hardy’s rugged mug, much like the similarly troubled H8ful Eight, this movie does have its share of excellent attributes. The cinematography, as noted, is par for the celebrated course. The cast is really good, with Tom Hardy providing a great character in Glass’ nemesis Fitzgerald, with a hefty swagger and true grit in acting that shows him as worthy of a Supporting Actor nomination, having been snubbed for previously excellent work in the likes of The Drop and Nicholas Winding Refn’s Bronson. Also of note is Actor of the Year, Domhnall Gleeson, as the expedition leader who pulls a few bad-ass moments out of his brief screen time. Keep your eyes peeled for Grand Rapids native Joshua Burge as an expedition member. The music is properly ethereal and never takes audiences out of the moments onscreen.

 

People and critics keep heaping praise on this work, citing how “it was such a difficult film to shoot”, “Leo had to eat bison liver raw, and he’s vegan”. Well, this is what happens when the director and ‘Chivo’ decide the film needs to be shot using only natural light, limiting their locations and schedule as per. I don’t know what to say about Leo’s life choices, but he signed on to make the movie. He knew what the hardships would be. He’s a big boy. He’ll survive.

 

In terms of difficult films to make, George Miller started pre-production on FURY ROAD in 2000. He spent nearly a dozen years location scouting, raising money for the production by making the Happy Feet films for the big studios, recasting when delays set in due to lack of funds, and designing props, vehicles, costumes with his crew. FURY ROAD was finally shot in 2012 and released to cinemas just last year.

 

Alejandro and His Films Do Not Need Defending. He Has Already Won Big. Long Live George Miller!

 

Overall, The Revenant is a good one. I think it is definitely worth seeing in the theater and ruminating over afterwards with friends by a fireplace, over a glass of Jack Daniels, neat. I will insist however that it is not the Best Picture of the Year. It is flawed, it is portentous, it is twenty-five-odd minutes of frontier action inflated with over two hours of artsy imagery. And I do hope Leo is finally rewarded, so he can relax for a few years before he decides he needs another Oscar. I wish they’d give it to Michael Fassbender or Bryan Cranston who had better performances overall, but I will be satisfied if they give it to Leo just so he can stop scowling at us.

SPOTLIGHT, Truth, and the evolving presentation of film journalism

brett_wiesenaurOver the course of time, many films have come and gone about the press and its volatile relationship to democracy and the public it serves. To many, All the Presidents Men remains the benchmark for exceptional storytelling in the investigative journalism field that went on to become a beloved masterwork of true-life drama and political intrigue.

 

Since then, every newspaper movie has to have a conspiracy, a cover-up, something hidden in plain view that no one dares bring up for either reasons of personal safety or the argument of “the greater good” of society better left not knowing about the filth lying beneath society’s mirror sheen, sometimes both. Movies such as Zodiac and Michael Mann’s excellent The Insider both deal with journalists as the diggers, the folks who latch onto a story and dedicate the whole of their lives, for better or worse, to seeing their stories through.

 

In late 2015, two films were released that dealt with journalistic events in the 21st century, both dealing with scandals that had repercussions in society, as well as the news field and the journalists who had to break the story.trth

 

Released first was Truth, covering the 60 Minutes Killian documents scandal, when, just before the 2004 election, CBS News Producer Mary Mapes ran a story that questioned George W. Bush’s National Guard duty in the 1970s. Acquiring questionable documents from a biased source who expected a political favor in return, the semi-anachronistic documents, once aired on television caused a major stink on conservative web-blogs, who lambasted the reporters and the network for airing such a questionable, scoop-worthy piece of glorified hear-say. This eventually led to CBS apologizing for the story and the termination of Mapes and accelerated resignation of Dan Rather, the legendary anchor who stood by Mapes as the controversy unfolded.

 

Spotlight dealt with the Boston Catholic child abuse scandal uncovered between 2001 and 2002 by the titular Boston Globe investigative team. The team, headed by “Robby” Robinson and overseen by incoming editor Marty Baron, follows up on various news clippings on abuse in parishes all over Boston, involving approximately 90 priests who were simply moved to different parishes to avoid scandal, only creating more issues of abuse.

 

The city officials and law offices refuse to participate with the team for the most part, leading the team to do most of the footwork themselves to interview victims and hunt through phonebooks and go door-to-door to ask about the priests involved. Eventually, thanks to some alliances made in the law offices and a miraculous legal loophole, they eventually manage to uncover damning documents that prove the Cardinal of Boston knew of the abuse and merely covered it up rather than dismissing his troublesome clergy.

spotlight-one-sheetWhile journalists have been portrayed as heroes in many titles, there is still a slight stigma on the news community as troublesome and prone to “scooping” for some publicity rather than the democratic principles journalism is expected to fulfill.

 

The 1981 drama Absence of Malice portrays a headstrong reporter (Sally Field) who goes to great, morally unethical lengths to get the first word on a juicy murder story that may just be damning an innocent businessman. Even Roger Ebert noted in his review for the film that Sally Field’s character “is a disgrace to her profession”. Other films such as the satirical Thank You for Smoking and the recently released ROOM feature journalist players that exploit their subjects in order to make names for themselves or simply to make it a “good story”, aka a ratings success.

Kirk Douglas in Billy Wilder's scathing drama, Ace in the Hole
Kirk Douglas in Billy Wilder’s scathing news drama, Ace in the Hole

 

While this may seem like a common trope of today, that is not quite the case, as journalists have been portrayed both as crusaders for democracy as well as scuzzy ratings fiends as long as the classics of old. In films such as Billy Wilder’s seminal Ace in the Hole, Citizen KANE, and the classic Sweet Smell of Success, journalists hound sources and stories until tragedy strikes their subjects and launches an even bigger scoop, that only serves to disgust the moral centers and further the careers of the scum who tackled the story; behold the dark side of capitalist journalism.

 

Meanwhile, classic films such as 1947 Best Picture-winner Gentleman’s Agreement and Deadline U.S.A. feature the typical champion reporters who risk it all to take down the corruption they see surrounding them, all for the sake of democracy. It’s still inspiring sometimes, to read about true-life heroism in the print, on-screen, and in your neighborhood.

 

To conclude, check out Spotlight if and when you get the chance. The movie is a great example of a near-flawless journalism picture that covers just how the work is done and the lengths reporters go in order to break a story that just needs to be told. The acting is spot-on, the drama effective, and the story is anger-inducing in the best of ways. The anger involved is specific to the wrong done to generations of Bostonians and other effected youth around the world. While Truth is certainly an interesting story to read about, the film presentation is a bit biased and not quite as involving as the Boston controversy. Here’s to more great journalism in the future…and movies, too!

Hateful 8 Review: A Troubled, Watchable Mess of a Western

brett_wiesenaurThe H8ful Eight is among other things a troubling work to behold and mull over. On one hand, this is to be expected, coming from the most beloved exploitation director of Gen-X, Quentin Tarantino, who loves his women bare-footed, his violence explosive and over-the-top, and his dialogue so chewy and memorable, it’s no surprise he keeps picking up awards for screenwriting. On the other hand, it’s not as much the content that troubles the author as much as the sloppy presentation of Mr. Tarantino’s work, who is expected to know better by now.

Before all the film geeks pounce and spear me with their pitchforks and flambé my pudgy rump with their torches, note that I am not complaining about the format I viewed the film through. I traveled all the way to Livonia to view The Hateful Eight in Glorious 70 Millimeters, complete with Overture and ten-minute Intermission. While the print seemed a little wonky at times, the format was not what I take issue with at all. I am a terrific fan of old-school entertainment presentation, the roadshows, the Ben-Hur’s, heck one of my favorite films ever made is Lawrence of Arabia, which I saw twice au cinéma when Celebration Cinema featured it as part of its now sadly defunct “Celebrating the Classics” series, presented in such a format.

My problem is with aspects of the storytelling that Tarantino uses to possibly make his work stand out from his stolen draft that was leaked online by the Internet press in early 2014. If this is the case, I still feel the choices made in the later pages of the screenplay render much of the entertainment garnered from the early pages moot. Let me explain:

The H8ful Eight starts out with Samuel L. Jackson’s Maj. Marquis Warren hitching a ride on a stagecoach in the snowy wilds of Wyoming with bounty hunter “The Hangman” John Ruth, played with mustachioed machismo by Kurt Russell, who himself is transporting a prisoner, Daisy Domergue.

Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Domergue takes a lot of abuse in this movie, hence troubling aspect number one. Granted, she is an outlaw who takes the most vicious of glee when harm and disappointment comes to her captors, but the level of violence directed toward her just to fill in the silence gets a little uncomfortable even for a he-man like myself whose favorite works include the many visceral works of Dario Argento and John Carpenter.


As their carriage navigates the snowy drifts reminiscent of Michigan’s current roadways, the trio picks up yet another guest, the self-professed new Sheriff of Red Rock, Domergue and Ruth’s destination. The new sheriff only happens to have been a former southern raider during the Civil War, leading to a beef with Warren, former Union cavalry. Shortly thereafter, the travelers arrive at Minnie’s Haberdashery, a lodge that already houses four guests, the Red Rock hangman, a cow puncher, a Mexican named Bob, and a grizzled old Confederate general. Our now 9 players, I forgot to mention the carriage driver O.B. who takes as much crap as Domergue takes beatings, hunker down in the lodge to escape the hostile blizzard just arriving at their doorstep.

But is all as it seems at the lodge? For those answers, you’ll have to see the film, and then we’ll talk.

As for the questionable elements, I’ll be as discreet as possible without spoiling the whole film. The film is split into 6 chapters, the first four of which function magnificently as an outrageous, slow-burn, pseudo-stageplay. Seriously, if the film had only consisted of the first four chapters with a slightly retooled ending, the film would be a near-masterwork of modern frontier westerns along the likes of Once Upon a Time in the West via the Coen’s True Grit.

Unfortunately, after the movie ended and I mulled over the contents as a whole, elements of the last 45 minutes only angered me as to provoke the question, “why was this film over 3 hours long?” The choices and events of the last act only instilled in me the unbelievability of the story as a whole, it took me out of the movie, and when that happens, the director and script have utterly failed at their jobs.


But this is not to say the movie is awful as a whole. On the contrary, many of the elements of the story come together like magic and work marvelously.

The wintry photography is cool and effective in its isolation. The acting all around is spot-on, from Tim Roth’s slimy, smug “hangman” to Bruce Dern’s grizzled, bewildered ol’ general, alongside the powerhouses that are Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell. But the two greatest standouts of the picture are Jennifer Jason Leigh and Walton Goggins, portraying Daisy Domergue and Sheriff Chris Mannix, respectively.

Leigh gives Domergue a quiet, palpable menace that comes alive when she just silently stares at her captors, actively seething while letting nothing explicit show in her facial features. Goggins’ Sheriff is a fun misanthrope who simply fought for the wrong side of a conflict and is now paying karma’s toll. He has a gleeful streak of humanity and clownishness in an outright cruel and killer environment. Much of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny in the most pitch-black fashion and truly haunting in its realism at many points in the story, such as Warren’s introduction to Ruth as well as his eventual conversation with the grizzled general who executed black soldiers at the Battle of Baton Rouge.

But undoubtedly the most memorably awesome aspect to The Hateful Eight is maestro Ennio Morricone’s wicked musical score, a first for a Tarantino picture, which typically steals from 60s and 70s Top 40 hits to fill the musical accompaniment. Once the overture struck the big screen over the image of a lone carriage against a blood-tinted landscape, I found myself totally engaged in the proceedings and enthralled by the sense of simultaneous dread and excitement that Morricone instills in the audience, courtesy of some unused music from John Carpenter’s The Thing.

I keep looping the soundtrack on YouTube as I compose this piece; that is how good the film soundtrack is.

Morricone, a seasoned veteran of spaghetti westerns and blockbusters such as The Untouchables, has still got whatever he had way back in the days of yore when he was the Italian equivalent of Hans Zimmer, with his paws in a lot of pictures of varying quality that still had the great fortune to land his talents as musical maestro. I need this soundtrack, like yesterday!

Being the Tarantino-brand of picture, it is no surprise that The H8ful Eight is in parts outrageous and glorious. It just so happens that I took more offense at what I perceived to be sloppy storytelling rather than the raucous content Mr. Tarantino is peddling this time around. It is most concerning that his projects get seemingly less thought-out the more ambitious his projects get. I do recommend viewing the movie but only if you know what you’re getting: a Tarantino western with a bleak moral center and a killer soundtrack that outshines most everything in the movie.

The Force is Awoken! The War in the Stars Continues!

Like GONE WITH THE WIND in 1939, STAR WARS in 1977, and JURASSIC PARK in 1993, this will go down as The Film Event of a generation.

It’s most certainly a JJ Abrams/STAR WARS film. There are moments of brilliance, as well as occasional narrative shortcomings that frankly come with the territory. It’s almost as if the creators came together to make the perfect ode to all things Long Time Ago/Far Far Away, even the flaws that tend to make the films all the more treasured. There is amazing technical wizardry on display along with a wry and splendid sense of humor that the Original Trilogy thrived on. And I for one am glad to have sat in awe for two glorious hours of welcome nostalgic joy that myself and numerous other fans of the Force have waited too long now for.star-wars-force-awakens-trailer

To talk cast, the original crew is still in prime form. Ford is now a fine vintage Han Solo, fully developed after his rollicking adventures with Luke and the gang aboard the Millennium Falcon. Alongside Solo, Luke’s mere presence gives all fans strength, Chewie is still violently charming, and Carrie Fisher is a breath of nostalgic majesty as General Leia who’s only gotten better with age. Now if only they’d allow her to hold some true screen time, but there be a firm reason for that.

The Force Awakens functions as a film that passes the torch down the line. The Original Cast won’t be around much longer, and therefore an insurance policy must be taken out in the form of the new characters. And what a solid policy they’ve landed!

Oscar Isaac is The Man! From his excellent supporting moments over the years in projects like Drive to his powerhouse roles in A Most Violent Year and Ex Machina, I have been fanboying all year in anticipation of him truly hitting the big time with this here War in the Stars franchise. He gives the charming ace Poe Dameron a vivacity that rivals Ricky Ricardo in just his ability to smile.

John Boyega is solidly enjoyable as the Stormtrooper turncoat Finn, who makes strides to improve his lot in life by escaping to better worlds, stumbling over each step as he goes.

There’s also the wonderful revelation that is Daisy Ridley as Rey, our Luke stand-in who has spunk, a history, and a no-nonsense sense of feminine agency that is more than welcome in the STAR WARS canon, seeing that the character of Mara Jade has been retconned entirely (boo!).

rey1
One of the films protagonists, Rey (Daisy Ridley)/Our Luke Skywalker stand-in.

Of the new arrivals, the one that had the most to prove was Adam Driver as our antagonist, Kylo Ren. I was most worried that this was going to be another Anakin situation, with a promising actor being forced to play up angst in a character that needs a finer touch in performance. Lo and behold, I was impressed by Mr. Driver’s palpable sense of impotent rage and innate menace that the Prequel trilogy just couldn’t quite harness. Bravo, sir.

My hesitant attitude towards Kylo Ren mirrors my thoughts on the director, JJ Abrams. Previously, his films have proven to be hit-or-miss at best, strange and obtusely irritating at worst. Don’t get my words wrong, I was not going into the film expecting a total trainwreck, but having seen his prior work in science fiction (Star Trek +Into Darkness, Super 8), I was cautious about expecting anything extraordinary from the now 49-year old boy genius, who tends to struggle with the third act of storytelling.

But my thoughts were for naught. This film is thriving with imagination, grit, suspense, and childlike glee. Abrams knows how to intrigue fans by not insulting their intelligence. I loved the look of the film, the practical effects, the minimal obvious computer effects, the classy atmosphere of fun and high adventure, the colors, and the glorious situations he presented for our enjoyment. And the film magic he brings forth in the third act is probably some of the strongest work he’s ever made in his career.

Several moments just stick out as all-time best franchise moments: The first glimpse of the Falcon and the associated comments from the characters; the Falcon dogfight on Jakku; Kylo Ren’s lightsaber tantrum; “We’re Home”; and best of all, the final moments, which shan’t be spoiled here, which will drive home the stakes of what we can expect of the next installment in 2017, helmed by Looper director Rian Johnson.

Director JJ Abrams directs his diverse cast well in Episode VII.
Director JJ Abrams directs his diverse cast well in Episode VII.

While I have had much positive to say about the film, there are a few minor hiccups in the storytelling. Yes, this film is a retread of the first STAR WARS, but it is the good kind of retread that takes the same goals of the first but takes it on the road less traveled. The final sequence steals outright from the initial Death Star run so much so that I thought aloud, “Haven’t we seen this before?”

Along those same lines, a lot of happenstance moves the story forward. Han and Chewie appear in the film mostly out of a stroke of good luck more than anything else. The cute droid BB-8 only happens to go in the right direction to run into a Force-sensitive junk forager on Jakku. Finn barely escapes a TIE fighter crash with only stress and plenty of sweat stains. At this point, you’re either in this series for the long haul or you’re not. I do have gripes, but blast it all, I’m glad to be seeing a new STAR WARS movie!

There is a genuine sense of wonder and fun that has been missing since Return of the Jedi in 1983. Since that flawed film concluded the series proper, fans have been scrounging the corners of the galaxy for things to sate their thirst for all things STAR WARS, be it books, television properties, LEGO sets, lunchboxes; the marketing juggernaut at Lucasfilm Limited has boomed in the absence of proper continuations of Lucas’ science fantasy epics (I refuse to rant on the Prequel trilogy, as there is more than enough valid and overhyped criticism of that saga on the internet as is, from much more qualified personnel than I). Heck, I’ve been going on a mini-binge of licensed properties since watching the Despecialized Editions at home in preparation for the release last week. But, since the Disney corporate heads decided the Expanded Universe is no longer canon in tandem with my local library vastly depleting their catalog options, my options for satisfying this STAR WARS craving has been limited outside of spending my hard-earned Christmas cash on various tithes of formerly licensed literature, television programs, and video games.

Thankfully, this movie is a welcome retread that changes just enough aspects of the Original Trilogy while keeping things fresh enough for the old and new fans to stay excited for the upcoming installments. Overall, ’tis a bravura example of popcorn science fantasy done right, just as they were 35 years ago. You’ve got your hooks in me and the audience, Lucasfilm. I can’t wait to see this one again au cinema. I can’t wait until Rogue One is released next year. I Definitely can’t wait until the next installment premieres in 2017. Heck, I can’t wait to go home and break out Shadows of the Empire for the N64 to spend some of my break time on.

Bravo, Mister Abrams. And Thank You!

"Chewie, we're home..." RAWWRR!
“Chewie, we’re home…”
RAWWRR!

TRUMBO: Or Oscar Season Begins

It’s the most wonderful time of the year.

The popcorn’s popping, the crowds are gathering, and those pesky limited releases are finally getting to the general public in hopes of snagging a nomination for my beloved personal Super Bowl, the Oscars! The race has begun, so before the nominees are announced January 14, the studios are pushing the pride of their harvest, hoping to land at the least consideration for one of those gilded statuettes. The first films I’ve managed to see that I know to be striving for consideration is Jay Roach’s biopic of much-maligned screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston as the titular TRUMBO.

Bryan Cranston IS Dalton Trumbo
Bryan Cranston IS Dalton Trumbo

Bryan Cranston, as always, owns the film, playing the unflappable screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, leading the fight against the Red Scare in US courts and tirelessly concocting stories for various studio bosses behind pseudonyms so as to keep his family living in comfort. A communist in belief, he is held in contempt of Congress when he refuses to answer questions before HUAC and sent to prison. After serving his sentence, he finds the big studios don’t seek him out because of the stigma of his politics in the wake of McCarthyism, and instead seems doomed to work in B-movies and trash pictures like The Alien and the Farm Girl for the rest of his days due to his blacklisting. Even his neighbors make evident their disdain for him in their petty acts of vandalism to intimidate his family.

However, his passion and quality of work (including the likes of Roman Holiday and The Brave One) spreads the word of his still-present talent and eventually draws the attention of powerful, A-list Hollywood players such as Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger, and the ire of John Wayne and gossip queen Hedda Hopper. In order to combat the crushing and relentless atmosphere of work, Trumbo enlists the aid of his children and devoted wife to help him cruise through screenplays bestowed on him by the company, while he sneaks his classier works to the bigwigs. Cranston has always had a knack for making us in awe of an average man’s amount of integrity and energy, from Malcolm in the Middle to last year’s GODZILLA. He is always pleasant to watch and has a wry wit that permeates this sometimes harrowing picture.

An example of Trumbo's classic pen.
An example of Trumbo’s now-classic works.

The rest of the cast is of particular mention as making the ticket price worth it. Joining Cranston is Diane Lane as his aforementioned wife, American treasure John Goodman as a cheapo movie producer who employs Trumbo after his prison sentence, cult favorite Alan Tudyk as a still-employed front for Trumbo’s classier work, Louis C.K. brings an anarchic edge to his extremist partner-in-crime to Trumbo, and Dame Helen Mirren oozes a petty grandeur as the debonair and equally detestable gossip columnist, Hedda Hopper.

A key standout in the supporting cast is Kiwi actor Dean O’Gorman playing legendary leading man Kirk Douglas. Mr. O’Gorman did such a great job that I hope they find time to make a Kirk Douglas biopic so he has an excuse to keep playing him.

The film plays out quite well, never stooping to clichéd routes of storytelling outside of the final speech, where it felt deserved. It takes a special hand to make these true life accounts not seem like they’re going by the numbers as some biopics can easily go (*cough* 42 *cough*). In terms of telling the story without overstaying its welcome, it is also a success, being very brisk in pacing. Whenever something dour happens, Trumbo proverbially brushes off his coat and continues onward, unswayed by the roadblocks before him.

If you’re still wondering if this qualifies as an awards contender, this film is leading the Screen Actors Guild awards in nominations, a sure sign of Oscar-worthiness. As a history lesson, TRUMBO proves just as watchable as one of the History Channel’s epic mini-series, and as a tale about the dangers of hateful group-think, it’s a film that could be useful as a tool exploring the consequences of blacklisting others because of their differences, regardless of your political or religious beliefs. Check it out at a theater near you!

Mockingjay 2: Thank Katniss, It’s Finally Over!

Hunger Games part2The YA film community has finally hit its last hurrah. The Hunger Games, the flagship of their current generation, after Harry Potter, and Twilight, has finally run its course.

Personally, I am glad. I found the series as a whole to be resoundingly hollow.

I have a bone to pick with the author and screenwriter’s intents with Katniss, the character that has entered the same lexicon as Charlie Brown and Voldemort. Everyone knows Katniss. She’s the bad-@$$ with the bow and arrow. This finale to the series just proved how little I cared for  the concept and characters that came with. Here Katniss is still recovering from the PTSD acquired during the events of the first two flicks as well as the harrowing denouement of Mockingjay Part I, but for this reviewer, I just felt as she probably felt: empty. She sees or hears about bad things that happen to those around her and then she shoots bad guys with arrows. The gratifying moments just don’t ring true.

Hunger Games Part 2Jennifer Lawrence is not to blame here. The director and screenwriters messed it up, she’s just dealing with what she’s given.

My other massive problem with the movie deals with Gale (Liam Hemsworth). The other Hemsworth that has had trouble finding success outside of his big brother’s shadow. Every moment he appeared on screen was punctuated by a massive yawn. Whoever cast this man should have been fired. So much of this movie concerns a bloody love triangle between him, Katniss, and Peeta that anyone with a third-grade education can call from frame 1.

This does not necessarily mean the movie is a total disaster. Donald Sutherland milks every moment he has on screen to fill the air with menace as well as charming sociopolitical intrigue. [SPOILERS] His final moments are among the most chilling in the whole series. [END SPOILERS]

I have always considered myself a little biased against The Hunger Games. Suzanne Collins created a series and concept that was lauded by critics and readers as wholly original and earth-shattering… except for the tiny fact that the title centerpiece is a clear adaptation of cult classic Battle Royale, a gory satire from Japan.*

I don’t like plagiarists, I despise plagiarists who don’t admit when they’ve been caught. I don’t respect people who lie to avoid blame getting caught in the cookie jar. Quentin Tarantino has been accused of this as well. Reservoir Dogs can be interpreted as an American remake of a Hong Kong film called City on Fire. And his use of the word homage to escape lawsuits is borderline theft.

Hunger Games Part 2The action was middling, the music okay, the settings standard dystopian action fare, I just felt bored the entire movie. Every other reviewer mentions the stunning homage to ALIENS halfway into the movie. Yes, I caught it. James Cameron still did it better. Heck, I was getting FURY ROAD flashbacks when albino xenomorphs started popping out of the walls for a bloodless^ massacre in the sewer. Every supporting character we followed felt expendable, which surprise, surprise, they were! This series would have been much more interesting told from the point of view of the psychotic Johanna (Jena Malone). At least there would have been bursts of giggling fury from her.

*Isn’t it funny? Hunger Games steals from Battle Royale, then Divergent outright steals from Hunger Games. The wheel of cinematic inbreeding continues to spin.

^I really dislike “edgy” PG-13 action films that showcase carnage and horrific things, only escaping the dreaded R-rating by excising all the blood. Stop it, Hollywood. This is getting annoying.

PEANUTS: Somewhere, Charles Schulz is Blushing

Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and Co. are back with style in The Peanuts Movie.
Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and Co. are back with style in The Peanuts Movie.

I was worried when I heard Blue Sky had acquired the rights to make the next theatrical PEANUTS movie, at first. Blue Sky tends to make movies that look presentable, but rely on too much bathroom humor and irritating characters to really trust with – what I believe to be – the cornerstone of golden age comic strips.

Thank goodness for the father-son writer-producers of Bryan and Craig Schulz to keep the inherent warmth and pathos of PEANUTS intact, able to be enjoyed by children and adults all around.

The Peanuts Movie turns out to be a crowning achievement of storytelling that would make Charles Schulz proud and just a little bashful. Mr. Schulz was a notoriously humble man who simply enjoyed giving others joy with his characters and comics.

The story is split up into two separate, yet joined story-lines involving Charlie Brown and his incorrigible dog, Snoopy. Charlie Brown spots a newly moved-in neighbor, the cutest Little Red-Haired Girl you’ve ever seen, and immediately falls in puppy love. He spends the rest of the film trying to discover ways to build up his self-confidence, from visiting the local psychiatric booth to modern dance lessons. Meanwhile, Snoopy is inspired by his master’s lovelorn behavior and sets off into the skies as his Flying Ace alter ego to rescue a beautiful poodle flying ace from the clutches of the nefarious Red Baron.

There are uniquely wonderful moments provided in this movie, from Charlie Brown daring to fly a kite in the middle of winter to spite the Kite-Eating Tree to his sister Sally’s rodeo demonstration at the school talent show.

The gang is all here to perform as well, with Lucy being fuss-budgety as always, Linus providing moments of childish, philosophical clarity, and Schroeder being the compulsive soundtrack artist we know he is, even providing the iconic 20th Century Fox theme we expect. The filmmakers realize that the best PEANUTS adventures focus equally on both Charlie Brown’s struggles as well as Snoopy and Woodstock’s shenanigans.

Of the five features made of the Peanuts canon, this is certainly one of the best, alongside A Boy Named Charlie Brown and the truly under-appreciated Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown, whose only sin was being released the same year as a little movie called Star Wars.

I really adored this movie. It presented a fresh slice of PEANUTS lore, with plenty of literary callbacks, heartfelt character interactions, and surprisingly well-mounted aerial sequences that more than live up to the past specials and films. The gags are awesome and inventive, the cast uniform and charming all around, and the direction is pretty spot-on, if I should say so myself.

I hope it gets an Animated Feature nomination, because it’s really deserving, just for adapting the Schulz animation style, updating it, while not radically altering the design and lining of the world. Also, kudos for not trying to “update” the material or setting. PEANUTS should stay timeless. Please make more of these, Blue Sky!

*If I could make one suggestion: ditch the modern music and bring back the classy jazz soundtrack. It just works better that way.

Gothic Beauty Awaits chez Crimson Peak

Director Guillermo del Toro shows off the set of Crimson Peak.
Director Guillermo del Toro shows off the set of Crimson Peak.

Too many audiences are making a key mistake when they go to theaters to see movies. When the Crimson Peak trailer debuted, audiences simply assumed from the imagery and the booming score that this was just another period-piece, horror movie. The old adage still holds true: Trailers Always Lie!

They are half-right. It is a period piece. I don’t expect audiences to do research studies before going to see a movie, but a little reading has never really hurt, has it?

The director himself, Guillermo del Toro has even come out in various interviews explaining that the marketing is out of his hands, as his movie is a Gothic romance; just “a story that has ghosts in it”, not necessarily a ghost story. And the man is right, after all, he made the movie.

To describe this movie in simplest terms is if Hitchcock’s best Gothic romances (Suspicion, Rebecca, & Notorious) were all pureed by Dario Argento and topped with delicious Guillermo del Toro frosting.

The story concerns a troubled young American socialite, Edith Cushing, played by Mia Wasikowska of Disney’s Alice in Wonderland reboot fame, who yearns to explore the world and become a writer of stories. To escape the literal ghosts of her past, she falls for brooding inventor and land baron, Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston, The Avengers), but is forbidden to love him by her concerned father (Jim Beaver, Deadwood). After her father’s mysterious death, Sharpe whisks her off to England to reside in the family manor, a decrepit house occupied by Sharpe and his curious sister, Lucille (Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty). Little does Edith know of the dark past of the manor and its occupants, but she’s about to find out the price of loving mysterious men.

The cast here is truly top-notch. Hiddleston is basically playing a combination of Laurence Olivier’s Heathcliff and Michael Fassbender’s Rochester, with both turmoil and conviction. Wasikowska is a brilliant stand-in for the Joan Fontaine type. Charlie Hunnam is a charming character, for once, as the optometrist who has an interest in detective work. Jim Beaver, as Edith’s father, is not a stubborn fire and brimstone man as much as a cautious father, protecting his kin from what he perceives to be trouble. Even Burn Gorman in his brief appearance instills a sense of professional quality and resolve in his private investigator.

Spooky, Scary Jessica Chastain in Guillermo del Toro's gothic chiller, CRIMSON PEAK.
Spooky, Scary Jessica Chastain in Guillermo del Toro’s gothic chiller, Crimson Peak.

And then Jessica Chastain appears.

The fire that powers this woman is terrifying. Apparently possessed by the enraged spirits of both Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, all eyes are on her whenever she enters the story frame. There is a definite feeling of unease when she shares the screen with anyone, especially Hiddleston and Wasikowska. Brrrr! Just remembering every scene she has brings a shiver and a smile. It’s that chillingly good! Even when she’s simply playing the piano, she’s intimidating, and yet ridiculously alluring at the same time. like if Lauren Bacall played Mommie Dearest…or maybe that’s just me.

Everything else is quite up to snuff. The production design and costumes are equally lush and epic in construction. The music is on point, although sometimes plays to horror conventions much too easily for my taste. The sound design is downright masterful, echoing the likes of Robert Wise’s classic The Haunting as well as the under-appreciated Legend of Hell House.

I gotta admit: I am in love with Guillermo’s oeuvre. The man is a cheerful storyteller whose geek flag is flying high with every movie he makes. 2013’s Pacific Rim was his love letter to kaiju movies of the 1950s as well as mecha anime of the 1990s. His Academy-Award winning Pan’s Labyrinth was an ode to fairy tales and mythic creatures of Mexican lore. This movie is his love letter to both the Gothic romance genre, the works of Brontë and Daphne du Maurier as well as classic haunted house fare like The Old Dark House (James Whale, 1932). The man truly appreciates western and eastern pop culture equally, which y’all would know if you follow him on twitter. The man has near-encyclopedic knowledge of culture going back 150 years, nearly.

If you haven’t fear of witnessing what would happen if a classy story of ghosts, murder, and romantic intrigue was given a solid R-rated treatment, feel free to check out Crimson Peak before it leaves theaters, forever.brett_wiesenauer

The Martian Provides Quality Escapist Entertainment

brett_wiesenauerSir Ridley Scott has had a tough couple of years. His return to the ALIEN franchise, the inception of which made him a household name, was met with derision and snide remarks from fans and critics, and Exodus: Gods and Kings gave no impression of staying power longer than a mosquito bite. The man who gave us Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, and Black Hawk Down has needed a comeback hit for ages.Ridley_Scott

And This Is It.

Sir Ridley returns to space with a mammoth cast and a stellar script from Drew Goddard, of Cabin in the Woods and Netflix’s Daredevil fame. The Martian is thoughtful, funny, engrossing, and a sure-fire hit with audiences and critics, judging from its first weekend alone. After witnessing it in 3D its opening weekend, I can further the hype even more with this here glowing review of mine.

Matt Damon plays Mark Watney, a botanist part of NASA’s mission to Mars. When a surprise storm hits and whisks him off, damaging his life support, he is reluctantly left for dead by his fellow crew, much to the chagrin of the Captain of the outfit, played by Jessica Chastain (Interstellar, Take Shelter). The next SOL (the Martian equivalent of a day), he limps his way back to his HAB[itat] and starts planning to survive while finding a way to contact Earth and alert them to his Robinson Crusoe situation.

The cast here is mammoth and incredible. To list a few names who make appearances: Michigan native Jeff Daniels as the cautious head of NASA who has the bottom line and legacy of his organization resting on his decisions, Sean Bean as a fiery mission director who will do anything for his crew mates, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the passionate engineer who is Watney’s main contact with Earth, SNL alum Kristen Wiig as a passive spokesperson; the list goes on, but then that’s just what this would become, a list.

The film looks genuine, even in the slightly dimmed RealD 3D I viewed it in. The Martian backdrop looks convincing, no hints of life as far as the camera eye can capture. We have been graced with 4 consecutive years of breathtaking space travel films, starting with Sir Ridley’s Prometheus in 2012, continuing with Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity in 2013, Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR last year, and this year we have The Martian.

There is a clear sense of human achievement in the film that makes some of the harsher elements easier to deal with. Whenever something bad happens to Watney, he often remarks on his bad luck but comes quick with a witty response and a sense of optimism that Matt Damon can easily provide with his screen presence.

martian25I am glad that space travel movies are making a comeback. There is a sense of wonder that they provide that spurs the imagination and inspires young minds to explore the sciences, which this movie will surely aid in seeing as science is what keeps the main character alive throughout. It makes for an entertaining adventure, that’s for sure.

SICARIO: A Bleak, Suspenseful Pill to Swallow (R)

brett_wiesenaurEscalation.

That’s a major part of what makes SICARIO, the latest from Denis Villeneuve, the director behind Enemy and Prisoners, a true Villeneuve experience. Tension starts to coil in your stomach, your heartbeat slows, then quickens as your breath gets caught in your throat. The droning score from Jóhann Jóhannsson only amps up the tension provided by the careful composition of suspense in the film proper. I have never been more terrified of a single place on Earth than I was during each excursion into Juarez, Mexico.

Image Credit: ©2015 Lions Gate UK Limited. All Rights Reserved. -
Image Credit: ©2015 Lions Gate UK Limited. All Rights Reserved. –

The story here involves an FBI tactician played by Emily Blunt, who specializes in kidnappings. After a routine raid in Arizona reveals a grotesque site of cartel activity and depravity, she is roped into accompanying a team of elite military agents over the border into Mexico to “shake the tree” of the cartels and provoke some chaos. Through the film, our protagonist struggles to balance by-the-book activities with surviving in an oppressively male-oriented society of violence, strong-arm tactics, and drug-fueled paranoia with varying rates of success.

This cast is fantastic. Emily Blunt makes a solid impression as our undermined protagonist, Josh Brolin is great as the fast-talking recruiter, it’s nice to see Victor Garber in things again, Jon Bernthal is great in a crucial, menacing scene, and then, there’s Benicio del Toro.

Benicio del Toro in SICARIO Photograph: Allstar/Lionsgate

Benicio is the true star of the film. At first appearing burnt out and barely alive, his Alejandro rumbles with a rage that hasn’t been seen onscreen since the days of yore when Reb Brown was still active. He’s part Splinter Cell, part interrogation specialist, and part Doberman Pinscher. I can’t believe he was acting, as I was sure he was just being Benicio: raw and intimidating, to put it mildly.

I have a single issue with the film in that it sets up a character to play a role later which feels almost shoe-horned in, a la Syriana, but it didn’t ruin the film. I just felt it gave a minor character more screen time than necessary for the machinations of the storytelling.

SICARIO is a fascinating cross between a war film, a south-of-the-border western, and the grittiest police procedural ever made. There are no real good guys or bad guys in this world, everyone has a bit of both in them. This movie is not for everyone. If you as viewers cannot stomach chilling, HARD-R content such as torture and absurd levels of tension, I would recommend you check out something else, The Martian, for instance.

But if you’re willing to take a chance and tunnel down the cartel equivalent of a rabbit-hole, you’ll be rewarded with one of the best dramas of the year.

Mission: IMPOSSIBLE ? Not really, quite enjoyable actually…

brett_wiesenaurIf it’s not apparent yet, I am a connoisseur of all things cinema, but I have a particularly fond appreciation for genre films. For those unfamiliar with the fine lingo, a genre film is a work that typically follows a particular formula of narrative, either loosely or obsessively, while not being an outright comedy or drama, outright.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: secret agency has a problem; to solve that problem, they put a team together of powerful societal misfits to fight said problem, and in the process save the world. I’ve just described easily a dozen movies made since the 1970s, including one of the most popular genre films ever made: 2012’s The Avengers.Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation

One of my favorite examples of a true, blue genre film is the 1986 release Big Trouble in Little China. A burly all-American trucker loses his truck in a series of mishaps in Chinatown. Later, he teams up with a low-brow, ragtag group of fighters to not only find his truck, but they happen to save a pair of kidnapped girls from a cursed mystical Chinese sorcerer in the process. While a comedy of sorts, the plot also tosses in elements of fantasy and adventure, making this a defining example of a genre film.

Many genre films are part of franchises, and today, your humble contributor is to examine and discuss the merits and history of one of cinema’s strange little successes, the Mission: IMPOSSIBLE franchise.

In the beginning, there was a television show. Starting in 1966 and running until 1973, the initial show was practically an instant classic, cementing several spy tropes in the public memory: “This message will self-destruct…”, the elaborate use of hyper-realistic masks and simplistic gadgetry, and the tension of a mission that could easily go wrong, but rarely did.

MissionImpossiblePosterThis was the daddy of all great spy shows, inspiring countless others from JJ Abrams’ ALIAS to the USA serial Covert Affairs. It was so popular, it was revived briefly in the late 80s, when the Cold War was winding down, to mediocre success, running only 2 brief seasons. Fun fact: I was raised on this series before I had seen any single frame of the movies, so I am very familiar with the formula and execution of some very classy 60s television in addition to the landmark film franchise.

A film adaptation of the series had been pitched as early as 1978, but it wasn’t until 1996 that the world finally experienced Mission: IMPOSSIBLE on the big ol’ silver screen.

The 1996 film is a very different creature from the initial television series. There are elements that are the same, including the use of masks and absurdly effective tension throughout the mission, but the initial series was heavy on thrills, low on action. Heck, most episodes didn’t even feature a car chase or a gunfight.

The first movie installment in the series opts for a classic action-adventure approach; plenty of stunts, running, a few explosions here and there, plus a slight bit of gore to pay homage to director Brian de Palma’s big start in the horror business [Carrie, Sisters]. Its plot is convoluted enough to keep audiences scratching their heads, even after the movie has wrapped itself up in a nice, tidy bow, which can be a good thing. Overall, the first film remains a splendid, perfectly serviceable action-thriller that paved the way for even more adventures…four to be exact!

MissionImpossible2The second adventure was even more different than the first one, opting for less suspense, and going for the throat with fiery action scenes galore. M:I-2 was helmed by Hong Kong action virtuoso John Woo, fresh off of Face/Off. While his visions were spectacular to say the least, the film itself falls apart without his signature mayhem. The plot is a cheap rip-off of the James Bond flick, GoldenEye, and the film’s pace veers and brakes like a truck driven by a coke-head epileptic.

Critics and retrospective audiences weren’t that enthused with it for its seemingly unending tirade of set-pieces without much substance beneath the shenanigans. Movies are an illusion, held together by characters, music, and some sense of pacing, graciously given in the editing room, usually. This movie just ended up being concussive and not much else. Even acclaimed character-actor Brendan Gleeson couldn’t save this movie, and he was Mad Eye freaking Moody!

My take on it is as follows: it was colorful, and relentless in its pursuit of adrenaline, but the movie just ends up being a chore to sit through, having no center or sense of balance. Afterwards, the series went into hibernation for six years, before some new blood could revive the stuck series.

2006 was a big year for action. Fresh off the heels of 2005’s Batman Begins revitalizing the comic book movie market, alongside Sin City, comic book flicks and franchise pictures were everywhere. X3, V for Vendetta, Superman Returns, and even James Bond rebooted himself with the stellar Casino Royale.

MissionImpossible3JJ Abrams, he of aforementioned ALIAS fame, was given the reins of the third entry in the series, M:I-3. This was a big turning point in the series, taking it back to its taut, tension-filled roots, but still managing to keep some big action sequences without overpowering the audience. Holding the film together is undoubtedly the best villain in the series, Owen Davian, played with vicious gravitas by the late Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Davian is even more haunting than most any Bond villain, carrying an aura of menace usually reserved for undead counts and real-life serial kidnappers. The man outright promises, not threatens, to find that someone that our hero, Ethan Hunt, cares for, following up with, “I’m gonna hurt her. I’m gonna make her bleed, and cry, and call out your name. And then I’m gonna find you, and kill you right in front of her.” Can you feel goosebumps or is that just me?

Granted, there were other things that worked, such as an insane “fulcrum” jump from one skyscraper to another, and a race through Shanghai towards the end that should leave most audiences breathless. Needless to say, critics and audiences went nuts for a much more mature handling of the spy franchise that was sorely missing from the second film. My personal fave of the bunch.

Where to next? How about atop the tallest building the world knew at the time?

In a previous review of Tomorrowland, I noted my adoration of wizard/wunderkind director-creator Brad Bird. His first live-action feature was the fourth entry in the series, Ghost Protocol, the first one to warrant a subtitle, because you oughta be prepared when ghosts happen.

MissionImpossible4This film was a bit bigger in scope than the previous one, riding on the fact that Tom Cruise climbs the tallest building in the world with only a pair of sticky gloves! Wouldn’t that catch anyone’s attention? But they didn’t just ride on that big stunt, no sir! Not only does Tom Cruise’s avatar climb tall stuff, he outruns bomb blasts at other famous landmarks, crashes expensive sports cars, escaping unscathed of course, and chases baddies in the middle of a Fury Road-esque dust storm. Yeesh!

Overall, the film was mucho successful at the box office, being the most money-making entry in the franchise thusfar, as well as the most profitable Tom Cruise movie ever, even taking into account Top Gun re-releases! It also had Jeremy Renner in it, which is always a plus.

As for me, I thought this film was passable action fare, seeming a step down from the adrenaline-injected menace of the previous entry. Aside from some of the set-pieces, I don’t remember much of anything besides Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg were in it.

What does this mean for the future of the series? Who knows? All we can hope for is previous along with fresher elements of all the films will collide together and form more fun entries in the coming years. Perhaps there will be that stand-out entry that will stand out for all history as a definitive spy thriller. Hey, I hear good things about the newest one. -Wink Wink-

SPY–A True, Blue Espionage Comedy

brett_wiesenaurComedy is tough to pull off, inherent subjectivity notwithstanding. Plenty find Kristen Wiig a hilarious person, I just don’t. Different strokes for different folks I guess. While I am a fan of espionage thrillers and the occasional raunchy comedy, Paul Feig’s SPY was not on my priority watch list. In recent years, comedy has been losing my interest. It is my more culturally ingrained friends that find modern comedies truly enjoyable, my inherent snobbishness preventing me from joining them a majority of the time, although there have been exceptions. I have not found Melissa McCarthy all that entertaining and I haven’t had the nerve to watch Feig’s Bridesmaids. When I won tickets to an advanced screening, I grudgingly accepted my mother’s request that I go with her.      SPY

Two hours later, I thanked her for inviting me with a huge face-breaking grin.  That movie was more like it. Too many specialized-comedies have lost track of what makes situations funny; the Spy Hard franchise was never involving because the universe was so detached and ridiculous that no one person could get invested in any of the characters. There needs to be grounding in the story in order to truly work. No comedy can be 100% goofy and work; at least unless you’re AIRPLANE! Within the film, I felt invested because I felt the comedy to be organic, not forced like too many comedies seem. Whenever Susan Cooper (McCarthy) was in a dangerous espionage situation, I felt the stakes at hand. And whenever something silly happened, it was realistically implemented.

One of the funniest scenes early on details Cooper’s training at The Farm, where she gets a little too into the more ultra-violent aspects of spy training. In context, she’s currently a relatively mild-mannered analyst, but the archive footage they pull detailing her pre-analyst days suggest anything but. Even the fight scenes are immersive and bloody as James Bond movies won’t go. Bravo, Feig.

The rest of the cast is in rare form. Of note is British comedienne Miranda Hart as Cooper’s buddy in the office who later joins her mission as a partner-in-spying. She’s sweet, off-handedly vulgar, and cheerfully incompetent at most everything except eating delicious sweets. Jason Statham is a great treat, satirizing his action hero persona by inserting an overdue bumbling riff on his well-known roles in the past, at one point bragging about the things he’s done on missions, lifted from his films Transporter 3 and Crank: High Voltage. Jude Law’s extended cameo was suitably charming in the best audition for a James Bond movie since Layer Cake. And Rose Byrne is equally menacing and seductive as the villianess. My only real complaints are 1) Allison Janney was underused and 2) Bobby Cannavale’s tan looked uber-fake. Other than that, it’s a good flick. Check it out!

Mad Miller Strikes Again

brett_wiesenauerEditor’s Note:  This begins a series of movie reviews by a film fanatic in West Michigan who is getting a degree in Communications, Broadcasting, Film and Video from Grand Valley State University.

I am the scales of justice. Conductor of the choir of death. Sing, Brothers! Sing! SING!!” ~The Bullet Farmer

Over the last year, it’s been a slog anticipating movies. Enough movies have come and gone, here today gone tomorrow that I’ve just about given up on hoping for good, enjoyable genre films to come out and make a difference. I’ve been burned way too many times; PACIFIC RIM was amazing, but critics and audiences dismissed it as nothing special, Godzilla meandered around rather than inspiring any adoration, and anything who mentions the name Michael Bay to my face might as well slap themselves before I do it harder, with a folding chair.

But then, here comes George Miller, septuagenarian madman extraordinaire, to show off his kaleidoscopic symphony of insane imagination, George Millerrelentless adrenaline, and consummate joy: Mad Max: FURY ROAD. It’s as if he’s been sitting off to the sidelines all these years, watching director after director try to make action movies in Hollywood, finally standing up in a huff, exclaiming, “No, no, no; this is how you make an action movie, lads”. On top of all that, the critics are lauding this film, of the 249 critics who have seen the film, only 5 have given the film a negative review, awarding the film a 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. In regards to action filmmaking, this is unheard of; not since The Dark Knight has a film rode the critical whirlwind like this, and not a non-comic book actioner since the original Matrix film.

FURY ROAD follows Tom Hardy’s Max, a former motor cop broken down by the loss of his family and friends in the fall of law and order post-Apocalypse. He is captured by the War Boys of Immortan Joe, a warlord who looks like the result of The Joker designing a suit of medieval armor, holed up in the towering Citadel somewhere in deserted Australia. Shortly after Max’s capture, one of Joe’s subordinates, Imperator Furiosa, played to hardened perfection by Charlize Theron, steals Joe’s prized breeding wives, in a desperate bid for freedom across the hostile Outback. The following one-hundred odd minutes has been described as a cathartic, two-hour car chase in the desert between madness and unbridled fury. And it is astounding to behold.Charlize Theron

Charlize Theron is fantastic as the stoic Furiosa who will do anything to provide a better life for the young ladies in her care, clearly earning her sharing top billing with Tom Hardy’s Max Rockatansky. Tom Hardy takes over from Mel Gibson quite well. He moves with precision, determination; there’s a lot of animalistic behavior in his madness. And his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is as haunting as most anything from The Babadook. Nicholas Hoult is a treat as the nutty War Boy Nux, providing moments and dialogue that is destined for a pantheon of insane bad assery. There’s also the chief villain, Immortan Joe, who is played by the same actor as the villain in the original Mad Max, the Toecutter! Then there’s the Doof Warrior, a man clad in a lava-red jumpsuit who has not a single line in the film, but steals every scene simply because the man wields an electric guitar that breathes fire! Also, Rictus Erectus is to be referred henceforth as Stone Cold Steve Australia.

The funniest thing is that for the last 20 years, Miller has been tempering himself by working in family films. After seemingly concluding the original Mad Max trilogy with the entertaining, yet uneven Beyond Thunderdome, Miller made the 2 Babe films as well as 2 Happy Feet flicks. With ease, Miller remembers that the trick with all filmmaking, but the action genre in particular, is to show, not tell, as film is a visual medium. None of this Nolan-esque obsession with infinite exposition so the audience won’t ever be lost. Miller drives the audience head-first into the insanity, with a short chase scene that leads into yet another chase scene building up to an even BIGGER chase scene that will end up taking more than half of the film’s runtime. It’s quite admirable as well as shockingly to the point. The movie has been streamlined to the point that anyone can enter and enjoy the film as long as they are willing to accept the outlandish craziness of the post-apocalyptic Outback, where masked warlords rule over helpless refuse, stubborn drifters grunt and snarl rather than speak in sentences, and independent women are the most bad ass thing in sight.   Mad Max Fury Road 2

On the note of the women’s role in the film. There is a small, but loud audience of deluded man-children on social media claiming that FURY ROAD contains a sickening feminist agenda, poised to forcibly insert feminist ideals into the gung-ho, he-man world of action films. Yeah, because Aliens was totally ruined by the fact that Ellen Ripley was the main character of the film. Oh, and how dare Lara Croft be born female? All action protagonists must be born with male parts and no feminine qualities whatsoever! Ugh! Just of note, this is a film where the main villain is a tyrant and known sex-slaver, yet there is not a single scene of extravagant nudity or even a rape scene, which premium television apparently relishes, cough cough!

This film is joy. A pure, off-kilter, powerhouse of joy. And I have seen this film eight times au cinéma since its release. This has NEVER happened before. Hollywood, please acknowledge my humble request: Fire Michael Bay, Can Zack Snyder, Halt production on all movies, and then give them all to George Miller.