Michael Haffner

BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE – Review

It’s the year of the comic book battles. And no, I’m not talking about DC vs. Marvel (though that’s a heated battle that has only gotten more spirited in recent months). Lines will be drawn in the sand and sides will form later this year in Marvel’s CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR, but DC is the first to step into the ring with their own legendary battle. Two of the most iconic characters in comic book history have come together to see who can out slug the other. But in this doom and gloom follow-up to MAN OF STEEL, it’s an “orphan-off” more so than a punch-out.

Zack Snyder shows that the two men were born from the same cloth. Sure, Superman/Clark Kent is an alien from another world, but as many films and comics including MAN OF STEEL have effectively proven, Superman is as much of a conflicted man as he is a super-powered being. Batman/Bruce Wayne’s story is just as well-known, even though Snyder feels the need to kick off BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE with the iconic scene we have seen many times before that leads to Bruce becoming an orphan. That being said, Snyder and screenwriters David Goyer and Chris Terrio use this common thread of guilt-ridden and internally tormented orphans as an emotional background for the two sides. Unfortunately, the setup carries more emotional weight than the execution.

BvS (so not to waste so much space typing it out) shows so much in its lengthy 151 minute run time but says so little. Character arcs or nuances are left on the cutting room floor as the movie quickly jumps from scene to scene with very little room for any of it to really breathe or make an impact. Even worse, some of the character motives are left out all together, as in the case of Lex Luthor. Coming across as a guy who just graduated from college with a Psych degree and a big mouth wanting to talk all about it (not to mention having the ultimate face that you just want to punch), Jesse Eisenberg is so over the top that he’s practically soaring above Supes with his ridiculous incarnation of Luthor.

Henry Cavill has now earned the “S” on his chest after two films. Ever since the announcement of his casting, all eyes have been on Ben Affleck – not so quietly judging and igniting an endless amount of vitriol-filled articles. I’ve never had a problem with the man or his casting, and I think many critics after seeing the film will have so much more to complain about than Batfleck. He feels like Bruce Wayne. On the Bat-half of the spectrum, it’s so hard to judge because very little screen time is spent with Affleck wearing the cape and cowl. The suit looks great and he seems to wear it well, but even when he’s in full-on Batfleck mode, it’s so hard to understand what’s going on and really judge it because of the cinematography.

I didn’t think it was possible for action scenes to be both pitch black and yet obnoxiously bright. So much of the choreography and action is spent in the dark but punctuated with these bright flashes. The “blast” effect from the guns creates a strobe-like effect in a warehouse fight, not to mention overly bright explosions dance across the screen throughout the closing battle creating a disorienting feeling. Where I really noticed it was early on in the film during a car chase with the Batmobile. It was as if I was watching J.J. Abrams’ STAR TREK films. An exorbitant amount of lens flares combined with the “flash” of the guns firing at one another made it even more distracting than how intensely close the camera was to the movements. Didn’t we learn anything from the indecipherable zoomed-in action in BATMAN BEGINS?

You would think given the amount of time spent advertising the big fight between the brooding bros that the sequence would carry more of an impact. And yet it’s just as dull and forced as so many of the scenes in the film. The loud and proud score punctuates the brawl with drama, but it’s over so quickly that you practically forget that it even happened because they are fighting one second and then quickly making up the next – proving that this really is, indeed, an “orphan-off.”

Once again we are treated to a Bat flick on the big screen that fails to deliver the action from the comics. This is the 8^th live-action film that Batman has appeared in during my lifetime, and there hasn’t been a really great… I’m talking spectacular… fight featuring Batman going toe to toe with an evildoer or group of henchmen. Each of the films have ranged from amazing to catastrophic, but the scenes that are so memorable about the great ones are never Batman in costume battling a villain. The best one might be the Bane fight in DARK KNIGHT RISES, but even that feels a little lackluster and without much consequence given how you know before it begins how it’s going to end. BvS sets out to deliver the very fight that has yet to be seen on the big screen. You would think given how superficial many of Snyder’s other films are that he would at least give Batman fans like myself not just a fair fight… but a memorable one – a fight for the ages. That is what all of the marketing has promised, right? And yet Snyder not delivering on what he set out to ultimately achieve is the least of the film’s problems. He’s already shown us two characters throwing each other through walls for 30 minutes in MAN OF STEEL. So, when we get 10 minutes of that in BvS, you are left to wonder: where is the memorable choreography and sequences that we saw in 300 and SUCKER PUNCH?

There are two saving graces in the film and they both come in the form of new incarnations of characters we know and love. Alfred, Bruce’s trusted confidant and butler, ditches the suit and tie and stoic walk this time around and becomes the most hands-on version of the character we have seen on the big screen. Seeing him get his hands dirty working on the batmobile and controlling the batwing/bat-plane remotely from the cave is fresh and exciting. In fact, it’s one of the only exciting elements of the film – second only to the Amazonian warrior woman. Wonder Woman may not wield her golden lasso or shield very much in the film, but Gal Gadot gives her strength and power every time she’s on screen. Not to mention, the formal gowns she wears are stunning as they bring to mind the gold accents on her Wonder Woman suit. She acts as more of a mystery woman in the shadows throughout the film, but I have no doubt her presence will have fans awaiting her solo feature film next year.

BvS feels like a rushed job by DC. Say what you will about the “Marvel formula” and their constant teasing of the big baddie Thanos. At least with their series of films, they have set a groundwork to build epic showdowns and dramatic events. Watching Batman face Superman doesn’t feel dramatic or exciting. In fact, it’s the biggest yawn that Batman has brought out of me (even more so than the Schumacher days). Frank Miller gave Superman and Batman a reason to fight in his seminal comic series, “The Dark Knight Returns.” Snyder and company have simply lifted some of the visuals from that and other stories that comic fans will recognize but didn’t support it with a proper idea or motivation. DC seems to be taking a cue from Superman’s legendary bald foe – just because you have the money and can do what you want, doesn’t mean it’s right.

Overall rating: 2 out of 5

BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE is now playing in theaters everywhere

THE DIVERGENT SERIES: ALLEGIANT – The Review

If you haven’t figured it out yet, the DIVERGENT series isn’t anything new. Shocking, right? Of course the DIVERGENT films like many of these dystopian-set young adult adaptations borrow from the same classics that I won’t go through for the umpteenth time. But the series has reached a point where they are aping one another to the point of parody. It even goes beyond me thinking it was called INSURGENT when I was walking into ALLEGIANT. As much as I (surprisingly) enjoyed the coming of age, journey of self-discovery story that was the basis of the first film DIVERGENT, the formula of each are all so closely related that you could call this series “Convergent.”
All three films constantly fall into the same plot structure as our sharp-shooting but not so bright heroes Tris (Shailene Woodley) and Four (Theo James) join up with a new group of similar rebels that seem to be against the baddies. Of course, just like the last two films, you suspect that you can’t trust this new group and their intentions.

Just like THE HUNGER GAMES films and THE MAZE RUNNER films, the DIVERGENT series also takes itself way too seriously as it tries desperately to present a foreboding and unique adventure series, even though they all could potentially be set in the same universe to create a Marvel shared-universe. On the bright side, the DIVERGENT series at least offers a few positives. Chief among them is the cast. Sure this series doesn’t have quite the same level of talent as that other known series like Jennifer Lawrence, Julianne Moore, and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, but this series has a strong cast of underdogs including more unknown actors like Theo James and Zoe Kravitz who more than hold their own alongside the name talent like Naomi Watts, Shailene Woodley, and newcomer to the series Jeff Daniels (who delivers line a practically comatose state).

One of the other positives that sets this above those HUNGER films is the visual imagination that occasionally breathes new life into the film. Whether it’s raining blood on a Mars-esque nuclear wasteland or it’s the design of a high-tech tower that that looks like a cross between Vahan Misakyan’s “Evolving Skyscraper” and something out of the Jetsons, the film is consistently intriguing looking even if its meager budget prevents the CGI visuals from really coming to life.

ALLEGIANT is frequently silly and its dialogue might be the clunkiest the series has given us yet. However, the story is relatively self-contained for newcomers, focusing mainly on being a concise tale of a group of outsiders believing in themselves. The most frustrating aspect is that the characters don’t ever seem to grow or change very much. In fact, they often face the same problems just with a new villain of the week running the show. On the other hand, at least each of the three stands on their own without having to worry about sprinkling crumbs and clues to hint at a big final battle. Each has a clear story arc, albeit one that feels far too familiar.

OVERALL RATING: 2.5 out of 5

THE DIVERGENT SERIES: ALLEGIANT is now in theaters everywhere

KNIGHT OF CUPS – The Review

KNIGHT OF CUPS isn’t a reference to that grey knight in the cave in INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE. Though I bet there’s a great backstory to that old guy. In fact, the title refers to the tarot card which often signifies someone who is a bringer of ideas but is also constantly bored and in need of stimulation. It doesn’t take long to see why Terrence Malick has named his newest film this, and that sentiment extends past just the main character. Even fans of the director might feel the acclaimed and talented director slipping from his position as King of Wands – a mature man who is decisive and passionate.

Usually, Malick has always balanced his stories with the visuals. They worked alongside one another – enhancing one another and adding extra layers of complexity. Through spectacular landscapes and spotlighting the mundane, Malick has explored the overwhelming beauty of life, if we only just stop to look at. And in contrast with these small wonders of the world, he shows characters dealing with the fragility of life. In THE THIN RED LINE, you have soldiers facing possible death and their own destructive mission. In THE NEW WORLD, you have an entire civilization on the brink of elimination from English settlers. In BADLANDS, you have two killers dealing with the morality of their own actions while heading down an uncertain path.

THE TREE OF LIFE explored these same existential dilemmas. However, Malick didn’t just narrow his focus on one family and their internal joys and woes. He looked at all of existence. He examined the weight of the world that rests on us all, whether we are aware of it or not. He seemingly shows through his “birth of the universe” sequence that this weight stems from our history; the history of our fathers; the history of our culture; the history of the planet’s evolutionary cycle.

It seems that TREE OF LIFE reinvigorated the director, for better or for worse. Malick has taken the success of that film and has abandoned his usual cycle of about one film every decade and has pumped out two films (and possibly another right around the corner) in five year’s time. That being said, both the films that have followed have tried to capture the magic of TREE while missing the point of that film. It wasn’t just the visuals that caused many critics (this one included) to praise the film as one of the best of 2011. It was the balance of the emotional story and the visuals that made his earlier work so successful. TO THE WONDER and KNIGHT OF CUPS have forgotten one-half of this winning equation.

The life of a Hollywood screenwriter is more luxurious than I ever imagined. Well, at least according to KNIGHT OF CUPS. Christian Bale’s character of Rick shuffles through this glittery and glamorous world of models, parties, mansions, and strip clubs all without a care in the – actually, he has all the the cares and inner turmoil in the world. Never once do we see him sitting at a desk actually writing or exploring his craft (even a few scenes of him on a soundstage never really amount to much). He lives only in the superficial dream world of LA. Characters float through his life in almost as dizzying of a fashion as “artistic images” are shoehorned in. The most egregious are the scenes of him wandering on a beach.

It’s almost ironic that Malick – an artist in every sense of the word – centers his story around someone who works in the arts and yet chooses not to dive into what it means to be one. Christian Bale does his best acting stoned and spouting a cryptic voice-over. He commits to it, projecting a character who questions his lifestyle. However, it’s hard to sympathize with someone struggling with the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

There’s an internet video that made the rounds a couple years back called “Drinking Out of Cups.” Aside from the similarities in the name, both feature half-baked ramblings that grasp at ideas and characters and locations in an attempt to reach something sublime. However, the main difference between KNIGHT OF CUPS and “Drinking Out of Cups” is that the latter was apparently a recording of a man talking under the influence of a hallucinogen while flipping through channels – this KNIGHT might have benefitted from sitting at the same table as the village idiot if only for the fact that it wouldn’t treat itself so seriously. Malick has presented us with something so profoundly empty twice in a row now, that I’m starting to question what the cards say about his future.

OVERALL RATING: 2 out of 5

KNIGHT OF CUPS is now playing in limited release

THE WITCH – The Review

When the title of a film basically tells you what to expect, it’s sometimes hard to be surprised or shocked by the content of a film. This is both an advantage and disadvantage in THE WITCH. Yes, there’s a witch(es) but how they function in the story is different than what you might expect. THE WITCH is less interested in showcasing occult rituals and cackling hags – though a few scenes brilliantly showcase this. It’s more interested in using the fear of a witch to illustrate paranoia and mistrust within a family. Robert Eggers strives for more than just straight-up horror in his directorial debut. Therein lies a minor problem for genre fans. Yes, as the title states, there is a witch(es). You just might be surprised that THE WITCH isn’t necessarily a terrifying tale of she-devils on the prowl. Then again… that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes fewer shocks can be a pleasant surprise.

William (Ralph Ineson), his wife Katherine (Kate Dickie), his daughter Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), his son Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw), his twins Mercy and Jonas (Ellie Grainger and Lucas Dawson) and baby Sam, are all banished from New England as the film begins. They start their own farm on the outskirts, but sadly, they fail to produce corn. Even worse, baby Sam is taken one afternoon right from under the nose of Thomasin. The family initially believes a wolf snatched the newborn and took him into the woods. However, fear of a witch in the woods quickly takes hold of the family, which then transforms into Thomasin being accused of signing the devil’s contract.

It’s hard to just say that THE WITCH feels authentic. The efforts put forth to make this film feel accurate is exceptional. From the ragged costumes, to the cobbled together barns, to the language spoken throughout, Eggers goes to great lengths to live up to the subtitle of the film, “A New-England folktale.” So much so that viewers might find it hard to understand the tense conversations between the family. The words are so deeply rooted in old-world phrases that it is often a struggle to decipher exactly what they are saying. Considering film is a visual medium, of course it’s easy to follow the story – it’s a simple enough plot. However, aspects of the theme and deeper meanings may be lost in translation.

Eggers draws stellar performances from his entire cast as he builds a subtle tale of isolation and fear. Each actor develops a fully formed character that is dealing with demons. Eggers is quick to point out that many of these personal fears stem from the Puritan, God-fearing religion that has been ingrained in them. This is especially true of the father figure played by Ralph Ineson. The heavy heart he carries and the responsibility he has to his family weigh considerably on him. Deep wrinkles are etched into his face and his eyes are filled with despair. He delivers each line with a deep guttural groan as he plays a ringleader of sorts to this talented cast.

Kid actors are always hard to cast. Often their inexperience hampers a film and makes it feel like they are acting on camera – not necessarily telling a story. All four children here feel like they were raised during this period. Anya Taylor-Joy carries the largest burden of the bunch. Aside from having the most screentime, she’s given the difficult task to make the audience speculate whether some of her family’s suspicions of witchy behavior are validated.

When THE WITCH conjures up the spooky imagery, it does so with such a pure and classic horror style. Without delving into too many specifics, some of the images seem like old wood carving prints straight out of that one book you weren’t supposed to look at when you were 10 yrs. old. Once again, Eggers gives the hair-raising imagery a look that is rooted in the time period without relying on modern horror cliches. The finale alone delivers sights that will haunt your dreams for a very long time.

THE WITCH drips with dread. What it lacks in scares, it makes up for in genuine fear. It’s the fear of the unknown; the fear of losing your family’s trust; and the fear of living in a world where religious rule is just as terrifying as what’s lurking deep in the woods.

Overall rating: 4 out of 5

THE WITCH opens in theaters February 19

TUMBLEDOWN – The Review

A rock journalist (Jason Sudeikis) obsessed with the death of musical idols and their legacy – a compelling argument could be made that Chuck Klosterman served as inspiration for the character – discovers that there is more to life than extending adoration long after death. Hannah (played in a strong and stern manner by Rebecca Hall) is the widow of the popular folk hero. Now with his passing, she has more time to focus on herself and her own writing without having to be in the shadow of her great singer-songwriter husband. When Andrew approaches Hannah about writing a biography about her late husband, she’s initially reluctant, but the two eventually agree and take a stroll down memory lane.

Desiree and Desi Van Til along with director Sean Mewshaw have written a tender story that occasionally waxes philosophical about the artistic process and life after death through two different viewpoints looking at the same person – Hannah who views him as a friend and partner and Andrew who sees a fallen musical idol. It’s a role that could have come across as too slimy and manipulative if it weren’t played delicately by Sudekis. He comes across as genuine and affable, thanks to him toning down his typically boisterous personality. I never really saw Sudeikis as a leading man type before – he always seemed more like the crude and obnoxious best friend in a sex comedy – but he really earns his romantic-lead stripes here.

Even though TUMBLEDOWN avoids some of the romantic pitfalls in lieu of a more thoughtful display of a woman coping with a terrible loss while attempting to find her own path, the film finally succumbs to a quintessential trope in the end. Sure, the path that the characters eventually go down was hinted at, but it would have been a far more compelling finale (not to mention, one that would be better fitted to Hannah’s personality) if she would have took the road less traveled.

The quaint Maine town creates a lovely backdrop for a story that mainly focuses on where to go next when you’re seemingly lost in the woods. Hannah’s strong survival instinct masks the vulnerable side that she hides away in her cabin isolated in the woods. Sean Mewshaw’s modest picture isn’t afraid to deal with real emotions and conflicting feelings about love, loss, and moving on. For the majority of its breezy duration, TUMBLEDOWN sidesteps being the type of book you read on an airplane to pass the time. To put it in musical terms given the subject, it would be like going to a concert and witnessing a carefully staged and crafted performance, and then the band ending on the greatest hits song that everyone knows and can sing along with that you have heard so many times before.

Overall rating: 3.5 out of 5

TUMBLEDOWN is now playing in select cities

DEADPOOL – The Review

There comes a point in any movie when there’s too much of a good thing. Even though the “Merc with a Mouth” won me over right from the beginning with a hilarious self-aware opening credits sequence, the film itself comes dangerously close to wearing out its welcome. Thankfully though, I welcome this hard R take on the foulmouthed assassin thanks in large part to the devilishly charming Ryan Reynolds.

He’s talked about how he has tried to get this film made for seven years, and the enthusiasm Reynolds has for the character is evident in every second he’s on screen. Even when he’s hidden beneath the red and black spandex mask, Reynolds is bursting with energy and delivering the larger than life personality that the character demands. However, what might surprise those going into DEADPOOL expecting nothing but the tongue-lashing and butt-kicking that the title character no doubt delivers is the amount of heart that is at the center of the film. Sure, he calls Colossus a “chrome-plated cock-gobbler,” but he also has a genuine and loving relationship that makes DEADPOOL more than just Marvel’s R rated anti-hero.

Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) is a mercenary who would rather look out for a girl being harassed than just killing for sport. But that’s not to say he doesn’t take great sarcastic joy in his sadistic work. When he meets Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) he has someone to provide light in his dark life. The light she brings starts to extinguish when Wilson is diagnosed with cancer. Through an experimental surgery that is supposed to help him, Wilson becomes physically disfigured but yet somehow granted extraordinary healing powers (why he can’t cure his burns all over his body is beyond me). He resorts to the moniker of Deadpool along with a red and black spandex suit so he can go after the men who did this to him while still hiding his ugly visage from his beautiful Vanessa.

I’ve seen my fair share of comic book styled action scenes already – even the more extreme sequences thanks to films like KICK-ASS and KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE. So what makes DEADPOOL stand apart is not the slow-motion blood spurts or impalings or shots to the head, it’s the elements that don’t necessarily rely on vulgarity that make this stand apart from the pack. The relationship between Ryan Reynolds and Morena Baccarin is unorthodox but remarkably sweet. Their first interaction is a perfect analogy for the film as a whole – it begins with highly inappropriate lines of dialogue, but once the shock wears off you are genuinely enamored with the characters.

What also helps to break the monotony of the Marvel formula that I recently felt with the insufferable ANT-MAN is the the use of a broken timeline. Intercut with a slow-motion ballet of mayhem on a highway overpass, is the backstory of our punchy title character. Typically, you get the pre-superhero scenes, then the tragic accident, then the slow transformation into hero, then struggle then fight then struggle, and finally capping it all off with an epic battle. Most of those beats are still all here, but shuffling the deck a little bit adds slightly more suspense as to what will be revealed next.

Fans of the comic will love that the character still talks through the panel, or in this case the screen as well as openly talking about pop-culture references, other characters, or the fact that you are watching a Marvel film with so small of a budget that they couldn’t get any of the real X-Men to show up. The level of which the self-aware humor working for you will depend on how much fanboy glee you get from him making fun of Wolverine or other such examples likes the sacrilegious version of the character that showed up in a previous film. DEADPOOL borders on trying too hard, but Reynolds’ commitment to the role and his dirty comments are occasionally clever and frequently charming. The one-liners come at an almost dizzying speed, but it’s when DEADPOOL slows down that we see that it is more than just obscene… it’s obscenely marvelous.

Overall rating: 4 out of 5

DEADPOOL is now playing in theaters everywhere

HAIL, CAESAR! – The Review

A kidnapping is at the center of some of the Coen Brothers’ most indelible pictures. From RAISING ARIZONA to FARGO to THE BIG LEBOWSKI, someone goes missing and it’s through this unfortunate victim’s disappearance that characters are revealed. You can now add HAIL, CAESAR! to this list. However, while most of these kidnappings spawn a colorful cast of characters where hilarity and morality often sway from the light to the very dark, HAIL, CAESAR! doesn’t exactly use the taking of the half-wit Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) as the catalyst to propel most of the characters and the story. In fact, it becomes simply just another piece of this collage that the Coens have assembled that is equally both an ode to classic cinema and a biting satire showcasing a facade of what many believe to be what Hollywood is really like.

As studio fixer for Capitol Pictures (a Marvel-esque shared universe nod to the studio in the Coen’s BARTON FINK), Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) struggles with Catholic guilt, a neverending workload, and a smoking habit he’s trying to quit. Nevertheless, none of that is going to stand in his way as he deals with the disappearance of the title character in the studio’s new film, saving actresses from late night photo shoots, securing alibis for actresses with out of wedlock children (Scarlett Johansson), and arranging couples for the gossip columnists (Tilda Swinton in two parts).

The Coen Bros. newest madcap dash through their clever collective mind feels like the most Coeny, Coen film you have seen yet. You have a self-reflective and imperfect main character, an allegory about the hardships of the creative process, conversations about faith and the search to describe “God,” and elements of film noir all heavily dropped right at the onset. And although I would classify myself as a worshipper at their self-aware and sarcastic altar, none of these scenes early on truly connected with me. It was as if HAIL, CAESAR! was playing like a greatest hits collection of the Coens and I was only hearing a brief snippet of the melody without hearing the entire song.

But something happened about halfway in. Everything seemed to make sense even though it didn’t entirely at all. So many of their previous films are connected by a central plot that I was grasping to find and never found with HAIL, CAESAR!. It wasn’t until Alden Ehrenreich was standing in the middle of a Hollywood street adorned in his signature cowboy shirt and hat and swinging his lasso in circles with palm trees behind him and a limo to his right, that I suddenly understood the fantasy that was being painted for me. Sure, we had previously seen Ehrenreich as the glum but lovable Hobie Doyle sing his folky tune during one scene and then later corrected over and over again in an instantly iconic scene opposite Ralph Fiennes’ as the director Laurence Laurentz (“Would that it t’were so simple.”), but it was during this simple moment that the film began to win me over. Although many might complain how random scenes such as this only contribute to the random and disconnected way HAIL, CAESAR! unfolds, I think anyone who sees the film will walk away thinking a star is born from Alden Ehrenreich’s silent but strong performance.

What also shines in the film are two classic film within a film moments expertly choreographed and staged like classic films of the 50s. The jaw-dropping water ballet in the style of Busby Berkely is beautifully filmed by the great Roger Deakins. This is followed later by a romp of a number showcasing Channing Tatum’s dancing abilities (the boy indeed has the MAGIC) along with a crew of sailors getting rowdy in a bar. Fans of classic cinema will find these two scenes an absolute delight, resulting in a grin ear to ear.

How some of the characters evolve or not evolve is one of the biggest things holding this film back from being a great Coen’s film. Mannix is meant to be the nervous, hardworking hero, but we never quite feel the weight of his job or the stress that seems to come with the tasks he’s been given. Not unlike the Coen’s childish and unsuccessful BURN AFTER READING, a large cast of familiar faces populate this world. While some of the known talent elevate their roles to more than just a bit cameo (Frances McDormand is remarkable in a scene that shows her comedic timing while highlighting the sad fact that men called the shots back then – and still mostly do), others feel like an attempt to use their star power to bolster the film (Sorry Miss Johansson).

Amid the not so subtle gay subtext of the sailor routine and the corporate suits running around tinsel town pulling the strings behind the curtain and the cigarettes Brolin’s character hides from his wife, lies a film about rumors and lies. More specifically, it shows what outsiders want Hollywood to be like because it’s what they always suspected. They don’t want the truth per say, they simply want proof to what they believe Hollywood is really like. The Coens have constructed a picture that paranoia driven pundits will no doubt point at and exclaim with complete sincerity, “See! I told you that Hollywood is filled with a bunch of two-timing, no-good, lying communists!” What they’re missing is that the joke is in fact on them. The Coens are smarter than they are and have openly acknowledged this in their sly (albeit, slightly rambling) script. What is the name of the communist group that kidnaps Clooney: The Future. What year is mentioned that a secret contract will be finally revealed to the public after decades of secrecy: 2015. Although the setting is 1950s Hollywood, HAIL, CAESAR! pokes fun at the modern day grand illusion – a world that is as far-fetched and full of twists and turns as the stories that are depicted on screen.

HAIL, CAESAR! is a social satire of the highest order. Through showing a zany world of forced romantic setups, secret child adoptions, and Commie leftist writers (complete with a Soviet submarine, of course), the Coens have fully embraced the cliches and rumors that are often associated with the Hollywood system. Even though it’s a regular issue throughout the film, it’s safe to assume that Mannix lying about not smoking cigarettes to his wife might be the least disingenuous thing that occurs in a film that revels and has fun with the presentation of a false reality.

Overall score: 4 out of 5

HAIL, CAESAR! is now playing in theaters everywhere

LAMB – The Review

A character acknowledging that it’s weird doesn’t make it any less weird. A 47 yr old man and an 11 yr old girl form a relationship, and yes, it is weird. He then takes her to a hotel room. And from there he even takes her to a secluded cabin in the woods. However, LAMB seems intent to look at these situations with unbiased eyes. This adaptation of Bonnie Nadzam’s novel aims to present a challenging film that confronts viewers with an unorthodox relationship that takes a turn into dangerous territory. But for many people (including myself), it won’t be a challenge to feel uncomfortable about this relationship.

David Lamb (Ross Partridge) is struggling to cope with the death of his father and an ongoing divorce. He finds a form of peace when Tommie (Oona Laurence) walks into his life. Tommie is an eleven year old girl who, on a dare from her bratty friends, goes up to David and asks for a cigarette. After a conversation, he decides he should teach her friends a lesson by “scaring them” and pretending to kidnap Tommie. The young girl goes back to her poverty-stricken life with her detached parents later that night, but the two maintain a friendship. Their relationship takes a dark turn when David takes Tommie for a week to his father’s old cabin without her parents knowledge.

The film tries to make the male lead seem like he’s level-headed. We are meant to sympathize with him because the director (also Patridge) never shows him do anything “wrong.” Yes, he coaxes an impressionable young girl to leave her family on a whim, but it is staged as a way to provide guidance to someone he sees as being wayward or lost in the world. If he really wanted to help her and teach her lessons about life – if he really did care about her – he would realize he ruined her life. That she’s going to be mentally traumatized for the rest of her life.

The only thing challenging about the film is the performance from its star/director. It’s not an easy feat to lend a sense of humanity to a role like this. Not excusing his actions, but Partridge gives David inner turmoil that is burning inside him. Laurence is equally as strong. If it wasn’t for their two performances, I’m not sure the film would carry the weight that it does. Not to mention, the creepy factor might have been raised exponentially if it wasn’t for their calm and calculated performances.

Once their friendship progresses, she starts to question what is going on.“Maybe this should be our last outing for awhile.” Tommie responds in her naive but insightful way: “Why is that? Because it’s weird.” It’s during their car ride to the cabin in the Rockies that she becomes even more cognizant. Tommie pines to reach out to her family and even has a crying spell at a gas stations that garners the attention from a concerned stranger. But David tries to calm her in a dismissing way. “Have you ever seen a place so beautiful?” He asks as a means to distract her. Situations like this and David’s constant redirection when things go awry turn the story away from any hint of a father and daughter fantasy – which seems to be hinted at through his lectures to her about the world. Sure, he says he’s there to protect her, but when protection is forced and manipulative, it’s not necessarily for the good of the person you are protecting.

It’s weird to think about the purpose of the film. At times, it seems to be making a statement about how “normal” a very, very abnormal situation can be when taken out of the constraints of the city and let loose in nature without social norms. We aren’t necessarily supposed to accept this kind of relationship, but I think we’re supposed to understand how it can happen. I have a feeling I won’t be the only one who struggles with the implications of a wolf showing love to a lamb.

Overall rating: 3 out of 5

LAMB opens in St. Louis on January 15

THE REVENANT – The Review

Acclaimed Mexican director Alejandro Iñárritu has stepped out from the canned stage lights and into the natural light. Going from the backstage existential crisis of BIRDMAN to the frigid survival in the wild of THE REVENANT is quite a change of scenery. In the months leading up to the film, it seemed that that was what everyone was talking about. Iñárritu and DiCaprio were teaming up and filming a raw and intense movie out in the middle of nowhere. What a drastic change of pace for them both. In interviews and featurettes, the physical and mental hardships surrounding the production were highlighted, occupying the spotlight more than anything else.

THE REVENANT truly is breathtaking. The snowy landscapes are awe-inspiring. The performances are palpable. The action is gritty and fierce. Emmanuel Lubezki’s camerawork catches every heavy breath on camera. Iñárritu rubs your nose in the mud for over 2 and a half hours. Take that as a warning if you will. To me, I say warning, not because most people can’t handle the violence or “the gritty realism” – because I think most absolutely can – but because that’s what you’re getting for 156 minutes. Is it well done? Yes. Is it a brutish film that revels in its wolfish journey? Yes; perhaps even a little too much.

While on an exhibition out West, American Explorer Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) is nearly killed by a bear and left for dead by members of his team of fur trappers. Led by John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), the team deserts Glass in a shallow grave and ventures forth on their journey home. Injured but alive, Glass awakens and struggles to crawl, climb, and fight his way through the hostile wilderness, blanketed in a harsh winter. All this, in the pursuit of vengeance and redemption.

DiCaprio and Hardy could be sitting across from each other doing crossword puzzles and they would still be captivating to watch. Unfortunately for the two of them, THE REVENANT doesn’t give them as easy of a job as that. But as you would expect, both of these extremely talented actors are up to the challenge. You might need subtitles to understand some of what Hardy and his fellow fur trappers are saying, however, you can understand their sentiments through their facial expressions and actions.

The film’s intensity is astounding, but also, a smidge distracting. This is mostly due to the camerawork. Lubezki jumps between extreme close-ups of faces and upward camera shots (practically looking up the actors’ noses) to long takes that at times adds a heightened reality to the action, while other times it feels like a director and a cinematographer showing their hand too much. Some of it even becomes dizzying as some shots go on for several minutes at a time. I suspect some of this camera trickery is used to distract from the laborious affair of watching poor, injured Leo slowly trek across the landscape. Especially in the middle section, slow is the keyword. Leo’s journey across the icy landscape was so long that Morgan Freeman should have narrated it (and maybe adding a penguin or two couldn’t have hurt).

Mostly though, THE REVENANT is a revenge film masked as a deeper Terrence Malick character study. There’s no deep internal revelations or subtext at work, even though at times it makes you think there is. Long shots of our tragic hero are shown looking out into the distance, intercut with allusions of a past life. Moments like these attempt to add depth to his mission, but fail to add weight to the story. It’s a revenge film, but Iñárritu tries so, so hard to make it appear and feel like more than that. I could see this story as a Charles Bronson film from the 70s, but it wouldn’t have been over 2 and a half hours. Just call the film what it is. Don’t try to dress it up as something it’s not. Don’t attempt to recall Malick when you made a borderline exploitation revenge flick – complete with an unnecessary aftermath shot of a woman’s vengeful scorn on a male’s genitals and other gratuitous bloody shots.

There’s a Buster Keaton film from 1925 called SEVEN CHANCES. At the end of the film, the director/star tumbles down long dusty hills, jumps off a cliff into a tree, and is chased by an avalanche of boulders. He gets put through the ringer as “nature” almost stands in the way of our affable hero’s goal. You will most likely be slack-jawed at the physical exertion Keaton must have gone through to film it. That being said, the sequence is only 4 minutes long. THE REVENANT is a similar sequence but for much longer. Drawing out the thrills and spills for that long begins to feel tiresome. It’s visceral cinema done excruciatingly well. However, it’s a “B-movie” setup struggling with all its might to get in the “A-movie” spotlight.

Overall rating: 3.5 out of 5

THE REVENANT is now in theaters everywhere

The Hateful Humor Fueled By Violence Towards Women

Even though it takes place in the post-Civil War wintery West, THE HATEFUL EIGHT discusses many issues we as a society are coming to terms with as we step into 2016. Quentin Tarantino’s third foray into revisionist history (following INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and DJANGO UNCHAINED) is his most biting and politically-charged film yet. Mirroring the racial issues that are unfortunately (still) far too common in today’s society feels appropriate and worthy of applause – especially in a major film coming from such a popular director. Samuel L. Jackson’s character Major Marquise Warren brings to light racial tension in an early scene with a former Confederate soldier turned lawman. Feeling squeamish about the direction of the conversation, the hate-fueled soon-to-be sheriff dismisses this talk by saying, “you were the one that started talking politics.” Hearing him describe it as “politics” feels almost too real. Dismissing a human rights issue as a political issue hits extremely close to home, especially as someone who lives about 15 minutes from Ferguson, MO. Not to mention, considering Tarantino has made the news recently for protesting police brutality against black lives. Marquise even states at what point, “a n—– only feels safe when the white man is disarmed.” One doesn’t have to look back at the news’ headlines from this year to understand the significance that that line carries.

But for all the goodwill that THE HATEFUL EIGHT does in addressing the violent hatred a man can have for his fellow man simply because of the color of their skin, Quentin Tarantino seems to forget another major problem that continues to plague our lives. A recurring joke is at the expense of another group that is as equally mistreated and not given the respect they deserve in society: women. And the joke isn’t just a joke about female stereotypes or something as hackneyed like a throwaway punchline that you’d hear on a rerun of Everybody Loves Raymond or The King of Queens. In fact, it’s a recurring joke about a very real issue that actually isn’t a joke in the slightest: violence towards women.

Spousal abuse and violence towards women is never appropriate, never the answer, and never funny. And yet, Tarantino uses the act of punching a woman in the face over and over and over again as a literal punchline. Everytime Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character Daisy speaks out of turn, Kurt Russell’s character John Ruth is there to “put her in her place” (for lack of a better phrase) by punching her in the face, slapping her, and other forms of physical abuse. And it doesn’t just happen once or twice; it is repeated several times to the point of excess. At one point John Ruth even throws a piping hot bowl of soup in her face.

Before the film begins, we are left to believe that Daisy is a bad woman. We never see her do anything necessarily wrong, aside from her calling Jackson’s character a “n—–“ during a couple of quick verbal jabs. So seeing her get hit and become bloodier every 15 minutes or so is not entirely justified, but it’s used as a running joke, just the same. As Tarantino repeats the action over and over again, the audience I saw it with laughed harder and harder. This same repetition occurs with another sight gag with the hammering of a broken door. In order to stop it from blowing open, characters yell at others to hammer the door and remind newcomers that “you need two boards!” It’s an overused joke in my opinion but again, the audience laughed louder with each swing of the hammer.

Sadly this also happened with each bloody nose and missing tooth. What adds insult to injury is that she’s the only real female character in the film. Of course, she’s one of the supposed “hateful” from the title, but punching the one woman in the mouth just because she spoke when she shouldn’t have, rubbed me the wrong way instantly. I don’t think I’m reading into this more than I should be, but at the same time, it’s telling that the audience didn’t seem to have the same repulsed reaction that I did.

Tarantino is a self-proclaimed film geek – this is nothing new. What is also nothing new if you have read about Tarantino or listened to interviews with him over the years, is that he’s a huge Brian De Palma fan. Later in the film, Jennifer Jason Leigh gets blood splattered all over her face. And then (of course) it happens again, drenching her face even more. Her blood-dripped face looks surprisingly like another iconic, mistreated woman in film history. Knowing of Tarantino’s love of De Palma, I immediately thought of Sissy Spacek in CARRIE. The character of Carrie White is verbally abused and made fun of throughout the film by her peers, and verbally and physically abused by her mother. It’s a character that you feel terrible for. You witness her struggle and feel her pain. So the fact that Leigh’s character is abused just as much and then made to resemble Carrie seems more than just an empty nod coming from a fan-turned-director, it actually treats Carrie’s abuse as just an exploitative form of entertainment. Treating Daisy’s abuse for laughs and then seemingly making a connection to Carrie’s emotional and physical pain, undermines the power of De Palma’s story while making light of violence inflicted upon women for other’s amusement.

THE HATEFUL EIGHT does a lot right. It brings to light dark issues that America would rather bury beneath the ice and snow than confront face to face. In a recent Entertainment Weekly interview the auteur stated,

“I think me dealing with race in America is one of the things I have to offer to cinema. That is one part of my interest in American society, and so the fact that it bleeds into my work makes perfect sense. In particular, it’s what I have to offer the Western genre, because it’s really not been dealt with [there] in any meaningful way.”

Ignoring the delusions of grandeur associated with that statement, I have to still applaud him for making a movie with a message. He doesn’t edit himself to appeal to the masses. He doesn’t tone down the violence to meet acceptable standards. He doesn’t make a movie without standing 100% behind it. His every action seems so specific and intentional that there is no question to me that Tarantino is aware of what he is presenting. Humor is always subjective. You may laugh at more bawdy humor while your parents might laugh more at irony. However, there are accepted forms of humor and unacceptable forms. With consistent news stories centered around a professional athlete (Dallas Cowboys Greg Hardy), a “feminist” porn actor (James Deen), and a legendary comedian (Bill Cosby) involved in forms of abuse towards women, never has there ever been a more inappropriate time to giggle at a man showcasing a physical dominance over a woman. With all the talk about Tarantino’s use of the “n-word” and the geysers of blood in his newest film, no one seems to be noticing a major issue at the center of the film. And sitting with a full theater comprised of jovial critics and fans alike only highlights the fact that they aren’t just laughing off an issue… they (along with the director) are failing to even see it. My only hope is that enough people take note so that the issue doesn’t get buried beneath the bloody snow and ice.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: