REVIEW: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

10 05 2017

Let’s have a little thought experiment, shall we? Think of an action movie in the last decade or so that you enjoyed. Say, “The Bourne Ultimatum” or “The Lord of the Rings” franchise. How would you like to see that movie … but medieval?!

That’s pretty much the gambit on which Guy Ritchie stakes his entire film “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.” Observers of the director know to expect a certain cheekiness and self-awareness from the rebellious Brit. But here, Ritchie crosses a line. He’s self-aware to an almost Seth MacFarlane-esque self-referential point.

His “Game of Thrones” fan fiction film doubles down on all the worst qualities of his “Sherlock Holmes” films and discards most of the team chemistry that made them great. Ritchie has always been one to show the strings, making you aware of his stylistic baubles every time he brandishes them. Given his post-modern, ironic sensibilities, the aesthetic butts heads with anything set before the mid-20th century. The effect is always one of removal from the film itself, reminding us of the dissonance between the subject and its presentation.

His take on the Camelot myth, pitting a paranoid King Herod-like Vortigern (Jude Law) against a messianic sword-wielding Arthur (Charlie Hunnam), brings little to the round table other than zippy editing and flashy VFX. Hunnam does little to liven up “King Arthur” as well; he looks more likely to be headed to a rugged Scotland-themed GQ shoot than into serious battle. But I don’t mean to reduce the film to mere appearances in order to dismiss it. Let me put it simply: this is the same superhero origin story of dead parents and internal power struggles we’ve been forced to endure for about 15 years now. But medieval. C





REVIEW: Manifesto

9 05 2017

Sundance Film Festival

Philosophically inclined critics (myself included) love to bloviate about the specific properties that separate cinema as constructed from other forms of art. It’s usually in regards to distinctions from the stage, but given the amount of visual artists utilizing pixels like paint, comparisons of the movie theater to the gallery space deserve consideration as well.

Julian Rosefeldt’s “Manifesto” cannot be fully understood without its origins as an art installation. The project began as a gallery exhibit where viewers walked through the space and encountered 13 screens, each of which featured Cate Blanchett manifesting the tenets an artistic manifesto. Viewers received guidance on how to proceed based on the order of the screens, but they were largely free to consume the segments at their own leisure. For all intents and purposes, they had the option to control their spatial and durational experience. (For those interested in learning more, allow me to shamelessly plug my interview with the director Julian Rosefeldt.)

I found myself envying those lucky enough to attend the gallery version of “Manifesto,” though Rosefeldt did assure me it would eventually resume touring. The feature length version does have plenty of merits, of course, namely its democratization. Millions more will have access to Rosefeldt’s audacious undertaking given its restriction to a single-screen experience. And in any form, a rigorous and creative attempt to breathe life into academic texts about the very nature of art is a welcome and worthy enterprise.

But “Manifesto” the narrative film is akin to sipping water from a firehose. It’s mainlining an entire semester of art history in 95 minutes. Watching the film becomes mentally taxing in the best kind of way. At countless times when my exhaustion threatened to overwhelm my comprehension, I desired the gallery experience of “Manifesto” where I could take in individual movements at my own pace. Undoubtedly, I could spend hours inside Rosefeldt’s world. I probably will. But I couldn’t at Sundance. B+





REVIEW: Get Out

8 05 2017

“I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this […] through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away,” then-President Barack Obama stated upon the occasion of George Zimmerman’s acquittal for the murder of Trayvon Martin. “There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me.”

The terror that white people feel when a black man enters a space they historically dominate has gotten a surge of attention in recent years. (Some might say it’s the underlying narrative of the 2016 presidential election.) This tension appears most in the police shootings of unarmed black men, though it also appears in dialogues surrounding everything from cultural appropriation to #OscarsSoWhite. The issues, of course, are nothing new. The means for traditionally underrepresented voices to make their opinions heard, however, are.

With his feature debut “Get Out,” writer/director Jordan Peele finds yet another method of expression: the thriller genre. From its ominous opening scene in which a black man ambles uneasily through a Stepfordian suburb, the film engrosses us in the acute and hyperaware perspective of a minority navigating a predominantly white culture. That also requires shining a light on the dark flip side of the equation that helps construct blackness – white myopia or blindness.

As Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) prepares to meet the parents of his white girlfriend Rose (a perfectly cast Allison Williams), we become painfully aware of how the vast gulf of racial privilege affects their read on certain situations. She cannot understand why Chris simply gives his license to an officer calmly by the side of the road when it’s clear he did nothing wrong. She has a post-racial mindset that makes her think it’s unnecessary to specify Chris’ race before arriving. Race is something Rose can forget about. It’s not that easy for him.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Risk

7 05 2017

One must balance principles with pragmatism if the former is to survive intense scrutiny, opines Julian Assange at the start of Laura Poitras’ “Risk,” a documentary with unprecedented access to the WikiLeaks founder at the height of his early ’10s infamy. It’s an ironic, fitting statement from a man who sees much of his work for international transparency eclipsed by charges of sexual assault. Rather than applying the principles of radical openness to his own life, Assange embarks on a scorched earth campaign to shift blame onto his accusers rather than accept any personal responsibility.

Poitras casts a suspicious eye towards Assange’s behavior, a stance likely influenced by allegations of sexual harassment and abuse leveled against fellow “hacktivist” Jacob Appelbaum after their brief affair ended. Appelbaum features prominently in both “Citizenfour” and the opening chapters of “Risk,” and the impassioned, largely unfiltered speeches he gives railing against online censorship demonstrates some form of support for the ideas. But can we excuse abusive behavior in men whose core ideas and values we primarily support? (It’s not exclusively a male problem, though cultural and institutional sexism tend to relegate these unchecked ego issues to a single gender.)

Poitras’ film bears the marks of intense internal deliberation in its very fiber; the version of “Risk” most audiences will experience differs dramatically from the version initially presented at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. It’s a gripping examination of the double-edged sword forged by the cult of personality. On the one hand, complex dialectic struggles between freedom and control on personal and international scales become much more comprehensible when distilled into a human essence. Assange. Snowden. Appelbaum. They move these theoretical issues into the realm of the real by giving them a face. Yet people are complicated, and they lack consistency. Anything less than perfect representation of an ideology seemingly grants permission to throw the baby out with the bathwater in this day and age.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

6 05 2017

The summer season means sequelitis with few exceptions. One of these outliers, to an extent, is James Gunn’s “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.” It appears that after the surprising smash success of his series opener, Kevin Feige and the powers that be at Marvel decided to loosen his leash to continue pushing his aesthetic. Though the enormous potential of the irreverent “Guardians” series seems self-evident from our vantage point in the era of “Deadpool,” it was far from a sure thing when the studio greenlit the film in the heat of “The Avengers” universe-building craze. “Kick-Ass” hardly served as a reliable indicator that audiences were ready to follow the superhero genre into a parodic cycle.

From the outset, Gunn shows that he was far from operating at full throttle in the first film – and that he still has plenty of tricks up his sleeve. The way he stages the opening battle sequence is pure subversive brilliance. Some mysterious octopus-like space creature drops out of the sky and onto a landing pad where Chris Pratt’s Star-Lord and the Guardians are waiting for it. We have no idea what it is or why it poses a threat, in typical Marvel fashion. Gunn capitalizes on that unfamiliarity, staging the fight out of focus in the background while an adorable Baby Groot dances to an Electric Light Orchestra jam in front of our eyes. He knows people operate on sensation and feeling more than linear plot development, and he crafts an ideal anti-action scene.

So it’s a little disappointing when, by the end, Gunn still has to direct in lockstep with the Marvel mold. We’ve still got to have the obligatory third act “blow everything up for 20 minutes” portion of the screenplay, unfortunately. “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” at least imbues an otherwise mindless spectacle with deeper stakes. Every aspect of the film harkens back to its central themes of family, from the gold-hued eugenicist Sovereigns to Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and her sister Nebula (Karen Gillan). And, of course, there’s the match made in intertextual heaven: Star-Lord reuniting with his long-lost father, Kurt Russell’s Ego.

It’s too bad that anything relating to blood dynamics sounds like the notes from a family psychologist’s notepad. The dialogue sounds far too on-the-nose for a film so fluent in 13-year-old boy humor. (That’s not to knock the jokes, which would have gone over gangbusters with me 10 years ago. Some still do, to my reluctant chagrin.) But thankfully, Gunn still give us plenty of the franchise’s ragtag family, the Guardians themselves, rocking out to another awesome mixtape. B





REVIEW: After the Storm

5 05 2017

“Every year, men are becoming less manly,” says Hiroshi Abe’s Ryota, a pot calling the kettle black if ever there were one. He’s a man who’s not ready to have a family yet, as stated by the woman who bore his child in a misguided effort to nudge him to such a place. And yet, this prolonged adolescence provides a career in private investigation of cheating husbands for failed novelist Ryota.

Kore-Eda Hirokazu’s “After the Storm” takes some time to acquaint us with Ryota’s life. It’s not a plot-driven film, which is not to say that nothing happens. A fair amount does, particularly surrounding his continued affection for his ex-wife as she moves onto a new beau and tries to consolidate custody. Meanwhile, Ryota is mostly stuck trying to stay above water financially and musing to his son, “I’m not who I want to be yet.”

It’s not Kore-Eda’s most consequential work, but since “After the Storm” never aspires to “Like Father, Like Son” levels of profundity, it never feels slight. The film provides another great showcase of the writer/director’s perceptive understanding of human interaction. Even without great thematic heft, spending two hours observing the world through his eyes is a worthwhile use of time. B





F.I.L.M. of the Week (May 4, 2017)

4 05 2017

It’s gonna be May, which means one thing for this cinephile: the Cannes Film Festival! Unfortunately, I’m not going, but the official selection titles give me plenty to watch from the comfort of my own home. Cannes confers international auteur status on plenty of up-and-coming directors who were previously flying well off my radar.

Such is the case for French director Robin Campillo, whose third film “120 Beats Per Minute” marks his competition debut. (He did have a connection to the festival through 2008’s Palme d’Or winner “The Class” – another film featured in this column – which he co-wrote with director Laurent Cantet.) “Eastern Boys” marks his most recent film, and it too earns its stripes as a “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”

Campillo’s departure point is a familiar place, or so it appears to me from my somewhat limited knowledge of global LGBT cinema. (The plot bears many similarities to Lorenzo Vigas’ 2016 feature “From Afar.”) A lonely older man, sexually repressed, seeks erotic fulfillment from a scruffy, edgy youngster furtively dabbling in the world’s oldest profession. From there, these two unlikely lovers begin a tender relationship that exposes generational differences in sexual freedom and shame.

But Campillo takes his time to arrive there in “Eastern Boys.” The relationship is teased in a masterful opening sequence where Rouslan (Kirill Emelyanov), a Ukranian immigrant living in the shadows of Paris, lurks around a metropolitan train station with a band of fellow hoodlums. The camera yo-yos between extreme wide shots painting him as just another body moving in a space and tighter angles where we get a sense of how he’s scouting his next mark. Eventually, the soft-spoken businessman Daniel (Olivier Rabourdin) tracks him down and requests his services.

Only it’s not just Rouslan who shows up – it’s his entire gang there to strip the apartment down for parts. The holdup isn’t the end of their story, though. Rouslan returns to consummate his original offer and winds up becoming a regular guest. As their bond deepens, Rouslan feels compelled to tell his host more details of his former life in eastern Europe – stories which Daniel dismisses and downplays. This information threatens to usurp his own sexual angst and reminds of him of the privilege he carries.

From there, it’s fascinating to watch how the provider-client relationship morphs into a more paternal-filial one. “Eastern Boys” loses some steam in its final act when some of Rouslan’s companions grow suspicious of some conspicuous symbols of wealth he mysteriously comes to possess, though it’s hardly enough to derail the film. The fascinating ever-shifting connection between Rouslan and Daniel, expertly conveyed by Emelyanov and Rabourdin, more than redeems any missteps.





Random Factoid #581 / A Remembrance

4 05 2017

I hope you’ll forgive me a brief personal aside here. Though my personality pervades just about every review I write to some extent, I rarely indulge in biographical babbling. (At least, not as much as I used to.) But sometimes I just need to write. It’s often times the best way I have of communicating thoughts that bubble up inside of me – especially ones that I find challenging to express emotionally or vocally.

Margaret Stratton died today. That name probably doesn’t mean a lot to you, if you’re reading this. (It might if you’re a friend of mine who’s been to see an advanced or press screening with me in Houston – which, granted, is probably the majority of my audience these days.) But she’s deeply woven into the fabric of this blog, and thus, my life.

I’ve hinted at it here and there, but when I’m not writing this blog, I’ve been pursuing a career in publicity, public relations and promotions. (I think it’s enhanced my writing innumerably and deepened my appreciation for how culture disseminates.) Margaret is a key figure in that career journey. She used to run the Houston publicity office where I had my first internship during high school, and though she had retired from most of her duties, she kept a large presence there. She could always be counted on to provide support for big events and activations – and, of course, serve as the screening rep for advanced screenings.

Some of my fondest memories come from working with her during the summer before I went to college. We were promoting “The Smurfs,” and even at my modest 5’8″, I was mercifully too tall to fit in the giant Smurf suits that Sony sent us to parade across town. Thankfully, Margaret was willing and able to pitch in. Bless her heart, she suited up in that costume in some of the hottest Houston heat I can remember. And these suits were THICK.

Yet even in what had to be a walking inferno, I cannot recall her complaining even once. In fact, I can barely even recall a moment when she didn’t have a grin from ear-to-ear. In typical teenager fashion, I didn’t realize it at the time, but that’s when I learned a pivotal lesson about work. If you’re going to do any task, even the smallest and seemingly most insignificant thing, it’s not worth doing unless you put your all into it. You can always affect someone for the better with it. The smiles (and, ok, the occasional terror) came about on the faces of so many young children because she was radiating enthusiasm through the costume.

And my gosh, I don’t even think I can count how many movies I saw with Margaret. It has to be well into the hundreds. Though I first knew her from publicity, our professional relationship later evolved into a more standard publicist-journalist one; I showed up at the screenings she worked, and she took my comments on them. Except it was anything but standard. From the beginning, when a young and timid 18-year-old me made his first forays into the big leagues of the entertainment press, Margaret believed in me. More than that, she championed me. In smaller venues, she’d introduce me to the more established members of the Houston press and sing my praises with the kind of enthusiasm you normally expect from family members. That vote of confidence meant more to me than I knew at the time.

During breaks in college (and the year and change after while I lived at home), I saw her countless times at screenings. She’d ask me all about what was going on in my life – I specifically remember her jubilation when I returned from Cannes – and then ask me what I thought about the movie afterwards. Margaret was such an optimist that she could find the good in just about any movie. I can probably count the number of films she outright rejected. So I always found it tough to tell her when I didn’t like something. After a few years, I found my cheat word to get around expressing outright disdain for a film: alright. Last September, she caught on after a string of particularly bad movies. I remember her putting her foot down and exhorting, “Oh Marshall, you and your alrights!”

Thankfully, the last movie we watched together was a great one: “Manchester by the Sea,” my favorite of 2016. We both walked out singing its praises and feeling emotionally invigorated. It’s now, in retrospect, a rather poetic final film given its subject matter of lives broken by a sudden death and how the living reassemble the pieces when they’re gone. You can never quite put it back together, and sometimes you can’t fill the lonely void. But the very act of trying opens up places in ourselves unbeknownst even to ourselves and lights the way to deeper and more meaningful relationships with the ones we love.

I’m in the middle of a screener for Oren Moverman’s “The Dinner” right now. It’s pretty dreadful. But darn it, I’m going to push myself to find something nice to say about it because that’s what Margaret would do. It’s now up to me, and the many people she touched, to keep her infectious optimism alive in a world that could sorely use it.





REVIEW: The Dinner

3 05 2017

I’ve racked my brain for days. Still, I cannot find a scenario in which the same person who masterfully threaded the seven-character Bob Dylan opus “I’m Not There” could also write something as clunky as “The Dinner.” Pardon this casual dismissal, but just … woooof.

Oren Moverman’s film is a cheap knockoff of “Carnage” – both Yasmina Reza’s play and Roman Polanski’s cinematic adaptation – as it gathers wealthy individuals to gnaw at each other over the sins of their children. That film wasn’t even anything to write home about, but it at least found a claustrophobic consistency and stuck to it. Moverman hacks away at any building tension between the two couples by frequently cutting away with flashbacks and expository scenes.

Even when Moverman does center the action on the open loathing between a successful politician (Richard Gere) and his cynical brother (Steve Coogan), “The Dinner” falls flat. They don’t sound like people. They talk like characters. Every bloviating pontification reeks of unrealistic grandiloquence. I don’t buy that this manner of speaking is some kind of class marker, either. Moverman just cannot find the humanity in the people he puts on screen.

When evaluating films, director David Fincher says he operates on the following logic: “First I’m looking for the technical. Then the believable. Then the connection.” Moverman’s film never makes it past the first criterion. C-





Robert Pattinson roundup

2 05 2017

I recently penned a piece over at Film School Rejects entitled “Robert Pattinson: From Behead to Bushy Beard,” where I ran through the actor’s career and found some pretty surprising things. I began coming around on Pattinson with “The Rover” back in 2014, but I discovered that his acting chops didn’t just magically grow once he excited the “Twilight” world. He refined them over time, though the raw talent was there.

I watched (almost) all of his filmography to write the essay, and rather than write individual reviews of them all, I’ve decided to do a little round-up here for those. It’s a little more manageable than trying to pen three separate posts.

“Little Ashes”

Robert Pattinson’s Salvador Dalí in “Little Ashes” undergoes a similar arc as Daniel Radcliffe’s Allen Ginsberg in “Kill Your Darlings.” These films find ways to intertwine the coming-of-age story with the artist biopic. Both are future groundbreaking artists in the making, but when we meet them, they are young men curious to explore their intellectual and sexual boundaries in a collegiate atmosphere.

The differentiator between the two (admittedly an unfair comparison since “Kill Your Darlings” came out five years later) is that in “Little Ashes,” Pattinson has much more of a public persona into which he must play. We know Dalí as a quirky eccentric, and that’s where Pattinson goes off the rails in the film. He’s better as an actor of small gestures and concealed emotions, not painting in a craze with a shaved head or tucking his genitals in front of a mirror. Dalí’s political awakening by way of his peer Federico García Lorca (Javier Beltrán) at a puppet show is a far better showcase for Pattinson’s gifts. We can observe the slow radicalization of his ideas through the gradual lighting up of his face.

And as a story of could-be lovers and artistic rivals, “Little Ashes” hardly fairs better. Director Paul Morrison never really determines the film’s identity, and the whole work suffers for it. C+

“Remember Me”

If you have some conception of Robert Pattinson as a disinterested, dispassionate slacker with chronic bedhead, chances are it comes a lot from “Remember Me.” It’s the film that best bottles up the essence of his late ’00s/early ’10s stardom, one that fits itself around his persona.

Pattinson plays Tyler Hawkins, an NYU student in fall 2001 dealing with daddy issues while romantically pursuing the daughter of the cop who recently gave him grief. (But don’t worry, he’s still a genuine sweetheart to his grade-school aged younger sister.) There’s constant tension in the film about how little both Pattinson and Tyler seem to care about what’s going on around them and the deep pain in his heart stemming from the suicide of his older brother Michael.

Allen Coulter’s film is what it is – a sappy, emotions-on-its-sleeves young adult romance – and I give it some credit for not aiming for much more. I’m still a little on the fence about the film’s ending, which milks tragedy in an arguably exploitative way. But as a by-the-books melodrama, it’s serviceable. C+

“The Childhood of a Leader”

Admittedly, including Brady Corbet’s “The Childhood of a Leader” in a roundup of Robert Pattinson movies feels a little wrong. The actor only makes a brief appearance at the tail ends of the film. At the outset, he’s a French professorial chap giving pre-Hannah Arendt musings on the banality of evil in the immediate wake of World War I’s devastation. In the ending, he’s … someone different. (Sorry, spoilers.)

The main focus of the film is Tom Sweet’s Prescott, a young child who forms his understanding of the world against the backdrop of the fragile peace. The film runs nearly two hours, a time in which little happens but Corbet establishes heavy atmosphere and deep foreboding. He only releases the built-up tension in the aforementioned finale.

As a film, “The Childhood of a Leader” is a bit of a strut, more style than substance. But as a debut film, it’s a little something different. This feels like an aesthetic calling card for Brady Corbet, a declaration of intent for many great things to come. He hasn’t made his great movie yet, but I left this one with full confidence that it will arrive one day. “The Childhood of a Leader” is like a feature-length proof of concept for it. B-





REVIEW: Norman Lear: Just Another Version of You

1 05 2017

Norman Lear is, to borrow a term used by the President to describe Frederick Douglass, being recognized more and more these days. But unlike the abolitionist hero, Lear is still alive! Luckily for us, his work and enormous contributions to shaping American society by revolutionizing the sitcom are receiving their proper due. Lear himself is not content to go gently into that good night, either; the nonagenarian just kicked off a podcast this month!

A few years ago, however, Lear penned a memoir, and documentarians Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady came along for the book tour. Their observations on the journey form the backbone of “Norman Lear: Just Another Version of You.” It’s definitely a puff piece, though the halo is dim enough that it falls short of hagiography. Their film lands somewhere in Sunday morning news magazine segment territory, just at a feature length, which is a fine place to reside.

Ewing and Grady assemble an impressive array of talking heads to interview, ranging from obvious contenders such as comedic peer Mel Brooks and famous showrunners like Lena Dunham and Phil Rosenthal (“Everybody Loves Raymond”) to some genuinely surprising faces like George Clooney. For those who want to understand Lear’s importance and don’t have the time to binge-watch “All in the Family,” this documentary will provide an important primer to his historical importance and continued relevance. Ewing and Grady aren’t pushing the documentary form like Lear stretched the TV sitcom, though that’s hardly an issue. B





REVIEW: Soul Surfer

30 04 2017

I’ll go ahead and warn you that a good portion of this review won’t be dealing with the movie “Soul Surfer” at all. This inspirational sports movie about Bethany Hamilton, the 13-year-old who lost her arm to a shark while surfing, is so clichéd and by the book that it really isn’t worth discussing in depth. In short, it’s instantly forgettable because you’ve already seen it. You know what’s going to happen, so much so that I don’t even need to scream spoiler: she’s going to get back on the board, and she’s going to succeed.

At this point, you either know that you are going to be moved by this storyline or you aren’t.  Maybe there’s the exception for the sport that’s closest to your heart, but from “The Blind Side” to “Secretariat” to “Soul Surfer,” it’s all the same buttons being pushed. (Although now thanks to “The Blind Side,” these movies can delve into Christianity and religion without being thrown in the “Christian art” ghetto.) I’ve come to resist this maudlin and melodramatic sentimentalism because it’s just plain lazy filmmaking.

But in one of the final editions of Sports Illustrated in 2012, Brian Koppelman (writer/director of the decidedly forgettable “Solitary Man” – but also the showrunner of “Billions”) penned a passionate plea for Hollywood to keep churning out these color-by-numbers underdog stories. He talks about how sports movies “have a purity and truth that all too often professional and college sports no longer do” and that he’s “rooting for Hollywood to find a way to do the right thing and give us a few more of the transcendent film moments that only a sports movie can bring.”

Well, Mr. Koppelman, allow me to retort. (NOTE: I wrote this in 2013 and left it unpublished for four years. Retorting made more sense then.) I understand what good sports movies are supposed to do, and believe me, I’ve been moved by plenty of them from “Remember the Titans” to “Miracle.” But by now, the underdog champions have been crowned on screen for just about every sport.  Now, with “Soul Surfer,” we even have surfing.

The inspirational sports movie has run out of steam, and the formula has been hackneyed into a shell of its former self. When the western and the musical told all the stories people could stand, they slipped quietly into obscurity. I think it may be time for the sports movie to do the same, particularly those of the inspirational brand.

Now, a sort of revisionist strand of sports films have taken center stage. “The Fighter” is more about family than boxing, just as “Moneyball” is more about creative thinking than baseball. They have succeeded with audiences and critics because they use the familiar warmth of competitive athletics to bring about an entirely different sentiment.

So, Mr. Koppelman, there will always be the sports movie “classics” of the past for you to enjoy. With something for just about everyone now, the underdog story may have exhausted itself – but that’s only a natural progression. Whether it was the audiences or the industry that gave up on sports movies around the time of release of the generic “Soul Surfer,” I don’t particularly care. I just hope that we have all moved on to bigger and better things because the sports movie as it stands today is weighing us down in unnecessary banality.  B- / 2stars





REVIEW: Casting JonBenet

29 04 2017

What are we talking about when we talk about true crime? It’s rarely the victims, and it’s seldom even the criminal act in question. So often, these cases that play out in the media and catch a foothold in American culture provide a convenient release valve for other societal anxieties. As two 2016 projects explored, the O.J. Simpson trial was about race, gender and class in American life, and the case was hardly an outlier. Recently, we’ve seen the Casey Anthony trial about negligent millennial parenting and the Travyon Martin/Eric Garner cases about race relations and implicit bias. History books are lined with mass public hysteria over legal disputes going back centuries.

Kitty Green’s “Casting JonBenet” contorts the conventions of documentary cinema to observe this phenomena at the granular level. Under the guise of filming a fictional piece about the mysteries surrounding the murder of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, Green interviews town locals of Boulder, CO (the site of the crime) who audition to play key figures in the story. Many of the amateur actors are not approaching the JonBenet case with remoteness or remove; most adults are within a degree of separation from the Ramsey family. Some even interacted with them directly.

With so many questions still remaining about the involvement of JonBenet’s mother Kitty, her father Jon and a costumed Santa Claus, each performer must bring a certain amount of judgement to the role. What do they believe about the case? Unheard and unseen, Green interrogates her coterie of aspiring actors about the biases and assumptions they bring to the part. Their answers, revealed plainly to the camera in front of them, reveal convictions based less on facts and more on personal experiences as well as cultural assumptions about the roles available to the person they are auditioning to play. The actors, like most of us who get drawn into crime stories, turn real people into fictional characters by projecting our own fears onto them.

Green has no interest in solving the JonBenet Ramsey murder, deliberately eschewing procedural or investigative tropes in favor of an open-ended lack of resolution. Was it the brother? The mother? The Santa? The father? Green answers, yes. “Casting JonBenet” allows for a radical coexistence of all these interpretations and theories. In the absence of evidence, all we’re left with to adjudicate the cases is our internal compass in an attempt to restore the balance of morality shattered by an immoral act. A- /





REVIEW: Colossal

28 04 2017

Historically in monster movies, the imminent threat stands in for a more existential fear. From foreign invaders to nuclear weapons and screen addiction, we’ve seen any number of external forces terrorize the cinema. But starting in the 1960s (as compellingly chronicled by Jason Zinoman in his book “Shock Value“), some of these monsters came to represent parts of ourselves. They were manifestations of some internal demons, not some societal hazard.

Nacho Vigalondo’s “Colossal” is the latest film in this tradition as Anne Hathaway’s trainwreck of a character, Gloria, manifests as a godzilla-like beast in Seoul when she gets blackout drunk in a certain radius. The premise sounds a little risible, admittedly, but Hathaway and Vigalondo sell its spirit with gusto. This is not the kind of movie devoted to detailed scientific explanation. You accept the oddly specific rules under which it operates and then delve into its rich metaphorical terrain.

A mid-movie turn in the plot should go unspoiled in a review, but I’ll hint at it by saying it opens “Colossal” up to be more than just a metaphor for alcoholism. The monster is all of us and whatever baggage we carry that makes us act impulsively. It takes a physical manifestation of these forces to make Gloria realize that her actions can cause collateral damage harming people around her. Vigalondo adds plenty of contemporary touches – in particular how the Internet can find a way to turn tragedy into memes instantaneously – but this classical dilemma lies at the very heart of the film. The satisfying resolution shows why Hathaway is uniquely equipped to play the part. It requires creativity, determination and a brushing aside of the haters. B+





F.I.L.M. of the Week (April 27, 2017)

27 04 2017

For whatever reason, I found James Gray’s “Two Lovers” cold, remote and distant on first watch. Perhaps it was just too close to the release of the director’s film “The Immigrant,” my favorite film of 2014 (and potentially the decade). I knew to expect classical-style melodrama yet still found myself desperately searching for an access point that I couldn’t locate.

I don’t know what changed between then and now – more familiarity with Gray’s reference points, better understanding of melodrama, knowing the plot, general life experience – but I’d now easily put “Two Lovers” in “F.I.L.M. of the Week” territory. The passion, disappointment and affection lurk beneath the surface of the film, not always palpable but constantly dictating the limited choices of the characters. Watching the film a second time opened my eyes to the straightjackets of expectation they all inhabit – and how difficult embracing another person must be with arms tied.

Joaquin Phoenix’s quiet, subdued Leonard Kraditor is not the lightning rod of easy sympathy in the way Marion Cotillard’s Ewa was in “The Immigrant.” For heaven’s sake, the beginning of the movie shows him moving back in with his parents after encountering a setback in his mental health. This gives them the excuse to propose the closest 21st century equivalent of an arranged marriage with the daughter of a business partner, shy but stable Sandra (Vinessa Shaw). Of course, this comes at the same time Leonard meets fellow building tenant Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), a shaky yet spunky woman who draws a more carnal reaction from him. She’s a bit of a mess between a drug habit and an ongoing affair with her philandering coworker; Leonard pursues her all the same.

“Two Lovers” centers around the push and pull between the two competing impulses in Leonard’s life, most notably personified in the two women. Though desire and feeling are so often kept repressed in the film, I found myself inexorably drawn into the dramatized reality. Gray locates the tragedy in the common man’s story, a daunting feat that would ring as pretentious if it failed. It doesn’t, and “Two Lovers” emanates with Gray’s wisdom of the complexities of human behaviors and relationships.