Category: Review

Reviews from all of the movies we have seen lately, including everything in theaters and on DVD.

SEVAN THE CRAFTSMAN – Review


Review by Mark Longden

Coming to a film festival near you, if you’re lucky, is this documentary about one of the world’s most famous jewellers. Counting people such as Catherine Zeta Jones, Elizabeth Hurley, Celine Dion and Liv Tyler among his more notable clients, Sevan Bıçakçı is a fascinating man operating at a fascinating time in the history of his home country, Turkey.

Born in 1967 to a crowded family, at the age of 11 Sevan was apprenticed to a jewellery designer in the Grand Bazaar of Istanbul, the world’s first mall (it’s almost 600 years old). He learned his craft from several “masters”, until in his 20s he decided to go it alone. His first pieces were copies of rings from magazines, made to order and requiring few of the many skills he’d picked up; then, around the turn of the millennium, he figured out a new way to carve into a jewel. Because my words won’t do it justice, here’s a picture of one of his many beautiful works:

This is the process which has made him famous, and since his first collection went on sale (based on the heads of Turkey’s most famous Sultans) in 2002, he’s won many awards, made a very large amount of money and employed most of his family. All while working in largely the same way jewelers have been working in the Grand Bazaar for hundreds of years – excepting his patented invention of carving into the stone, which is of course never revealed in the documentary’s 71 minutes. Although he’s very much of that tradition, he’s completely transcended it, to the stage where several imitators of his style are now operating in Turkey, and he’s nominated for awards for Islamic-influenced art, completely unheard of for a jeweler.

But, of course, this would not be too exciting on its own. We learn about Sevan, who started off as a completely ordinary-looking Turkish youth, and nowadays looks like a magnificent bearded half-mystic / half-hipster; his family and how they admire the singular path Sevan took; and his wife and kids. Sevan’s crying when his daughter talks about how she misses him when he’s off at some jewellery award show in New York, but is incredibly proud of him, says all you need to know about what sort of man he is. He talks slightly harshly to one of his apprentices at one point, and when he leaves the room whispers to the camera with a cheeky grin that he’s far nicer than his master was to him, and that his apprentice is a very talented kid.

The documentarians, producer/director Umran Safter and writer Ahsen Diner, are also interested in telling us about modern Turkey. Sevan is of Armenian descent, and although it’s never mentioned, the Armenian genocide by the Turkish (then Ottoman) government in 1915 gives a melancholy air to some of the old stories he tells. The area he grew up in and still lives nearby is a melting pot of people from all different cultures and traditions, and Sevan mentions how important this was and is to him.

There’s also the fascinating history of the Grand Bazaar, listed as the most popular tourist destination in the world (over 91,000,000 visitors a year, at the last count). When Sevan started as an apprentice there, it still had a flavour of its medieval origins, but now capitalism and Western influences are casting their bony hand over the place and it’s rapidly changing. This is occasionally for the better (apparently, there are certain massive sections which have no toilets, either public or private) but the loss of those traditions will be seen as crucial in the future, so argues the historian who’s interviewed.

The visual beauty in “Sevan The Craftsman” comes from the lingering looks at his many creations, some of which are almost breathtaking – (I talk as a person with no particular interest in the subject, having been informed of the existence of this documentary by my jewellery-obsessed wife). The precision of the placement of gems and the miniature paintings that adorn his rings…

Try not to be distracted that he sounds proud his most prized ring, his family ring, was borrowed by Michael Bay and adorned the hand of Anthony Hopkins in one of the “Transformers” movies. No-one is perfect. Just, if it comes to a festival near you, be sure to check out this documentary of an individual with an incredible talent and a great story to tell. You won’t regret it.

 

THE BOOKSHOP – Review

Florence Green (Emily Mortimer) unpacks books in her shop, in THE BOOKSHOP. Photo courtesy of Greenwich Entertainment ©

At first glance, THE BOOKSTORE might look to some audiences like CHOCOLAT with books instead of chocolates, but this film about a woman who moves to a small town and opens a shop is nothing like that romantic comedy. Other audiences might expect an inspiring tale of a plucky woman, a newcomer facing steep odds but finally winning over skeptical locals. There is indeed a plucky woman and a show of courage and defiance, but the story does work out in the standard stereotypical fashion. The story is inspiring in a different, darker way.

Based on Penelope Fitzgerald’s novel, the story is set in a small English seaside village. But this very English tale is directed by a Spanish – actually Catalan – woman, director Isabel Coixet, who also directed the excellent LEARNING TO DRIVE. Her outsider lens adds a distinct dark twist.

In 1950s Britain, a widow moves to a small English village, buys a old house in town that had stood empty for years, with the intention to open a bookshop. Sounds harmless enough, maybe even something the village would welcome. But Florence Green (Emily Mortimer) does not find it so. It isn’t so much the bookshop that is the problem, although one seemly friendly villager offers her the not-to-encouraging advice that people around there don’t read. Well, the villager admits, there is one reader, the reclusive Mr. Brundish (Bill Nighy) but he never leaves his decaying mansion. No, the real problem,as it turns out, is not lack of readers, but that Florence happened to pick as the spot for her bookshop the very old house that a powerful local aristocrat Violet Gamat (Patricia Clarkson) had her eye on, planning to turn the building that everyone in town calls “the old house” into an “arts center.”

It sets in motion a contest of wills between the plucky widow and the ruthless aristocrat, that sounds very British and indeed the film is based on Penelope Fitzgerald’s semi-autobiographical novel. But the direction and screen adaptation by Catalan director Isabel Coixet brings another element into this story, taking it down some darker and unexpected paths. Class differences and the insular nature of small towns are topics that are woven into this literary tale.

The acting is excellent with Emily Mortimer getting a chance to really shine as the widow determined to stay and make her bookshop succeed. Despite the lack of encouragement, the bookshop does well, bring novels like “Fahrenheit 451” and “Lolita” to the village. Bill Nighy, as always, turns in a fine performance as the book-loving Mr. Brundish, who becomes Florence’s friend, her best ally and customer. The other villagers, while friendly on the surface, are harder to read, particularly a local BBC producer Milo North, a flippant, flirtatious fellow but in an oily way, who proves a slippery factor. A local family sends their young daughter to help in the shop, and the girl and the shop owner bond over tea and books, even though she says she prefers math to reading.

Everything is low-key and emotionally restrained but the director crafts a brilliant and powerful film, one that interjects an element of Kafka and some bone-chilling twists. The result is a film far more complex and interesting than the premise suggests.

THE BOOKSHOP opens Friday, August 31, at the Plaza Frontenac Cinema.

RATING: 4 out of 5 stars

THE LITTLE STRANGER – Review

Domhnall Gleeson stars as “Dr. Faraday” in director Lenny Abrahamson’s THE LITTLE
STRANGER, a Focus Features release. Photo credit: Nicola Dove / Focus Features ©

The title of the historical drama THE LITTLE STRANGER is the same as an old-fashioned way to reference a baby, as in “awaiting the arrival of a little stranger.” But there are no babies or ones on the way in this dark moody film, although there are some spooky goings-on about children in the dim, misty past, particularly the childhood remembrances of a visitor now returned as a doctor to care for the members of the aristocratic Ayers family in their dark crumbling mansion.

Abrahamson’s previous film was ROOM, an acclaimed drama that was a scary, taut thriller and a deep psychological drive into the experience of a woman and child held captive for years by an abuser. That drama was so riveting, it is no surprise expectations were high for this one.

However, anyone expecting either another ROOM, or even THE OTHERS or JANE EYRE, will be disappointed with director Lenny Abrahamson’s THE LITTLE STRANGER. A moody, brooding historic drama set in 1930s England, the film is filled with foreboding but leaves the viewer in suspense.

Doctor Faraday (Domhnall Gleeson) is called to Hundreds Hall, the once-grand mansion of the aristocratic Ayres family mansion in rural England to tend to an illness. When the doctor arrives at the home of the old aristocratic family, he is shocked by the state of the house. He is greeted at the door by Caroline Ayres (Ruth Wilson), who scoffs at the doctor’s surprise that it is not one of the servants opening the door. The only servant the once-wealthy family now employs is a young girl, who works as maid and cook, and who, it turns out, is the patient. Having dealt kindly with the servant girl, who was suffering from nervousness and home-sick more than anything, the doctor offers to treat the family heir, Roderick Ayres (Will Poulter), a World War I veteran badly burned and disfigured, and still battling a painful leg injury. The family is reluctant at first to accept Dr. Faraday’s offer but finally agrees when the doctor tells them there would be no charge as it would help with some research he is doing on a particular treatment.

How the mighty have fallen and the shifting fate of the British upper class between the wars is a theme in this drama but not the only one. That change in social structure has been touched on in GOSFORD PARK and the BBS series “Downton Abbey” but this is a much darker version. But a major focus is not on the fall of the house of Ayres, a proud family still regarded warmly by the locals, but on the psychological goings-on with the doctor. His mother had been a servant in the grand house in its heyday, and a childhood visit to the house for a grand garden party instilled in him a fascination with the Ayres and a longing for the house. As Dr. Faraday becomes a part of the Ayres family’s lives, strange tensions arrives and strange occurrences begin to unfold.

THE LITTLE STRANGER certainly has the goods as far as cast, with Domhnall Gleeson, Ruth Wilson, Charlotte Rampling, and Will Poulter in the lead roles. There are disturbing things and creepy occurrences. If only the film had a more focused script and director Abrahamson had a better sense of what he wanted his film to be. As it is, it wavers between ghost story, Gothic thriller, moody historic commentary on the fall of the British class system. Because it keeps hinting it is one or the others of these genres, it fails to gel around anything and leaves the audience feeling unsatisfied and somehow cheated of a promised emotional payoff. It is tense, moody, edgy throughout until it ends with no real resolution or even a big scare.

 

What’s more, the gripping trailer suggests an eerie ghost story or tale of buried secrets in a family of British aristocrats sinking into decay and financial ruin in the 1930s. The arrival of a local doctor into this closed, musty world hinted at scary, disturbing things. The film is based on the novel by Sarah Waters, adapted for the screen by Lucinda Coxon, who wrote THE DANISH GIRL. Why all this talent didn’t produce a more successful suspense film is the real mystery.

Cinematographer Ole Bratt Birkeland also delivers the goods, as does the excellent cast. Domhnall Gleeson is chilling and intriguing as the restrained yet charming doctor. Charlotte Rampling gives a fine performance as the chilly aristocrat, still vividly aware of the class difference between her family and the doctor, but unfailingly polite as she drops comments to remind him of his “place,” no matter how kind he has been to them. Ruth Wilson’s Caroline, on the other hand, comprehends how the world and their circumstances have changed, in a way neither her mother nor her brother do. Will Poulter is all pent-up frustration as her brother Roderick, the lord of the manor by inheritance, struggling to live up to family obligations while battling physical and mental pain from his war injuries, PTSD, and a growing madness.

The film has all the authentic period detail and perfect locations one could wish. Events unfold in a decaying manor house that was clearly once grand, grandeur we see in periodic flashbacks as Dr. Faraday returns time and again to memories of his childhood visit to the mansion where his mother worked as a servant, a visit none of the family recalls.

Through atmospheric photography, fine acting and taut pacing, THE LITTLE STRANGER successfully builds suspense to a fever pitch yet never pulls the trigger on all that build-up. It raises questions throughout yet never answers them, leaving at most hints about possible answers. The film feels like it wants to be Shirley Jackson’s “The Haunting of Hill House” but can’t figure out how to get there, leaving the audience lost as well.

So many things are right about this eerie film, including the outstanding cast, that it is doubly frustrating when the film appears to just end without real resolution. As a fan of both historical dramas and Gothic ghost stories, I should be the right audience for this film. Yet, the film felt disappointing by its end. After building up a nail-biting suspense and hinting a hidden horrors, psychological or supernatural, it fails to commit to either of those paths, wavering between them until it merely rolls to an unsatisfying conclusion. There is death but no catharsis. Secrets remain hidden and no questions are answered.

THE LITTLE STRANGER opens Friday, August 31 at the Tivoli Theater.

RATING: 3 out of 5 stars

JULIET, NAKED – Review

Rose Byrne and Ethan Hawke in JULIET, NAKED. Photo courtesy of Roadside Attractions.

First off, there is no nudity in JULIET, NAKED nor is there anyone named Juliet. The title refers to an album by a long-vanished indie rock singer-songwriter. There is, however, a lot of humor, romantic conundrums, reflections on regrets and life mid-way, and of course, music, in this warmly entertaining adaptation of Nick Hornby’s novel of the same name.

Complicated romances, humor and music are the staples of Nick Hornby’s novels. The film JULIET, NAKED fits the mold but unlike HIGH FIDELITY, director Jesse Peretz’s take on that combination leans more humorous than romantic. Yet just when it seems to be settling into a standard romantic comedy mold, it takes an unexpected turn into the more serious and thoughtful. The people in this film are approaching middle age or already there, and are re-assessing their choices and dealing with their regrets. The film is about second chances but also about how messy real lives actually are.

Annie (Rose Byrne) feels stuck, living in the same small seaside English town where she grew up and running the local museum her father ran before her. She also feels stuck in her 15-year relationship with her boyfriend Duncan (Chris O’Dowd), a professor of film and television at a local college. Often, she feels like she’s is in a three-way relationship with Duncan and his true passion and obsession, an American singer-songwriter from the ’90s named Tucker Crowe (Ethan Hawke), who mysteriously disappeared just as he achieved modest fame.

Duncan runs a blog devoted to Tucker Crowe, where he posts about his works and discusses rumors about sightings and other details. Even though the musician hasn’t recorded anything in 25 years, there still is a small but devoted group of fans who, like Duncan, are convinced he was an unsung genius. Tucker’s sudden disappearance came shortly after the modest success of his one hit album, “Juliet,” about his failed love affair with a woman named Julie, a disappearance thought to be linked to his broken heart over the affair. This romantic tale keeps Duncan and followers on his website hungry for any tidbits about the elusive singer-songwriter or a comeback.

Although Duncan lectures on film and TV at the college and organizes academic seminars on film, his real passion is for Tucker Crowe. He is more an obsessive Tucker Crowe fan than obsessed with music generally. Duncan has turned a basement room in the home he shares with Annie into a kind of Tucker Crowe shrine, filled with posters, magazine covers and other memorabilia. Listening to Duncan ramble on about his passion, it begins to dawn on Annie how weary she is growing of Duncan’s self-absorption, his big ego, his academic pronouncements and especially Tucker Crowe. When Duncan gets an early demo version of Tucker’s hit, a track titled “Juliet, Naked,” from an anonymous sender, Duncan deems it brilliant. Annie is not impressed, dubbing it unpolished and far inferior to the final version. After arguing with Duncan, Annie posts an anonymous review on Duncan’s fan site, criticizing the demo, which leads to an email commenting on the post, agreeing with Anne’s assessment. She’s shocked when she sees it is signed Tucker Crowe.

Unsure if the sender is the real Tucker Crowe, Annie does not tell Duncan about the email. It is indeed the long-vanished Tucker, and they email back and forth for awhile, sharing their life stories. Annie finds she likes the real Tucker much more than the myth she’s been living with, and Tucker is charmed by this down-to-earth Brit who is unimpressed with his rock star past. Tucker’s correspondence with Annie gives both of them an outlet to air their feelings and regrets as they reconsidering their own life choices, and dream a bit about second chances.

 

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Tucker has had a messy life. Now is living in the garage behind his ex-wife’s house, the middle-aged, graying and scruffy Tucker long ago abandoned his interest in music and now cares for their 7-year-old son Jackson (Azhy Robertson). The boy is one of several Tucker has with various women, but the only one he’s really helped raise. Remorseful about his past failings as a parent, Tucker wants to make amends although he is not too good at it. He’d like to reconnect with his far-flung children but he is more leery of facing their disapproving mothers.

Circumstances bring Tucker to England, which gives the two a chance to meet face-to-face. Inevitably, Duncan is going to find out his potential romantic rival is his musical idol. The film plays with the farce comedy potential in that for a while and starts to look like it is going to take a conventional romantic comedy route. But then it takes an unexpected turn into the more serious.

A lot of the appeal in this film comes from its cast. The major focus of the film is turning points and second chances, and Annie is more the central character than either guy. Rose Byrne is a complete charmer as Annie, a woman longing to escape her rut and break free of her past of subverting her own dreams to serve others. Having raised her younger sister after her mother’s death, she then returned to her quaint little seaside village to care for her aging father, helping him at the museum, then taking over the job. Byrne’s Annie is a sweet long-suffering soul, everyone’s rock, and now catering to Duncan’s whims, but she is quirky and funny as well. Annie is ready for change but she’s not sure getting involved in Tucker’s messy life is the best choice.

Ethan Hawke is having a remarkable run, first with his strong performance as a flinty husband in last year’s MAUDIE and this year in searing dramatic performance as a grieving, guilt-ridden minister in FIRST REFORMED, and now this sweeter one about a man trying to straighten out his own messy life. Hawke’s Tucker is both charming and flawed, feeling like he wants to make things right in his life but not sure if he can. Tucker’s impulse to put things right is admirable but he also wants to run and hide when his past comes calling. There is one very funny scene that sums this up, in a hospital where his exes and children arrive one by one, creating noisy confusion and stress for the barely-competent ex-musician.

Chris O’Dowd presence as Duncan helps push the film in the comic direction but O’Dowd plays a somewhat different character than his usual lovable working-class slob. When he’s obsessing over his musical idol, he’s a total geek but in his role as an instructor, he is a jerk and a self-important snob, offering his students academic analysis of episodes of “The Wire” and organizing self- aggrandizing seminars, while dismissing opinions that differ from his own. O’Dowd tamps down his usual comic goofiness but the casting choice lends the character a little more softness, making him seem more foolish and a clueless idiot than simply a jerk.

None of these characters are young, and there is a freshness to a story about people in mid-life reconsidering their direction. It is a pretty rare thing particularly in a romantic comedy, The cast and director keep us interested in what surprises lurk around the next turn for these characters. Annie wants to break free of her rut but getting involved in Tucker’s messy life might not be what she needs or wants. Falling into yet another romantic relationship might not be what disorganized Tucker needs either, as much as sweet Annie tugs at his heart. They both have to figure it out.

JULIET, NAKED isn’t profound but it is far better, and far more thoughtful, than most romantic comedies, a film made particularly enjoyable by its excellent cast.

RATING: 4 out of 5 stars

 

KIN – Review

Last week in my review of SCOTTY AND THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD I made a case for documentary features that seemingly change direction, when events push a cinema profile down another path. This week sees a similar course recalculation, but in a narrative feature (though the film makers, not fate and destiny are “pulling the strings”). Here’s a story that reeks of “grim and gritty indie”, but involves an element of science fiction and fantasy. Hey, it worked for a little flick called E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL, which starts out as an lost alien fable which then abruptly collides with a suburban family drama of a lonely boy dealing with an absent father. So, is this new mash-up a tasty treat ( to borrow from the old Reeses Cup ad, “You got sci-fi in my coming of age road flick!” “Well, you got…”), or is it one of those craft brewed gravy-flavored soda pops (yeesh)? Since it’s one of the cinema year’s “limbo weekends”, too late for a Summer blockbuster, too early for somber prestige Fall “award bait”, the studios are throwing this combo platter at multiplex screens to see if it “sticks” with the public. And with the somewhat generic title of KIN, this may be a bit of a challenge, though some may favor that mysterious moniker.

The start of this story fully embraces the “double G’s”. The modern day streets of Detroit are very “grim and gritty”, as if snatched from another Michael Moore doc about his home state. Peddling through those streets is pre-teen Eli (Myles Truitt), now suspended from school after getting into a fight. On the way home, he climbs through the busted gate surrounding a decaying warehouse to rip some copper wiring out of the walls. After selling it to a junk dealer, he heads to another empty factory and finds a body. Then several. But they’re all attired in black leather jump suits, and wearing slick futuristic full-head helmets right out of a “shooter” video game. On impulse, Eli scoops up a box-like, hi-tech rifle, which somehow responds to his touch, lighting up a holographic scope. He’s got no time to really fiddle with it, as his Pop, now only parent, construction worker Hal (Dennis Quaid) is due home from work. Eli wraps up his “prize” and arrives in time to greet his long absent older brother, now ex-con, twenty-something Jimmy (Jack Reynor). The homecoming meal is a tad tense, so Jimmy excuses himself to take care of business. This leads to another tense meeting with crime kingpin Taylor (James Franco), who wonders when Jimmy will repay his debt, a whopping sixty grand for keeping the young man “safe” while in the “joint”. Needless to say, Jimmy’s request for a loan from Hal doesn’t go well. This leads to a botched crime, followed by violence and tragedy. Fearing for his brother’s safety, Jimmy picks up Eli, lying about taking a a Lake Tahoe vacation (Dad will join them there as soon as his “big job” is done), and the two are on the road, with Eli’s “acquisition” wrapped with his clothes. Taylor and his army of heavily armed thugs are hot on their tail, along with the authorities. That’s not all. Two helmeted, military types appear at the place where Eli grabbed the ‘weapon’. Using some weird gizmos these “trackes” pinpoint the location of the device. Can the two brothers on the run possibly evade all the forces racing after them? And just what can Eli’s new toy do?

The often convoluted story is strongly anchored by the nuanced, star-making performance by Truitt. His Eli is the film’s beating heart, capturing nearly the complete range of human emotions. At first, he seems to be a confused soul, unable to “fit in’, thinking of himself as a “misfit”. Then, there’s his child-like sense of wonder as he discovers the almost magical “alien” tech. Best of all, might be the vulnerability that Truitt brings to Eli, the most reluctant of heroes. It helps that he has real chemistry with Reynor as his “big brother. Reynor’s endearing as the “bad boy’ trying to set things right, though he’s not capitalized on the charm he projected two years ago as a more memorable sibling, the “pop music Yoda” of the little gem SING STREET. As for the most big name cast mates, well, they seem to be doing variations of previous roles. The always compelling Quaid is the hard-working, salt-of-the-Earth everyman he’s taken on in films and on TV for the last dozen years or so. Franco’s the scuzzy, hare-trigger low life he played as Jason Statham’s nemesis in HOMEFRONT (minus the bayou twang with a touch of the “Alien” from SPRING BREAKERS). And what of the talented Zoe Kravitz, “working the pole” once again (just like the “Angel” of X-MEN: FIRST CLASS) as yet another “exotic dancer with a heart of gold” (replacing the old cliche of the “soft-hearted” hooker)? Her role seems to be a plot device, her “rescue’ setting the stage for a big action set piece, then frolicking in a trite “road trip” bonding montage. Let’s hope she leaves these “eye candy” characters in the past. Another gifted actress, Carrie Coon, gets a big credit, but she merely arrives in the last minutes as a typical, “tightly-wound” FBI agent, who barks out orders . These screen vets deserve better.

First time feature directing duo Johnathon and Josh Baker (who also provided the script with Daniel Casey) expand on their short film “Bag Boy” as they attempt to merge different styles. Their best efforts arrive early, as we’re introduced to the hard-scrabble, “barely gettin’ by” life of Eli, Hal, and Jimmy. Their working class life feels “right” on screen. This makes the shift to the SF elements so jarring. For fans of the action genre, it feels like an eternity before the “pay off” of the weapon’s firepower. Eli wrecking havoc with his “blaster’ is fun for a bit, but the transformation from lonely street survivor to “space age” sharpshooter makes the story shift too abrupt. Then there’s the tough guys antics of Taylor’s crew, from public urination to an all-out attack on a police station…in Nevada…riiiight…the same heavily armed protectors of casinos…uh uh. Too much of the final act plays as a ludicrous parody of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, mixed with more TERMINATOR homages (Eli even plays the arcade game based on that iconic flick). Throw in some time travel “mumbo-jumbo”, and the film collapses on itself like a flimsy house of cards (or 1990’s video tapes and game cartridges). Maybe it all played better as a short subject, because at just over 100 minutes KIN, and our interest, is stretched pretty thin.

2 out of 5

SEARCHING – Review

SEARCHING is a high-concept thriller presented with a unique sort of found footage gimmick. The entire film unfolds exclusively on screens:  Skype, broadcast TV news shows, Facebook, YouTube videos, Videocast, instant messaging, Google searching, etc. Yes, we’ve seen this before (the UNFRIENDED franchise and OPEN WINDOWS), but it’s done well here and mostly works as a compelling mystery told through the modern technology and social media devices we use every day.

SEARCHING opens with a series of google calendar entries and videos sadly chronicling the death of a young wife and mom from cancer (shades of the opening of UP). A few years later the dad David (John Cho) and daughter Margot (Michelle La), now 16, enjoy a close relationship, texting each other several times a day and keeping a date to watch The Voice together. Late one night, Margot calls David in the middle of the night, and the following day he retrieves her missed calls, but can’t reach her.  Detective Rosemary Vick (Debra Messing), a sympathetic single parent herself, is assigned to the missing person case, but when the investigation stalls, David cracks into his daughter’s laptop to help put the puzzle pieces together through cyberspace. Rummaging through her texts and favorite sites, he finds a disturbing side of a daughter he never knew. She’d been skipping her piano lessons and using that money mysteriously. We learn the seemingly straight-laced Margot was more unstable and deeply affected by her mom’s death than David realized.

SEARCHING timely gimmick makes for narrative limits, but also helps ground the movie in a mostly believable premise that keeps you guessing. It’s impressive how committed the movie, directed by Aneesh Chaganty, is to its all-screens format, even down to its soundtrack. If there were inorganic elements, I didn’t spot them. I did spot some implausible twists and plot points though (the girl is missing from an suburban lake for just five days and she’s not only declared officially dead, but they have a funeral for her!), but to its credit, the story is engrossing, the audience does want to see how the (admittedly trashy) mystery plays out, and the father-daughter dynamic at the film’s center seems real.  John Cho gives a strong central performance as the grieving dad and Joseph Lee is good as his shady brother. The weak link is Messing, whose stiff performance can’t be blamed on the ridiculous way she’s tied into the story’s twists. SEARCHING is a flawed but surprisingly decent flick, and the unique on-screen framework gives the narrative a little extra punch.

3 1/2 of 5 Stars

 

 

PICK OF THE LITTER – Review

On August 31, from IFC Films comes the new film, PICK OF THE  LITTER.

PICK OF THE LITTER follows a litter of puppies from the moment they’re born and begin their quest to become guide dogs for the blind. Cameras follow these pups through an intense two-year odyssey as they train to become dogs whose ultimate responsibility is to protect their blind partners from harm. Along the way, these remarkable animals rely on a community of dedicated individuals who train them to do amazing, life-changing things in the service of their human. The stakes are high and not every dog can make the cut. Only the best of the best. The pick of the litter.

Animal-interest stories seem to be the cause celebre these days, but they are usually used to speak out against some sort of injustice or bring attention to a problem such as animal cruelty or endangered species. But WAMG recently discovered some amazing four-legged heroes with enormous hearts – a litter of labrador retriever puppies starting their journey to become seeing-eye dogs for the blind, and the subjects of the documentary PICK OF THE LITTER.

From filmmakers Dana Nachman and Don Hardy (Batkid Begins), PICK OF THE LITTER follows a litter of puppies from birth, all the way through the process of training to be guide dogs for the blind, and as the film demonstrates, it can definitely be a rollercoaster of emotions for both the pups, and the various humans that play a role in their journey.

Founded in 1942, Oregon-based Guide Dogs for the Blind has a network of instructors, puppy raisers and volunteers, who prepare highly qualified guide dogs to serve and empower individuals who are blind or have low vision from throughout the United States and Canada.

This is where we meet Patriot, Poppet, Potomac, Primrose and Phil (each litter is assigned a letter of the alphabet), who like many litters before them train for their very important future.

Not all of them will become guide dogs – many puppies eventually land on a different, but just as important path, such as service animals for other disabilities, or breeders for future litters of guide dogs. Their first stop of the nearly 2 year process is with volunteer “puppy raisers,” families and individuals whose job it is to socialize the puppies, teach them good manners, and assess their overall behavior, intelligence and disposition. Once they pass this step, it’s on to formal guide dog training, and eventual matching with their human.

One of the most satisfying aspects of the film is that because we follow the process from birth, there is a huge sense of attachment, and you find yourself completely invested in the puppies. Each time they have to reach a milestone or pass a test, you find yourself on the edge of your seat, rooting for them to succeed. And it’s not as easy as you might think. A couple of weeks ago, we attended the film’s junket where we got to meet Rodrigo, a dog that has made it through the program and is waiting to be matched with his human partner. I actually had the opportunity to be blindfolded and walk with Rodrigo, as he led me safely around obstacles, stopping at curbs, and confidently encouraging me to walk at a quick pace, knowing I would be safe under his expert direction. And it was incredible. It showed just how highly trained and professional these dogs are, and how life-changing their services are to the people who need them.

Nachman and Hardy have crafted such a feel-good film, you almost forget you are watching a documentary. The opening sequence is such a gut punch that it holds your undivided attention for the next 80 plus minutes, a skill likely honed from their backgrounds in tv news journalism. And they give us exactly what we want at the end…the “where are they now” moments that don’t leave us wondering “what ever happened to.”

Five out of Five Stars!

Get Tickets here:

Visit the official site: ifcfilms.com/films/pick-of-the-litter

THE MISEDUCATION OF CAMERON POST – Review

Audiences and critics are quick to label a film. Well, that’s a superhero film. Oh, that’s a cheesy comedy. Yeah, that’s that gay film that’s coming out. Sure, you could say that THE MISEDUCATION OF CAMERON POST deals with gay and queer topics at a gay conversion therapy camp for teenagers. What’s interesting though about the film is the lack of labels the kids put on themselves or on their friends. They don’t say, “I’m gay or I’m a lesbian or I’m bi.” There is a childlike quality to this that speaks volumes of how they view themselves. Sure, you can call it “the delicate unique snowflake” generation, but I think there is more to it than that. They don’t see themselves as unique and without labels as much as they are still discovering who they are. These are high school students after all. They haven’t declared a college major, yet alone declared who they love and why they feel the way they do. The title character, Cameron (Chloe-Grace Moretz), at one point explains, “I don’t think of myself as a homosexual.” She doesn’t say this outta pure shame – though I think a part of it might be from that – but more out of the fact that she hasn’t quite found her path in life just yet.

Paths and finding your footing is a recurring theme in the dialogue and imagery throughout the film. One of the boys in camp who has the most dramatic arc, Mark (Owen Campbell in a heart-wrenching performance), describes to Cameron that finding your faith is simply a matter of “putting one foot in front of the other.” Another more symbolic example of this theme is that the trio of main characters often go on hikes through the woods as a means of escape. While the film stays firm in not answering what the clear path or answer may be (nothing proves this more than the last lingering shot), it’s clear that writer and director Desiree Akhavan is willing to say that there are multiple paths for young people to take in life.

Chloe Grace Moretz plays the part of Cameron perfectly. Even though the camera stays glued to her face in closeup for far too long at times, she remains strong even though you can see the many questions swirling about her head. That’s not an easy feat to pull off – to convey deep-seated questions spinning around inside without looking about or down in a tiresome manner. While the film offers very little comedic energy or breaks, actor Forrest Goodluck as Adam provides just a touch with his deadpan delivery of a few lines. Unfortunately Cameron’s friendship with Adam and Jane (AMERICAN HONEY breakout star Sasha Lane) isn’t explored as much as the trials and activities that go on in the camp. The positive light the three exude when they are together would add a little more warmth to the film if the focus was shifted just a little.

Director and writer Desiree Akhavan (adapting the book by Emily M. Danforth) seems to purposefully not paint the leaders of the religious camp as the villains. Of course, their methods at times are cruel (at one point the leader has her foot on a boy’s back) and as Cameron points out are examples of “emotional abuse,” but the film doesn’t paint them as fanatical tyrants ruling with a God-like iron fist. There are scenes where their humanity comes out in odd and unsettling ways, especially in the second half of the film. The fact that the filmmakers didn’t paint them in a more ugly fashion is slightly off-putting. The audiences who will flock to this knows that camps like this aren’t ethically right, and because of this, the unorthodox approach to depicting the camp leaders will divide some audiences.

THE MISEDUCATION OF CAMERON POST isn’t necessarily a learning exercise but rather an exploration of teen struggles. We often forget how tumultuous these formative years can be. As adults, we brush it off since they aren’t paying bills or working a 9-5. Between Bo Burnham’s film EIGHTH GRADE from earlier this year and now this, the struggles of growing up as a teenager have never felt more real and heartbreaking. There’s nothing illuminating or groundbreaking in the story of THE MISEDUCATION OF CAMERON POST or in the way the story is told, but it’s a nice reminder that we all lived through a time when we didn’t have all the answers and it was up to us to forge our own path.

 

Overall score: 4 out of 5

THE MISEDUCATION OF CAMERON POST is now playing in select cities 

 

PAPILLON – Review

Rami Malek (left) stars as “Louis Dega” and Charlie Hunnam (right) stars as “Henri ‘Papillon’ Charriére” in director Michael Noer’s PAPILLON, a Bleecker Street release. Credit: Jose Haro / Bleecker Street

PAPILLON stars Charlie Hunnam and in a remake of the highly-praised 1973 film of the same name, based on the bestselling books of Henri “Papillon” Charriere about his experiences as a French thief and safe-cracker sentenced in the 1930s to the notorious French prison on Devil’s Island off the coast of French Guiana.

The 1973 film starred Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman, who turn in sterling performances as Papillon and forger/counterfeiter/conman Louis Dega, and also sported a script co-written by the legendary Dalton Trumbo. Papillon is French for butterfly and refers to a tattoo on the safe-cracker’s chest, but also to the books’ theme of transformation as well as an indomitable human spirit.

Those are pretty impressive credentials to try to match in a remake, but the story is compelling enough that you could see how it would be tempting to try. Still there is that cautionary rule about remakes, that if you are re-making a classic, the best you can hope for is to be as good. Unfortunately, this PAPILLON does not escape that fate and, in fact, it is far inferior to the original.

The story in the 1973 Papillon is an inspiring tale of human endurance, redemption and an indomitable thirst for freedom. The sequel is none of those things.

Street-smart safe-cracker Papillon is framed for murder by another criminal, and finds himself both banished and sentenced to life in the notorious French prison on French Guiana. Also being transported to South America is the wealth infamous forger and conman Louis Dega (Rami Malek). Awaiting the ship, athletic Papillon offers his services as protection to the smaller, less-physical forger in exchange for Dega funding Papillon’s escape plan. Dega at first declines but reconsiders after another prison is murdered. But Dega wants to go along on the escape, a suggestion Papillon turns down.

Those who saw the McQueen-Hoffman film know this is a big deviation from the basic premise of the two characters’ relationship right there. In the 1973 film, it is Papillon who suggests Dega should join him in his escape plan but Dega turns him down, saying he has his own plan to be released which is underway and deeming Papillon’s escape plan too risky.

Hunnam spends the whole film looking hunky while Malek looks just weaselly. In fact, the changed relationship between the two characters is the biggest difference between the two films, and its fatal flaw. It is hard to know what director Michael Noer was thinking when he took this path. The intention may have been to craft a star vehicle for Charlie Hunnam by boosting the heroic image of the character he plays. However, the plan backfires as it undermines the friendship that was a major strength of the story, and diminishes its dramatic power and its arc of re-birth.

 

The prisoners do not start out on Devil’s Island but the name is a good stand-in for the whole penal colony system they endure. The voyage over is awful but once in South America, things get much worse. The prisoners are reminded that they have been discarded by their country and face the years of solitary or even the guillotine for infractions. Food is scarce as well as bad, the heat and jungle offer dangers, and they are surrounded by evil ex-cons turned bounty hunters and other nasty types.

The 2018 PAPILLON follows the general outline of the 1973 film, and even occasionally inserts dialog from the original. One can easily pick these lines out as the words no longer match the characters of the two men and the nature of the friendship. Violence is frequent.

In both films, the two men bond as friends over time but the nature of the friendship is different. In the 1973 film, Louis Dega starts out in a position of power with a plan for being released and for comfort while incarcerated, while Papillon is one of many common street criminals. The two brings complementary strengths to the partnership: Louis brings both money, connections and brains to the table, while Papillon brings street-smarts with knowledge of prisons, physical prowess and a willingness to take risks.

In the 2018 version, Papillon holds all the cards, and just drags Louis along for the ride. This Papillon is both the brawn and the brains, while a sniveling Louis Dega brings only money to their partnership. Over time, Papillon becomes fond of the little guy, who becomes somewhat less idiotic with time, but still pretty odd.

In the original, Dustin Hoffman’s Louis Dega is a self-possessed man used to being the one in charge and relying on his own brain-power. The prison experience humbles him, while elevating the always-hopeful Papillon, whose perseverance is one of his admirable aspects. In this new version, it is Papillon who has superior attitude, which is not much diminished over time. One thing that is the same between the two films are what drives these men. Papillon wants to escape at costs, while Louis wants to be safe at all costs.

Oddly, the 1973 version is much more graphic, gritty and realistic in depicting the violence and brutal conditions. Charlie Hunnam gets a little grimy but stays surprisingly clean and handsome throughout. Rami Malek looks kind of weird from the start and never looks much better, just a little messier. The focus is always on the heroic Hunnam character, reducing some scenes from dramatic to a shallow high school confrontation.

The remake does add one positive thing that the original lacked, which a little bit about Papillon before the false conviction, and an epilog that details how Charriere’s best-selling books brought about French prison reform and closed the penal facility in which he spent so many years.

It could have been a better film, and the poor result of this remake will do Hunnam’s career no good. If you are curious about the story, seeing the 1973 film or even reading the books is the way to go. If you are a fan of Charlie Hunnam, you are much better off watching the far-better LOST CITY OF Z.

RATING: 1 out of 5 stars

MEMOIR OF WAR – Review

Mélanie Thierry as Marguerite Duras in MEMOIR OF WAR. © Music Box Films

Melanie Thierry gives a haunting performance in director Emmanuel Finkiel’s finely-crafted MEMOIR OF WAR. This powerful, beautifully-shot French-language drama is an adaptation of Marguerite Duras’ partly-autobiographical novel “The War: A Memoir” about her experiences in Paris in World War II.

In Nazi-occupied Paris 1944, Marguerite Duras and her husband Robert Antelme are members of the French Resistance when Robert is arrested by the Gestapo. Seeking answers about her husband’s fate, Marguerite (Melanie Thierry) goes to the local authorities, where French police are working with the Gestapo. In the waiting room, she is approached by a French collaborator, Rabier (Benoit Magimel), who offers to help her find out where her husband is being held. Sensing Rabier’s romantic interest, Marguerite begins a cat-and-mouse relationship in which she probes for information about her husband’s fate as the policeman probes for information about the Resistance.

The leader of Marguerite’s French Resistance cell, Morland (Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet), and other members of the cell back up her risky mission, but Marguerite’s main emotional support is her husband’s best friend Dionys (Benjamin Biolay), also a member of the Resistance cell. As the months of Robert’s absence drag on, the situation shifts from tense suspense and fear, to more a test of endurance, as Marguerite waits for news and begins to contemplate the unthinkable.

Marguerite Duras’s novel was groundbreaking, but the author also wrote the screenplay for the groundbreaking film HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR. Director Emmanuel Finkiel also has impressive post-war credentials, having been assistant director to three of the biggest cinematic names of the era: Bertrand Tavernier, Krzysztof Kieslowski and Jean-Luc Goddard.

Director Finkiel, who also adapted Duras’ novel for the screen, gets all the period details right and events unfold through graceful, delicate photography by director of photography Alexis Kavyrchine. Despite the lovely images, this is an emotionally powerful drama filled with realism and hard truths.

Told with a light but sure hand, the director puts the focus on Thierry, allowing her performance to carry the narrative. The drama not only shows us the tensions of events unfolding in Marguerite’s life but takes us takes us inside her thoughts and inner life, through sometimes dream-like imagery and voice-over narration drawn from Duras’ own writing. The film opens with Duras re-discovering a forgotten diary she kept during the war, and periodically that contemporary Marguerite observes herself as she goes through her anguished ordeal of waiting, meaning there are two Marguerites, in different emotional states on screen at the same time.

Finkiel structures his film to take us out of usual expectations. Rather than beginning in a conventional way, the story begins with the author revisiting her memories through a forgotten diary, flashing back to 1945, then further back to 1944. But her recollections in 1944 begin not with the couple’s work in the Resistance, but after her husband has already been arrested. It is all about her experience, the search for information, the waiting and not knowing, and her anguish in that.

Despite the many films about WWII, few if any focus on the experience of women in wartime, often presenting them only as background characters. MEMOIR OF WAR focuses directly on one woman’s wartime experiences, giving a fresh and rarely seen viewpoint on a frequently-covered slice of history. This is Marguerite’s personal journey but the search for information and the prolonged waiting extends the story beyond the personal story, to become a tale of all who wait for the return of loved ones in wartime and its aftermath. In some respects, it is particularly the experience of women in WWII, waiting for the return of men who left to fight or at least news of them, but also it is the experience of women with war throughout time.

Melanie Thierry is superb in this role, one that seems sure to capture critical and international attention. Thierry is masterful, with the play of complex emotion across her pale, expressive face ranging from a steely stoicism to fear to despair to cynicism. She is by turns vulnerable and powerful, crumbling and relentless. At times, we see both the present and remembered Marguerite in the same shot, with the woman who is remembering coolly observing the earlier self in the midst of the experience. Thierry shifts from emotion to emotion rapidly but believably in some scenes, such as when she is meeting with Rabier in a cafe on the eve of the Allied invasion, and moves from fear to hope.

The strong cast also includes Patrick Lizana as Resistance member Beauchamp and Emmanuel Bourdieu as Robert Antelme. Especially good is Benoit Magimel as Rabier the collaborator, who hopes to extract information about the Resistance from his meetings with Marguerite, But Rabier is also drawn to her in part because she is an author and an intellectual, someone usually outside his social reach. Early on, he tells her he is honored to be in the presence of a writer, “even a woman writer” and then tells her of his ambition to open a bookstore, a social climbing aspect to his collaboration with the Nazis. As Dionys, Benjamin Biolay strikes the right balance between being supportive and trying to keep Marguerite grounded in reality with blunt honesty in her darkest moments.

Two women characters are particular striking, illustrating aspects of the women who wait. One is a young mother Mrs. Bordes (Anne-Lise Heimburger), so despondent that her husband has not returned that she takes to her bed, leaving her children to fend for themselves. A larger, more emotionally-moving role is that of Mrs. Katz, played with heartbreaking sincerity by Shulamit Adar, a Jewish woman from Lyon who comes to stay with Marguerite as she waits for the return of her daughter. The daughter has a bad leg from polio but in contrast to Marguerite’s emotional roller coaster, Mrs. Katz is ever hopeful, despite rumors about how the Nazis treat the disabled.

MEMOIR OF WAR is a film that excels on all levels. This is a powerful film, for its tense wartime emotions and exploration of inner life but also for its unusual exploration of the overlooked experience of women in wartime, a viewpoint rarely seen on screen despite the many films about WWII. This is a drama worth seeing for everyone, and one to remember come awards season.

RATING: 5 out of 5 stars