REVIEW: Elle

22 11 2016

elleFantastic Fest

Both the film “Elle” and its protagonist, Isabelle Huppert’s Michèle, resist common tropes related to sexual assault (one of which occurs in the opening scene). Chiefly, neither dwells in victimhood or the battle wounds of a survivor. It does not galvanize the righteous anger of the audience back against the perpetrator through the vicarious thrill of revenge.

But here’s the thing: “Elle” is defined more by what it doesn’t do and not by what it does. Director Paul Verhoeven and screenwriter David Birke dwell in the murky gray areas of Michèle’s twisted psychology as she herself remains unclear as to how to proceed. She knows that she does not want to call the police, as she believes her position as the daughter of a serial killer would not lead to any semblance of justice. She does not want to make a fuss about the incident or let it overpower her thoughts and routines. But what does she do?

Huppert brings steely gumption to her character, a backbone necessary to even establish the most elementary semblance of realism in “Elle.” Her performance, and the film writ large, seem to lack a consistent, coherent internal logic. With her mental state intentionally obfuscated from us, we must interpolate from her actions. And Michèle’s behavior fluctuates vastly from scene to scene. She may seem alarmed by a prank video game scene depicting her rape to the point of conducting a secret witch hunt … only to turn around and engage in a sexual cat-and-mouse game with her own assailant.

No film is forced to answer to the demands of its viewers for answers and resolution. But when lack of clarity feels like an externality of the film rather than an essential narrative feature, the rules change a bit. The instability and unpredictability of “Elle” become its guiding light and driving force. With scant character detail and no real dialogue with issues, the film can only end in emptiness. Refusing a mode of thought is easy. Proposing a new one creates a much greater challenge, one that Verhoeven, Birke and Huppert do not seem up to fully meeting. B2halfstars





REVIEW: Loving

21 11 2016

I’m of the mindset that historical dramas and social issues pieces, often derided as self-important and grandiose, are getting better. Films like “Spotlight,” “Selma” and “12 Years a Slave” have dramatized America’s past with unflinching honesty and aesthetic rigor. Yet there is still a straw man of the prestige picture that looms in the critical imagination, and Jeff Nichols’ “Loving” seems to exist in stark contrast to this imagined bundle of clichés.

Nichols runs counter to so many impulses dominating filmmaking that historicizes the contemporary. Without belittling the importance of belaboring the significance of Richard and Mildred Loving, the couple whose arrest led to a Supreme Court case overturning bans on interracial marriage, he moves the political steadfastly back into the realm of the personal. The simple elegance of “Loving” is evident in every scene of Joel Edgerton’s Richard returning to lay bricks and every disapproving gaze from their provincial Virginian neighbors. Society is slow to change, attitudes are tough to dislodge, but sometimes unsuspecting individuals like the Lovings can help turn the tide in our culture with their radical ordinariness.

Perhaps one of Nichols’ boldest casting choices was selecting Nick Kroll (yes, The Douche from “Parks & Recreation”) as Bernie Cohen, the ACLU lawyer who helps guide the Lovings’ case all the way to the highest court in the land. It’s more than stunt casting or going boldly against type like Seth Rogen did in Danny Boyle’s “Steve Jobs.” Kroll’s instinct to play his scenes with the Lovings as incredulity underscored with comedy helps tremendously to enhance the realism of the moment. Richard and Mildred were not dying to become star defendants in a landmark case. They find themselves, reluctantly, at the center of history after Mildred (Ruth Negga) writes what she assumes is a throwaway letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Their naïveté about the role they can come to play in American racial dynamics is almost ridiculous, both to Cohen and to a present-day audience.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

20 11 2016

It’s good to be back in the Potterverse. While I might resist some of the revisionist history and postscripts of my beloved characters, a tangential outing like “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” hits the sweet spot. It’s clear that J.K. Rowling, who serves here as both screenwriter and producer, has more to explore and say about the magical world she created. Even if the roadmap to the supposedly five-part series she plans has not yet emerged, this first film makes for a fun, thoughtful outing.

The sheer presence of gentle ginger Eddie Redmayne alone, vocal in his bashful disappointment over not being cast as a Weasley, provides two hours of joy. The role of magical zoologist Newt Scamander is finely calibrated to match his unique star power: slightly awkward, modestly fumbling, overwhelmingly good-hearted. He serves as both our guide to a host of creatures never introduced to us by Hagrid and an outsider observing the operations of the American wizarding community.

Scamander arrives at Ellis Island with a suitcase full of living organisms and a mission to return some of them to their natural habitats. However, a series of chance encounters with a No-Maj (American speak for “Muggle”) gets him caught up in the geopolitical realities of the United States. Scamander becomes the unwitting companion to the rogue auror Tina (Katherine Waterston), who dedicates herself to finding a magical disturbance among the No-Maj that threatens to disrupt the Americans’ carefully guarded segregation of the two communities. Quite often, Scamander’s beasts get loose and make a mess out of an already precarious situation, and therein lies the enjoyment. He can always, somehow, wrangle control.

It will be interesting to see how, as the series progresses, Rowling deals with the political undertones introduced here. “Fantastic Beasts” strays away from the obvious allegory of franchises like “X-Men,” perhaps at the expense of glossing over or trivializing the issues. In this introduction, she introduces a group of puritanical recluses called “Second-Salemers” who call for a new purge of the magical community and a dark perversion of wizardry in Europe that Americans deny will wash up on their shores. It appears she will have plenty to pull from, both in ’30s history and contemporary society, in making these themes relevant. B+3stars





REVIEW: Before the Flood

19 11 2016

before-the-floodAdmittedly, I know fairly little about climate change apart from what I learn in documentary films. (You didn’t ask for this, but I’ll provide two recommendations anyways – “Merchants of Doubt” in regards to the science, and “Chasing Ice” to cover the effects.) But I do know quite a bit about Leonardo DiCaprio and his celebrity. The man loves disappearing into roles while almost never letting his private life become public. Maybe that’s because he allegedly vapes and puts on headphones during sex, but that’s neither here nor there…

Anyways, back to climate change! Leonardo DiCaprio shows us more of himself in “Before the Flood” than most people have seen in decades of stargazing. We see his fire for the issue like nothing else before, where he can come across as disengaged or disinterested. If he’s willing to shatter the barriers between us and his classic film actor persona to talk about climate change, then we all ought to listen.

The documentary itself treads standard ground for advocacy. It details the problem, shows the corrosion of the earth already well underway in the glaciers, talks to pundits working to turn back the tide, and gives a faint glimmer of hope. The thread running through most of the film’s scenes is DiCaprio, the fully present activist who listens, absorbs and reacts. From his early days of concern in the ’90s to the troubling shoot of “The Revenant,” where climate change necessitated the shoot switch hemispheres to find icy temperatures, climate change has always motivated him. “Before the Flood” sometimes feels like a concerted PR puff piece for DiCaprio, though his genuine passion really does shine through. Perhaps to the point that it even obscures the real discussion topic. B2halfstars





REVIEW: Miss Sharon Jones

18 11 2016

miss-sharon-jonesI’ve been a fan of Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings ever since the “Up in the Air” soundtrack introduced me to her soulful sounds, gleefully delighting in her retro feel. It’s to our detriment as a culture that the documentary about her had to come in the wake of her diagnosis of cancer – one that many people will discover now after the singer has passed. But nonetheless, we should be glad that the singer got to participate in a documentary chronicle that focused on her resilience and determination, not memorializing her life or lamenting her frailty.

Documentarian Barbara Kopple’s “Miss Sharon Jones!” is a stirring celebration of her subject’s fight against pancreatic cancer, which sapped her of physical strength but never of mental resolve to keep performing. While Kopple might not stare into the face of illness as unflinchingly as Steve James did with Roger Ebert in “Life Itself,” for example, she does not pull punches in depicting the toll taken. Jones talks about her scheduled regimen of television watching while bedridden, yet the moment of sadness quickly dissipates into one of joy as she narrates with such enthusiasm.

There’s ultimately not a whole lot for me to talk about from a critical perspective on “Miss Sharon Jones!” Kopple’s documentary is better than your garden variety illness, concert or biographical documentary, though it comes nowhere near transcending their traditional trappings. The film also feels a bit stretched at a 90 minute runtime, though I suspect most fans of Sharon Jones will not necessarily mind spending the extra time with her – especially now that we no longer have the opportunity to gain additional time in her presence. B-2halfstars





REVIEW: Desierto

16 11 2016

desiertoWhat do you do when the scope of your filmmaking calls for a big screen experience but your story only has the breadth to sustain a short film? It’s a trade-off that filmmakers must consider when determining how to bring an idea to fruition. In an ideal world, short-form storytelling would have a place on in theaters apart from film festivals, but that world has not yet arrived.

Jonás Cuarón’s “Desierto” faces such a dilemma with an admittedly thin plot set in a foreboding, larger than life landscape. The film boils down to a survival tale along the U.S.-Mexico border where migrants scuffle across in search of their families on the other side, facing their threat personified in the form of a nativist vigilante militiaman. (His truck is adorned with a Confederate flag and a bumper sticker declaring “My Home,” in case anyone missed it.) With retribution on his mind and a rifle in his hand, Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s Sam begins taking the immigrants for target practice.

In some respects, “Desierto” has the makings of a great elemental survival movie, especially when so much responsibility for the fate of the group comes to ride on the shoulders of Gael García Bernal’s Moises. Cuarón does, however, dole out enough specific information about characters and their circumstances that it calls for greater development. The inhumanity of their assassinations cries out for the film to treat these migrants with humanity, which is something that Cuarón does not take the time to do in full. Stretching the material that could barely sustain a 45-minute short seems to command all of his attention. Cuarón provides thrills, chills and international ills, but empathy is the missing ingredient. B2halfstars





REVIEW: Rules Don’t Apply

15 11 2016

rules-dont-applyPoor Warren Beatty. The man has been trying to make a passion project about Howard Hughes for the better part of four decades. The film faced significant challenges, including 2004’s biopic collaboration between Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio that nabbed double-digit Oscar nominations.

12 years later, Beatty’s “Rules Don’t Apply” finally makes it to the big screen only to have the misfortune of opening in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential victory. The timing doesn’t exactly feel right for a mostly breezy, old-fashioned tale about an eccentric and potentially deranged billionaire who wants to control women’s bodies and limit their personal freedoms. (A remark where a young actress declares, “I think Howard Hughes should be president, there’s no one else like him” is sure to inspire some nervous laughter.) To be clear, none of this is Beatty’s fault. He has no control over the circumstances under which his movie gets released.

But he did have control over what kind of movie he made. Beyond the unfortunate parallels to the man dominating global news headlines, “Rules Don’t Apply” is not a film built for the long haul – it is certainly not the kind of project that clearly evinces forty years of thought and development. After all that time, it feels like Beatty should have figured out the story’s protagonist – Hughes, his latest starlet prospect Marla Mabrey (Lily Collins), or the married company driver Frank Forbes (Alden Ehrenreich) who falls for her against his better judgement. The film plays out as a series of loosely connected, scarcely progressing scenes involving these characters – nothing more.

Of the key trio, only Ehrenreich’s Forbes is a character deserving of his own film. Beatty plays Hughes as a slave to his obsessive-compulsive disorder, turning his neuroses into a joking psychosis. Collins, meanwhile, dashes through her lines with such speed that she delivers them without seeming to understand what any of them mean. Or, at the very least, she doesn’t feel them with any strong sense of purpose.

Ehrenreich, meanwhile, recalls the unflappability and easygoing cool of a ’90s Leonardo DiCaprio. As a corporate pawn torn between his show business attraction and his familial commitments, Forbes is the only person in “Rules Don’t Apply” whose path does not seem predestined. Too bad that Beatty did not line up the heft of the movie fully behind him. C-1halfstars





REVIEW: Lion

14 11 2016

Houston Cinema Arts Festival

I left Garth Davis’ “Lion” feeling as if I had watched two acts from a good movie – the first and the third. If you recognize common parlance surrounding story structure, you might detect that I neglected to mention the second act. Yes, that is what I meant.

The sprawling cross-continental tale of “Lion” is essentially split in two. In the first half, a young Indian child Saroo (Sunny Pawar) winds up stuck on a train that takes him thousands of kilometers from his native town. With little knowledge about his family or surroundings, Saroo falls into foster care and winds up adopted by a philanthropic Australian couple John and Sue Brierly (Nicole Kidman and David Wenham). In these early scenes, Davis comes quite close to achieving a kind of neorealism; shots that place a confused, lost Saroo in the vastness of the Calcutta metropolis are haunting.

Then, at the midpoint, the film flashes forward twenty years to a grown, well-adjusted Saroo (now played by Dev Patel) headed off to study hotel management. He seems fine until, of course, a question about his birthplace opens a Pandora’s Box in his brain. With a little help from Google Earth, Saroo attempts to pinpoint his home within a vast radius of possible points of departure. If you doubt his commitment, just look at the scraggly hair and scruffy beard he grows!

Perhaps the back half of “Lion” would feel less like a television movie of the week had screenwriter Luke Davies included a little bit more information about what led Saroo to become the man who would doggedly pursue the truth about his heritage above all else. As an audience, our attachment to the character comes primarily through the adorable, disoriented child version of Saroo. We know little about Patel, and without a “Philomena“-style attitude or a “Spotlight“-esque focus on tedious processes, “Lion” does little to close the pathos gap between the two iterations of its protagonist. Leaving the audience to supply the difference without providing any context on what drives the changes from boy to man is not a winning strategy.

Sure, the inevitable ending of “Lion” is moving, provided you do not have a heart of stone. But imagine how much richer the feeling could be had we known more about what kind of life Saroo lived in the twenty years elided by the film. For example, what if we saw more of the pain that stems from living away from your biological mother. Or what if we observed him becoming enticed by the life offered by the Brierlys and how it incentivized him to wipe away the past? The film is missing some connective fiber that could move it from being a mere story to embodying the story of a lifetime. C+2stars





REVIEW: Arrival

13 11 2016

Fantastic Fest

Sometimes great films do more than change our thoughts. They change our way of thinking. Denis Villeneuve’s “Arrival” is one such film, reorienting our relationship with time and communication to jarring, enlightening effect. The only other recent comparison possible is a Christopher Nolan film: “Memento” or “Interstellar.”

The film attempts an ambitious coup that should be experienced, not described. But it spoils little to say that the ingenious storytelling from Eric Heisserer, adapting a short story by Ted Chiang, disorients a viewer to a point where entire sections of the film can come under reconsideration. By way of Amy Adams’ Dr. Louise Banks, a linguist tasked with figuring out how mysterious aliens express themselves, “Arrival” engages the brain while also raising questions about how that same organ processes information.

Much of the film unfolds rather plainly – Louise and a team of military personnel, including Jeremy Renner’s Ian Donnelly, insert themselves into the belly of a “heptapod” that has landed in a Montana meadow. (Many others also situate themselves across the planet.) Through a series of experiments, Louise attempts to crack an extra-terrestrial Rosetta Stone of sorts. Picture the climax of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” stretched to feature-length, and that is somewhat akin to “Arrival.”

Louise has few luxuries as she carries out her work. Time, of course, is of the essence. Many of her collaborators consider linguistics a pseudo-science, dismissing the seriousness of her mission. And with each successive trip into the heptapod, the world moves closer to the brink as media blowhards push a campaign to save the species.

With stakes this high, the average moviegoer might anticipate a massive shootout or intergalactic battle as “Arrival” heats up. Nothing of the sort happens. Villeneuve never relies on spectacle to sell the film; instead, he patiently lays the groundwork for a finale that reveals the firing of synapses in our brains as something worth celebrating and considering. This science-fiction tale has an optimism rooted in humanism, and that is something to celebrate. B+3stars





REVIEW: Denial

6 11 2016

If the U.S. presidential election and the “Brexit” decision have not made it abundantly clear, our time is teetering on the brink of becoming a “post-truth” era. Using any variety of rhetorical techniques, charlatans can play fast and loose with the facts to push an agenda based on blatant falsehoods or distortions of reality. Mick Jackson’s “Denial” plays like a kind of incidental prologue to our present dilemma, and perhaps this recent history is one we ought to have lent more credence as it played out.

Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) falls under attack from Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall), who baits her into making disparaging comments on video so that he can sue for defamation. Using a sneaky legal maneuver, he files suit in the United Kingdom where the burden of proof falls on the accuser. Thus, Lipstadt and her legal team must make the case that the Holocaust did happen, and Irving deliberately twisted the truth.

David Hare’s script hardly ranks among the most compelling courtroom dramas – a bit of fat could definitely be eliminated to make the film tauter – yet “Denial” still provides plenty of fodder for the mind. Some of the most provocative action in the film takes place in plotting the logistics of the case. Is the best strategy to go after the message or the messenger? It might be easier to take down Irving based on his character, but does that show adequate respect for the suffering of those whose history he tries to erase? Should Lipstadt take the stand? What about Holocaust survivors?

Ultimately, “Denial” asks us to consider who gets to make the case for history – and what place those who lived through those events have in shaping it. The road to the conclusion can be an uncomfortable sit; however, the film’s passionate case for freedom of truthful speech and the primacy of logic are quite moving. And given the current climate, we could all use a little confidence booster that reason will eventually triumph over the misguide notion that it’s respectable to have two points of view regarding incontrovertible evidence. B+3stars





REVIEW: Certain Women

5 11 2016

certain-womenKelly Reichardt’s richly detailed cinematic canvases have changed little in composition in her two decades of filmmaking. The world in which that art gets displayed has grown increasingly fast-paced and task-oriented. Each successive Pacific Northwestern-set film with its unhurried pace and character (as opposed to action) driven story feels slightly more rebellious than the last.

An well-known dictum from Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden” often gets deployed when describing the kinds of people on screen in Reichardt’s latest film, “Certain Women.” As the great American wordsmith put it, “The mass of [wo]men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Each of the four primary characters in the film’s three segments appears calm and relatively nonplussed by their circumstances. But beneath the stillness, a river of malcontent flows.

We do not spend but a brief episode with each of them, though their silent struggles are wholly realized. “Certain Women” lingers in the dead space between two questions Stanislavsky says all actors must answer for their characters – “What do I want?” and “What do I do to get what I want?” Reichardt never plays a story with as vague an objective as happiness or contentment, either. Laura Dern’s Laura Wells, a lawyer working with an obstinate and entitled male client, wants relief and understanding her trying scenario. Michelle Williams’ Gina Lewis, the yoga pants-clad mother and wife, wants the kind of satisfaction that can only come from swindling an elderly man into selling them sandstone at a cheap price.

In the most devastating portion of the triptych, the shy farmhand Jamie (Lily Gladstone) desperate for connection makes feeble attempts to befriend a community college adjunct professor, Kristen Stewart’s Beth Travis. For whatever reason, Beth has decided to take on an eight-hour roundtrip commute to teach a class which brings her no obvious intrinsic value or monetary gain. They share many a dinner but precious little of themselves.

While moving at a speed that many would compare to molasses, Jamie and Beth seem like they could use the kind of diuretic that “Certain Women” provides. By focusing on the small gestures, the simple systems governing our livelihoods, and the moments between moments, Reichardt creates a space to simply stop and live. Once you locate the rhythm of the film and arrive on its wavelength, the atmosphere of striving slowly amidst disappointment becomes gloriously overwhelming.  B+3stars





REVIEW: Doctor Strange

4 11 2016

There are so many movies of the VFX-driven variety, most of which have interchangeable and ultimately forgettable spectacles. Films that feel as if they want to try something new, or head into uncharted waters, are a rarity. Genuine surprise and awe is hard to come by.

Color me delighted to report that “Doctor Strange” actually does manage to achieve true visual astonishment in its action set pieces. The titular hero, his allies and his pursuers do not just duel in urban areas. They bend space and time in a manner that’s appropriately gobsmacking, recalling to some extent the wow factor of Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.”

Before you let your mind run away with you on that comparison, that’s primarily speaking of the feast for the eyes. “Doctor Strange” is a cut above the average Marvel Studios production, and I do not even mean that as damning with faint praise. The company has figured out a way to tell satisfying origin stories (“Iron Man,” “Ant-Man“) when the concern is establishing a character, not connecting to mythology or chronology.

Benedict Cumberbatch’s smug, silver-tongued surgeon turns into a dimension-hopping hero after seeking faith healing for his damaged hands. He’s appropriately equipped with smart-ass banter and lessons to learn while perfecting his manipulation of matter. Strange also has an exalted mentor in the Ancient One (a bald Tilda Swinton) and a menace to fight in her turncoat former mentee Kaecilius (a manbun-sporting Mads Mikkelsen). And maybe I was just reading too much into the score from Michael Giacchino, which sounded an awful lot like his work on “Star Trek,” but Strange also seems to have a Kirk-Spock dynamic with his straight-laced partner in crime Karl Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

The action unfolds predictably, but also beautifully and humorously. For all those who thought it would take a maverick like Terrence Malick or Harmony Korine to get Tilda Swinton to narrate trippy shots of alternate universes, guess what? It happened in a Marvel movie. Note to whoever is preparing a career highlight reel for Swinton’s lifetime achievement awards in a decade or so: feel free to use this as the backbone of the montage. B+3stars





F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 3, 2016)

3 11 2016

street-fightThe 2016 presidential election has often felt like a daily race to the bottom with each day seemingly fighting to make the claim, “No, THIS is the worst it’s ever been.” And we still have days left to go – there haven’t even been the definitive post-mortem books where the really juicy stuff comes out! We’ve always known politics were grimy and nasty, though perhaps we underestimated the extent to which they reveled in the dirt.

Though perhaps if more people (myself included) had seen Marshall Curry’s documentary “Street Fight,” my pick for “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” the surprise might not have been so pronounced. This chronicle of the bitter campaign for Newark’s mayor in 2002 is a stunning display of politics at its worst. Like in this year’s “Weiner,” a present-day viewer can watch this nasty race and pick out undertones that eventually become overtones in the Trump-Clinton feud.

Less than 15 years ago, ascendant Democratic politician Cory Booker set out to make a big splash in Newark by challenging the town’s 16-year incumbent mayor, Sharpe James. While cities such as Chicago and New York conjure images of political corruption at the mere mention of their name, Newark does not lag too far behind. James somehow managed to ride out a major corruption scandal in the ’90s while many of his associates took the fall. He uses questionable means to hold onto his power, including intimidation of opponents and co-opting of the police for his own benefit.

But Booker, ever the inspiring figure, poses a serious threat to James by taking the high road. His optimistic message lobbying for change rather than accepting stagnation has appeal to Newark residents who feel their current mayor takes their support for granted. While James might lead a more lively rally, Booker can connect with voters and sell his story convincingly. His parents fought for equality in the Civil Rights era and were on the painful front lines of integration so Cory could get the education he deserved.

But what luck does a straight-laced candidate have when he goes up against a street fighter like James? His opponents pulls out all the stops, going full anti-Semitic to (falsely) smear his association with “the Jews” and accusing him of (gasp!) working as a covert Republican. Everyone seems to recognize these as blatant falsehoods, yet Booker is powerless to keep them from gaining media attention and reaching voters’ ears. Sound familiar? Curry’s camera, recording in spite of attempts by James’ political machine to stifle it, is there for the dispiriting longhaul. If Booker wants to make a run at the White House in 2024, we know from “Street Fight” that he’s battle-tested in the grimy game of political campaigns.





REVIEW: Hacksaw Ridge

2 11 2016

There are a few actors that can exude an old Hollywood vibe in their performances, but it took me a little while in”Hacksaw Ridge” to figure out what exactly it was about Andrew Garfield that emanated such classicism. Then it hit me: it’s his ability to listen. To be present.

As Desmond Doss, a pacifist and conscientious objector who enlists for World War II knowing he cannot pick up a weapon, Garfield is gentility incarnate. With his eyes wide open, the earnestness of the devoted, sabbath-honoring Seventh Day Adventist shines radiantly through. Garfield always takes in more than he takes from a scene. Any given scene is not merely a scene in a biography but an opportunity for his character to learn, lead and love.

Doss’ insistence on a black and white moral universe where violence can never be justified is echoed by director Mel Gibson. He creates a space where the full-throated defense of ideals and veneration of courageous men can glisten without the slightest sense of irony. This World War II movie feels cut from the same cloth as those made by the men who actually fought in it – or can at least remember it. “Hacksaw Ridge” is vintage Hollywood combat manned by one of the few actors who could have prospered in the period.

Yet the tribute to Doss’ nonviolent tenets gets severely undercut by the battle scenes, which luxuriate in gore to a disturbing extent. With different (read: non-heroic strings) music or context, soldiers getting shot through the head or immolated could play as broad comedy. If this carnage is meant to complicated Doss’ worldview or draw a stark contrast between belief and reality, it plays too broad and strays too far from the issue at hand.

This caricatured, simplistic portrayal of the conflict – one that holds the lives of Japanese opponents in shockingly little regard – is directly at odds with the deeply human and contoured portrait of Doss. His miraculous rescues and genuine valor still receive ample, deserved praise. But the fact that Gibson drags this rich character down into the muck with his shallow depiction of war does regrettably tinge the triumph. B2halfstars





REVIEW: Star Trek

1 11 2016

Is there a 101 class in film schools yet on franchise filmmaking or reboots? Because if so, I sincerely hope that J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” is assigned viewing. With the exception of perhaps Nolan’s “Batman” trilogy, there is no movie that has better relaunched a dormant (or, at the very least, stagnant) series. In one fail swoop, Abrams as well as writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman find ample reason to excite long-time fans and create new acolytes, all while providing motivation for revival beyond just profit margins.

In the seven years since this new “Star Trek” hit theaters, there have been no shortage of brand extensions and series relaunches – most of which struggle to take off due to paying excessive fan service with nostalgic callbacks. Sure, Abrams gives plenty here. The trademark pings of the intergalactic communication, the strategic peripheral views of the starship and the reappearance of a favorite character played by the same beloved actor are all enough to sate the casual fans of the classic television or film series.

“Star Trek” takes flight, however, because Abrams uses the show’s legacy as a kickstart into a bold new future, not an albatross to keep trotting in previously grazed circles. Utilizing an ingenious narrative gambit that sidesteps the original show’s chronology without erasing or ignoring it, the series gained the ability to boldly go wherever themes could lead it. The standard passion-reason dialectic between Chris Pine’s Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto’s Spock is introduced from the get-go, and they don’t waste a second exploring its consequences.

But it doesn’t take a mechanical analysis of how Abrams guides decades of mythology to work in his favor to show “Star Trek” works. The proof is in the pudding; the film succeeds because it is just plain well-made. The characters are fun and fully developed. The action is coherent and engaging. The story flows effortlessly while also requiring some of our brainpower. The stakes are high, giving appropriate weight to a topic like genocide. (That may seem like a no-brainer, but plenty of movies have made light of it.) And, perhaps most importantly, this “Star Trek” recreates that first introduction to this universe of diplomacy and conflict.  A4stars