Review – Page 176 – We Are Movie Geeks

BLAIR WITCH – Review

It’s scary walking in the foot prints of a legend. It’s not an easy task to try to tackle a sequel to one of the most iconic horror films ever made. Scratch that – one of the most iconic films ever made, period. You will never be able to catch the magic of the original. It was a once in a lifetime thing. It was an event. It was one of the first films to fully utilize the strength and broad reach of the internet (still in its infancy) to create a buzz that we now associate as viral marketing. I remember seeing the poster in the lobby of the theater one night and immediately going on the computer the next day to search what happened to these kids. Reading about these kids that disappeared and how their footage was found a year later sparked a level of intrigue in me that I had never experienced from a film before. It was a feeling of uneasiness and danger – as if this was something that was not meant to be seen.

There’s an authenticity to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999) that even now, knowing that it’s all made up, still feels like I’m watching three innocent people spiral into hell. Even seeing Joshua Leonard (one of the three actors in the film) pop up as character roles in films alongside Mark Duplass and others, I still wonder if the woods in Burkittsville, Maryland hold some sort of mysterious force; some malevolent cracking sounds heard in the distance; or an abandoned house that sits deep in the woods. As silly as some of these statements sound, this fascination with the myth led me to wander back into the woods to seek out the new BLAIR WITCH with excitement and trepidation.

It seems like the path through the trees left behind by directors Eduardo Sánchez and Daniel Myrick is still easy to follow, despite the 17 years of over growth that you would expect. So much so that director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett lead this new group down the exact same path. The same structure of kids with cameras spend the night, weird stuff begins to happen, they can’t find their way out, and then they find a house in the woods is implemented. Try as they may to inject some new ideas into the franchise – typing that word just seems bizarre to me – the duo seem to be held back by some unseeable evil power. You can almost picture the meeting between studio executives and two gifted up and coming voices in the horror genre. “It needs to feel like a remake but be a sequel. It has to be found footage but you need to update it with the new bells and whistles. It needs to stay true to the original film but definitely needs to have more action. Got it? Good.”

This time around though we are given more than just three unlucky travelers. The brother of Heather Donahue, the girl who went missing in 1994, sets out to find his missing sister after he sees a video online of a woman running through a house that he believes is her. James (James Allen McCune) is being documented every step of the way by Lisa (Callie Hernandez) who is filming a doc on her friend’s search for a class project. We’re also given James’ childhood friend Peter (Brandon Scott) and his girlfriend Ashley (Corbin Reid). Their search for who uploaded the video leads them to a couple outside the Black Hills (Wes Robinson and Valorie Curry). Under the guidance of these two strangers, the group heads into the woods to look for Heather.

Subtlety is thrown out the window almost immediately after they enter the woods. BLAIR WITCH becomes a fun house ride of sorts, for better or for worse. Footage from different cameras are constantly being cut back and forth, glitches from the recordings mix with loud sounds from the woods to become just deadening noise, and the sense of space is completely lost as the background is often an inky blackness (about half the film takes place at night). It’s effectively disorienting, which is entirely the point, but a bit overwhelming. Atmosphere is lost in order to cram in more scares. Thankfully, at least a few will make you jump.

As you would expect since the film takes place in 2014, there is some cool updates to the technology with the inclusion of different types of cameras including a drone. In addition, the sequel also expands the mythology of the woods themselves and the witch (which some will either like or dislike). There is a whole supernatural meaning behind things which takes the real world dread into another type of world entirely, however, they don’t do enough with it. The opportunity is there to do some unique things with the visuals and storytelling given this supernatural element, but instead they fall back on nods to the first film as a safety net, recycling the same beats and same imagery fans are expecting. What’s frustrating is that the potential is there for more, and I can’t help but wonder if Wingard and Barrett wanted to play around more in the woods as well.

Given the fact that they have previously made two amazing genre films (YOU’RE NEXT and THE GUEST) that creatively subverted the types of films they were riffing on, it’s puzzling that they went the route of directing a sequel/remake that feels like any number of gun-for-hire horror directors could have made. For the casual horror fan, there’s nothing really wrong with BLAIR WITCH: a few good scares, some funny lines, and characters you didn’t hate. But fans of the duo know that the film doesn’t bare their signature mark. Even more worrisome, if this does end up doing well, are fans of the original BLAIR WITCH PROJECT going to get treated to yet another trip through the woods to grandmother’s house? I typically recommend the sound advice of “safe travels,” but this venture seems to play it a little too safe.

Overall rating: 3 out of 5

BLAIR WITCH opens in theaters September 16, 2016

THE HOLLARS – Review

Well, we were just looking at a family “drama-dy” from Japan, OUR LITTLE SISTER, so let’s turn our multiplex jet airliner right around and head back to the states. Our destination is the good ole’ heartland of the US of A, and lots of laughs and tears are in store. Now this family unit is a bit older than the SISTER quartet, with two sons well past their twenties along with their spouses, and ‘exes’. Oh, and this time out the parents play a big part in the story. Speaking of airliners, the big box office winner last week was the true tale of flying heroics SULLY, directed by actor Clint Eastwood. Well, this film is also directed by an actor, John Krasinski (he’s in front of the camera, too). This is his first time helming a film since 2009’s BRIEF INTERVIEWS WITH HIDEOUS MEN, his directing debut. John’s got a way to go before surpassing Clint’s impressive film-making resume’, but he shows even more promise with this second effort, THE HOLLARS.

Let’s touch this plane down in central Ohio, right at the Hollar family home. Eldest son Ron (Sharlto Copley), recently divorced, out of work, and now living in the den, is in a panic early this morning. The upstairs and downstairs bathrooms are occupied by Mama H, Sally (Margo Martindale) and Papa H, Don (Richard Jenkins), and nature is calling. When Don catches Ron “improvising” in the kitchen, they hear a racket above. The men find Sally sprawled on the bathroom floor, nearly unconscious. Now we dash from there to NYC and the office cubicle of prodigal Hollar son John (Krasinski), as he scribbles a cartoon while worrying about his future fatherhood. Suddenly his very pregnant girlfriend Rebecca (Anna Kendrick) is there to inform him that his mother has had a seizure, and his flight home is booked. When John arrives at the hospital, he learns that Mom has a brain tumor that will require major surgery in just a few days. But there’s more family drama. Brother Ron is stalking his ex-wife, concerned about his two pre-teen daughters now that ex, Stacey (Ashley Dyke) is seeing the church’s youth pastor, Rev. Dan (Josh Groban). Oh, and the job Ron lost was at his pop’s heating and plumbing business, which is going under. Plus, the nurse taking care of ma is John’s old high school classmate Jason (Charlie Day), who is married, and has a baby with, John’s old sweetheart Gwen (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). As John nervously awaits Rebecca’s due date, he must somehow deal with this very stressful homecoming.

Despite pulling double duty, Krasinski delivers a subtle, nuanced performance as the harried, often exasperated returning son. He seems to know exactly when to recede, to let his co-stars shine (no doubt a good habit he acquired during his long stint on NBC-TV’s “The Office”), often becoming a classic “straight man” to the off-kilter characters. But he’s not always the calm in the storm as Krasinski shows the worry and anxiety on his face and in his darting eyes. One of the more pleasant surprises is the wonderful comic turn by Copley (hey he was pretty funny in the opening, pre-prawn scenes in DISTRICT 9) as the desperate doofus, Ron . Though he’s such a foul-up, it’s hard not to sympathize with such a doting daddy. And this South African native really nails the American accent. Day effortlessly bounces between aggressive blowhard and twitchy paranoid hubby as Jason, a guy still nursing old school grudges who wants to rub John’s nose in the fact that he’s got his former flame, but is terrified she could be taken from him. Kendrick and Groban turn in great supporting work, along with comedy vets Randall Park (THE INTERVIEW) as Sally’s doc and Mary Kay Place (THE BIG CHILL) as Don’s pull-no-punches CPA sister.

This cast is terrific, but the film truly belongs to the heads pf the Hollar clan, played by two “old pros” who deliver some of their best work in their long careers. Jenkins as the faltering father is a constant wonder as Don goes from blubbering despair to defiant anger upon hearing the wrong remark. Life seems to have this weary man in a choke-hold, destroying the business that has sapped his years, then threatening to take away his rock, the true love of his life, the woman he very affectionately calls “Chief”. Marindale is a lovable force of nature as the stubborn, although scared matriarch Sally. Still, as the countdown to the operation goes forward, she only thinks of the men in her life and how to inspire them to keep moving. In one of the film’s most powerful scenes, the impending surgery prompts her to share a thought with John, one she’s probably never spoken aloud, that hits her son like a wrecking ball. And when they come to wheel her out of her room, to make that long trek down the hallway…it’s truly heart-wrenching, a scene that many Academy members will hopefully recall at year’s end.

The screenplay from James Strouse never hits a false note, sprightly balancing the laughter and tears. The small town “everybody knows everybody” feel is captured by Krasinski who paces the film expertly, making a brisk 90 minutes zip by. The locations are lovely with Mississippi standing in for Ohio. Krasinski is compiling a most impressive list of movies, but this will be tough to top (it’ll be interesting to see what his next choice will be). Families everywhere will find they’ve got a lot in common with this delightful lovable foursome, THE HOLLARS.

4.5 Out of 5

THE HOLLARS opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Cinemas

OUR LITTLE SISTER – Review

Time again for another cinematic look at fractured, non-conventional families, a subject that’s also popular on TV and in novels. This story concerns a quartet of sisters, ranging from 13 to 29, sharing a home with no parental figures in sight (for most of the tale). You might think you’ve seen this “drama-dy” before , but not in this way, or in this unique setting. This family fable is not set in the US or Europe, but rather in Asia, Japan to be precise. It’s not adapted from a stage play, nor a standard literary best seller or “young adult” novel. This film springs from a comic book, which US academics now call “graphic novels”, but best known in the far East as “manga”, a medium usually thought to feature mind-blowing science fiction and strange supernatural fantasies. Hey, if our comics can delve into subjects other than superhero epics, then manga can certainly present a look at modern households. And another surprise is the identity of one of the studios involved, the beloved Toho Studios. Yes, Toho, the home of that green, mean icon Godzilla. No buildings are smashed in this flick, but a few hearts are broken in OUR LITTLE SISTER.

The first sister we meet is 22-year-old Yoshino Kouda (Masami Nagasawa) as she awakens after a “sleep-over” with a slightly younger suitor, who asks her for a small loan till payday. This request nearly makes her late for breakfast at the house she shares with her two sisters. Head of the household is level-headed, 29-year-old Sachi (Haruka Ayase), a nurse, and 19-year-old Chika (Kaho), who works at a sports equipment shop in their seaside village. After their parents split up, the sisters took over the house of their late grandmother. They’ve had no dealings with either parent for years. All that changes, when Sachi reads a letter informing them of the death of their father. Married for a third time, he was the owner/manager of a resort many miles away. When the sisters take the train to the resort, they get another surprise. Seems that papa had a child with his deceased second wife (the one that he left their mama for), a daughter, 13-year-old Suzu (Suzu Hirose). This thrills Chika, who is not the “kid sister” anymore. Sachi observes that Suzu has little emotional connection with her newly widowed stepmother. This gives the elder Kouda an idea, which she shares with the others: Suzu should return home with them and the four sisters will share the ancestral house. Suzu readily agrees, and over the course of the next few months, she settles into her new school, becoming a soccer star and crushing on a teammate. Life goes on for the three older sisters has they experience love and loss, while opening their hearts to their new arrival.

By calling SISTER a sweet, disarming film full of charm and vitality may not fully do the work justice. Audiences expecting hugs, hearts, and flowers may be taken aback by the tougher aspects of the story and its characters. The most complex one may be Sachi, who seems to be the moral backbone of the family until we learn of her attempt at romance. She’s having a secret affair with a married doctor she works with at the hospital, a man who insists he will marry her once his wife is released from a mental health facility. Perhaps this accounts for her anger with her own parents, particularly her estranged mother who returns briefly for a family function, as Sachi is disgusted by her own trek into adultery. Ms. Ayase conveys this self-loathing with great sensitivity. Kaho displays a deft comic gift as the eccentric Chika, especially in the exchanges with her co-worker/beau who brags of losing several toes during a failed mountain climb (“I’ll take off my shoes and you can feel where they were, if you like!”). Hirose is also a delight as the lost teenager who begins to blossom with the help and guidance of her newly-discovered older siblings. The first big laugh in the film is courtesy of the energetic Nagaswa as the free-spirit Yoshino when she arrives at the spa that will host her dad’s memorial. Throwing her bags down on the floor of her guest room, she loudly proclaims “I need a beer!”. Prim and proper, demure young ladies? Not always, but they’re authentic. Nagaswa subtlety shifts her performance to reflect ‘Yoshi’s new maturity (no more deadbeat guys for her!).

Director Hirokazu Koreeda, in adapting Akimi Yoshida’s manga, never goes for the melodramatic. We’re always “a fly on the wall”, just observing this quartet over the course of several months. It’s a “slice of life” that often seems like a stir-fried mix of LITTLE WOMEN and SKINNY AND FATTY, the much-beloved 1958 Japanese film that aired as part of TV’s “The CBS Children’s Film Festival” (the first entry in 1967). The seaside village is a visual dream and the exotic meals will entrance “foodies” (gotta’ try that “whitebait” sometime). But most entrancing is the warm spirit of family reunion, forgiveness, and discovery that permeates every frame of OUR LITTLE SISTER.

4.5 Out of 5

OUR LITTLE SISTER opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Cinemas.

STARVING THE BEAST – Review

Review by Stephen Tronicek

The closest movie that one could compare STARVING THE BEAST too is last years masterful comedy, THE BIG SHORT. They share very rapid fire pacing structures, feature interesting true to life characters, and both manage to be hilarious and at the same time completely terrifying. Starving the Beast is a great documentary, one that bombards you with opinions and information at such a pace that while much like in the aforementioned Short, you probably won’t be able to fully grasp the concepts at hand, the overall idea worms its way into your head and shocks you.

STARVING THE BEAST happens to be about the complex political dealings that come with public higher education reform, mainly the effects that have come with it at the University of Texas, University of Virginia, University of North Carolina, and a variety of other schools.

The presentation of this information is the best thing that STARVING THE BEAST actually does. It’s less interested in a definitive truth and more in the tensions that arrive when the more liberal and conservative aspects of the reform argument collide over the issue, and in presenting both sides Starving the Beast gives itself the beautiful advantage of levity. There’s a certain level of intensity to the back and forths, that while somewhat confusing, is so palatable that you can’t help but almost laugh and gawk at the speed of it all. It helps that the film is cut fast blowing through heaps of information, and never really letting up as the speed of the pacing compliments the more heated aspects of the argument.

As entertaining as that is, the implications here are pretty terrifying. The impending doom that was bursting through the seams of THE BIG SHORT is present in this movie, but it’s in real time. This is a documentary, not a dramatic work. Higher education is important, higher education is a goal of many Americans. Starving the Beast shows us how the entire thing is falling apart under the strains of political and financial burdens. The propelling pace, for as much levity it provides, is tinged with the feeling of bottomed out terror that this perspective provides. This makes the film both compelling in its debate structure, but also in the twisting adrenaline that comes from the consequences just beyond the frame.

“Levity and terror” sounds like a broken up oxymoron, but the results are quite literally breathtaking. STARVING THE BEAST is a documentary about politics and dealings, yet feels just as intense and pulse-pounding as last years, Cartel Land. As a documentary, it jumps around a little too quickly for audience understanding, but it trades more complex understandings for the brisk pace that makes it a very good film.

COMPLETE UNKNOWN – Review

Rachel Weisz and Michael Shannon are dependable actors, but the script for the tedious identity drama COMPLETE UNKNOWN gives them flat characters stuck in underdeveloped situations. We’re introduced to Alice (Rachel Weisz), in an opening prologue montage that features her over time in several endeavors – a nurse, a magician’s assistant, and in bed telling a paramour that she’s been a teacher for many years. The rest of the story takes place in one night. Now a frog researcher fresh from a trip to Tasmania, Alice catches the eye of Clyde (Michael Chernus) in a Brooklyn office cafeteria. He immediately invites her a birthday party at the home of his co-worker Tom (Shannon) and his wife Ramina (Azita Ghanizada), a jewelry designer. There’s a dozen or so guests at the party, all entertained by the outlandish Alice, who brags of her accomplishments and confesses that years ago she walked away from her life in the United States to create a new identity for herself overseas. Tom is suspicious, and for good reason; he recognizes Alice as an old flame he knew as Jenny, one who had suddenly walked out of his life fifteen years earlier. Alice initially denies knowing Tom, but eventually fesses up. Someone at the party suggests they all go dancing at a club. Once there, Tom and Alice quickly ditch their group and go for a long walk which runs out the balance up the film. When an older woman (Kathy Bates) walking her dog falls and injures her ankle, Jenny and Tom both pretend to be doctors and accompany her back to the home she shares with her husband (Danny Glover). Reluctant at first, Tom eventually gets drawn into the ruse, enjoying the thrill of false identity (we know this because he says “Wow. I’m completely absorbed”).

COMPLETE UNKNOWN plays like a bad old-school European art film, the kind where a man and a woman engage in low-key longing and endless, sometimes pointless conversation. Plodding and forgettable, so much of the film consists of walking and talking about subjects like regrets and failures and boundaries. Sometimes they talk very slowly and there are long stretches where they furrow their brows and say nothing at all. There are a few flashbacks with pretentious narration and mopey music, but these explain little. Though only 85 minutes, COMPLETE UNKNOWN still feels padded….and endless.

COMPLETE UNKNOWN establishes in Alice a potential femme fatale in what starts out as a set-up for a classic thriller but takes her nowhere interesting. I’m sure Alice, with her blend of beauty and duplicity, has impressed and broken the hearts of many men over the years, but focusing on Tom, and telling her story through his eyes squanders this character. This would have been a better movie without Tom. Here we have this woman who may or may not have accomplished so much, so why would we want to see a story about her stalking a creepy old boyfriend she hasn’t been in contact with for 15 years? Tom is inspired by Alice to examine his own identity, but even as played by the usually unpredictable Shannon, he’s a dullard. I didn’t care about these two people. I found their long conversations poorly-written and I didn’t care whether they made a connection. It’s insinuated that Alice set up this reunion, but it’s never explained why. I kept thinking about Tom’s lovely wife Ramina back at the nightclub. He leaves her behind to go off with this woman. Wouldn’t she be texting him constantly to see where he’s disappeared to? Actually, it’s unclear whether Ramina even went to the club. Everyone else from the party did, but she’s not shown there. There’s a plot twist I did not see coming because it makes no sense in regards to everything we’ve been told about Alice. It’s not the actors fault. You could charitably say Shannon shows his range by playing such a bore in this one role. Weisz does her best, though the more you know about Alice, the less interesting she becomes. With COMPLETE UNKNOWN, director Joshua Marston and co-writer Jullian Sheppard have made a lousy film but it’s reassuring to be reminded that top-tier Hollywood stars can make bad choices just like the rest of us.

1 of 5 Stars

COMPLETE UNKNOWN opens in St. Louis September 9th exclusively at Landmark’s The Tivoli Theater

SULLY – Review

Most of us remember the “Miracle on the Hudson,” the remarkable event on January 15, 2009, in which a pilot landed a commercial aircraft on the Hudson River in New York City, a successful emergency landing in which no one died or was even seriously hurt. The pilot, Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, became a household name as he was hailed as a hero by the public and in the media.

Tom Hanks plays Capt. Sullenberger in director Clint Eastwood’s new film SULLY, which focuses on the “Miracle on the Hudson” landing but also on the events that followed as well as on the pilot himself.

Capt. Sullenberger (Hanks) and co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart) had just taken off from New York’s La Guardia airport in their U.S. Airways commercial jet, expecting a routine flight. The plane hardly had a chance to gain much altitude when a huge flock of Canada geese appeared in front of it. The bird strike disabled both engines and the pilots had to think fast before the powerless plane sunk too low to do anything but crash. Quickly evaluating the chance of making it back to LaGuardia or the nearby Teterboro airport in New Jersey, Capt. Sullenberger made the only call that seemed likely to save them from a devastating crash – a water landing on the Hudson River. Sullenberger safely landed the plane on the river, he and the crew got the passengers out of the plane, and swift-acting Coast Guard and other boats and helicopters sprang into action to get them out of the freezing January water.

Sullenberger credited the whole team – his co-pilot, the flight crew and the rescuers in the boats and helicopters – but the media was all over Sullenberger, calling him a hero for the event they dubbed the “Miracle on the Hudson.”

Laura Linney plays Sully’s wife, Lorrie, who along with the two pilots is caught up in the overwhelming media attention and the emotional roller-coaster of coping with that and an on-going official inquiry into the emergency event at the same time. The emergency also put a spotlight on the danger of bird strikes to planes as well on the importance of having an experienced pilot in charge when a true emergency arose.

While the media were descending on Capt. Sullenberger and singing his praises, Sully was also facing an official inquiry by U.S. Airways and the FAA, as required for all such emergencies, calling him to account for his actions. At that same time, Sully was grappling with his emotions and the whole experience.

In a fictional film, the official inquiry after an emergency incident is summed up with a wave of the hand, and an official saying, “we believe you, no need for anything more.” Of course, in the real world that is not what happens, nor should we want that. An official inquiry is required by any such emergency landing or crash – although “crash” does not really describe the captain’s successful emergency maneuver. Whether is it a private business, a branch of the military branch or a government department, they want answers any time a big expensive piece of equipment is lost or destroyed. While painting U.S. Airways or the FAA as the “bad guys” does not really make sense, it is hard not to feel that way when the public is calling someone a hero but the company is scrutinizing those same actions like the person did something wrong.

It is this dizzying dichotomy that is the dramatic heart of Eastwood’s movie, which spotlights Sully’s reaction to both. The pilots’ union provides support, both emotional and practical, as they go through the inquiry and the media deluge. It is nice to see unions in a positive light in this film, during what we expect from them, and being such warm-hearted, likable guys too.

SULLY recreates the event itself in segments, focusing on different points in time and on different viewpoints, while the official inquiry and the media blizzard are the on-going plot line. By not just focusing on the emergency landing itself, Eastwood makes this a more interesting and thoughtful film. The emergency itself is so brief that a lesser director would have been tempted to fill the screen time with a prolong biopic. Eastwood does include some biography on Sully but keeps it brief and focused points important to the event.

Hanks is perfect in this film, capturing both Sully’s look with his white mustache and his reserved manner beautifully. His acting is superb, bringing out Sully’s natural gracious but reticent nature and showing him struggling with his feelings about the whole event. On one hand, Sully is taken aback by strangers who want to hug him and the relentless media coverage, feeling like he just basically did his job, nothing special. Hanks captures this modest reaction but also shows that Sully, like anyone, enjoys being recognized for doing a good job. On the other hand, Hanks shows Sully’s emotional strain, and even a little reasonable and human resentment, at having to justify his decision, which saved all lives aboard, to an inquiry panel that seems to think he could have done more – saved all aboard and saved the plane too. His co-pilot is right there with him in these feelings, and Eckhart turns in one of his best performances in years as the supportive Skiles. Skiles and Sully kid around and back each other up as only long-time friends and co-workers can, and it is a joy to watch these two actors at work in their scenes together. Sully blows off steam by running through New York streets, as he and Skiles are holed up in a hotel room for the official hearings. Hanks plays Sully as a guy who is both a bit gruff and warmly human, but not very forthcoming about feelings. He is very protective of his more emotionally- expressive wife Lorrie, in an old-fashioned way., but is not prepared to share his feelings much. Linney does a good job as Lorrie, playing her as a woman supportive of the husband she loves and a bit both panicked and overwhelmed by what has happened – particularly the non-stop media intrusion.

One thing the film does is spotlight the importance of Sully’s long experience as a pilot in his successful emergency actions. The scenes during the official inquiry help bring this out, as Sully picks apart the flaws in the simulations, contrasting its steps and timing with what really happens in an emergency. Only long experience gives Sully the tools to make this judgment call, something that the flying public and airline companies should remember when hiring low-paid, minimally experienced pilots. With so many companies refusing to hire older workers or getting rid of them, it is something every industry should think about, as well as members of the public concerned about competence and safety in many critical services.

Surprisingly short, SULLY is a fine little gem of a film, not as sweeping in scope as some of Eastwood’s films but probably one of his best. Hanks seems sure to be on some awards short lists for his fine performance, once again. SULLY is a film everyone can enjoy, about a real-life human hero rather than a comic book one.

RATING: 4 OUT OF 5 STARS

SULLY opens Friday, September 9

MORRIS FROM AMERICA – Review

Review by Stephen Tronicek

A father and son argue about music to the point that both figures become children in the conversation, as the camera, amusingly poppy, hard cuts in a hilarious way as if to yell “SIT DOWN” every single time a new angle is shown. Then suddenly in a surge of hilarity, one of the “children” grounds the other one for “liking terrible music.” The grounded child makes his way up to his room as the father sits lonely at a table staring into space. Isolated. Suddenly, the father gets up and ungrounds the kid and they go get ice cream. Think about what type of emotions inform a scene like that. First, you have the two leads, headstrong both of them, trying to win the argument through their bouts of witty dialogue. Then you have the sudden punchline coming in as the childish father takes the control by being even more childish. Then you have the sobering as the father realizes that he doesn’t have anyone else then his kid, and then you have the redemption as the father, now all smiles, goes to get the kid from his room. Headstrong, hilarious, sobering and redemptive. The perfect words to describe MORRIS FROM AMERICA.

The headstrong aspect comes in the characters and the editing. Morris (Markees Christmas), a 13-year-old gangster, and his widowered father, Curtis (Craig Robinson) have just moved to Germany for work. Both find themselves at least a little uncomfortable with their new lives and lash back at each other. The lack of Morris’s mother also hints that his father simply doesn’t have anyone to argue with anymore and so he projects his feelings onto the child leading Morris to become headstrong out of necessity. This is a smart way to highlight the excellent character dynamics as is the early cutting style, which in its own ways pops from character to character asserting itself in an almost hysterically violent way.

That’s not all that’s hilarious about this movie. The natures of all of these characters clashing make for dynamic conversations that highlight the pain of growing up. As the story progresses, Morris becomes infatuated with Katrin, a kind of neo-bohemian girl at school. Much of the hilarity of the film comes in the way this plays out as Morris’s behavior gets more and more absurd in order to gain Katrin’s affection. Their conversations are infused with the same childlike stupidity that Morris has with his father, and the dialogue throughout the film is naturalistic but tickling. Much like teenagers do, Morris and his new friends fumble around the concepts adulthood but are not capable of using them correctly all trying to achieve their dreams of hedonism and full exploration of life. It’s amusing to watch them both succeed and fail.

The sobering aspect of the film is there to make sure that the comedy is actually informed by something of tact. There are excellent moments in the film that draw one to thinking that each character holds their own loneliness. Morris, having just moved to Germany and being somewhat introverted desperately wants to associate with Katrin, yet he keeps to his own code isolating him from the world that she is part of, but that’s nowhere near the complexities that the character of his father shows. Multiple times Robinson is required to play Curtis simply sitting on his own trying to deal with the fact that his son is growing to not need him anymore and that his wife is gone and each time Robinson knocks it out of the park. His character is shown usually as the outlier in the real world, and Robinson perfectly communicates both sadness, but also stubbornness. This character desperately wants his son to live a social life but can’t survive without him. As a character, this sober aspect makes him one of the best of the year.

Redemption is something that a lot of movies need. Most movies that start off bad don’t get redeemed and most of them that go wrong don’t come back. Morris From America finds redemption for both its characters and itself. The naturalistic relationships strain a little as the characters evolve, and the sense of place never gets hammered in quite as hard as the most serious aspects of the film should require them too. Morris overall doesn’t really do too much with the gangster rapping that so much informs so much of the film’s early energy. However, the excellent ending does put the film into perspective redeeming much of the small touches of off-kilter-ness around the production.

MORRIS FROM AMERICA is a film of great emotional range. It’s headstrong, hilarious, sobering and redemptive. After a summer of blockbusters that weren’t so good and indies the stood high above the competition, Morris From America is a fine film to start the awards season.

4 of 5 Stars

LITTLE MEN (2016) – Review

New York City has been the home base and preferred story setting for many talented film makers, from Woody Allen to Noah Baumbach to Spike Lee. Each has given audiences a unique look at this very familiar metropolis. With this new release, another writer/director joins that roster: Ira Sachs. His last film, the charming, heart-breaking family drama LOVE IS STRANGE took us all around the area, and included a major source of conflict and anxiety for those residents, in general, real estate. Characters mulled over many real life concerns of the NYC populace, rent control, leases, tenant rights, landlords. Sach’s new film also delves into this, but it’s also a family drama, this time about two very different families. Real estate connects them initially, but a friendship further joins them. Don’t be misled by the literary title. This is not another adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s 1871 sequel to her classic “Little Women”. No, it’s a very contemporary tale, and two very different 13 year-old boys are at the heart of LITTLE MEN.

As the story unfolds, we encounter half of that duo, Jake Jardine (Theo Taplitz), a shy introverted youngster who is completely focused on his art (drawing frequently inspired by popular fantasy novels), attracting derision from class mates and even faculty. One day he is picked up by the family housekeeper, because his father Brian (Greg Kinnear), a still-struggling stage actor, is arranging funeral services for his recently deceased father. Oh, and Jake’s mother Kathy (Jennifer Ehle) is a busy Manhattan psychologist and the main family bread-winner. The post funeral service reception will be held at the upstairs apartment of the building Grandpa’ Jardine owned in Brooklyn. Downstairs is leased to a seamstress Leonor Calvelli (Paulina Garcia), who runs a dress shop there. The Jardines meet her and her 13 year-old son Tony (Michael Barbieri). He and Jake immediately form a friendship (thanks to a mutual love of video games). Brian, along with sister Audrey (Talia Balsam), inherit the building, and he decides to move his family into dad’s apartment. The two boys become inseparable,during and after school. The outgoing Tony connects with Jake, and they hatch a plan. Near the end of eighth grade they’ll both try to get into the LaGuardia High School of Music and Performing Arts (Jake for his drawing skills, and Tony as an actor). But something may derail their plans. The lease agreement for Leonor is nearly up. Brian discovers that his father was charging a very low rental amount for such a valuable retail property, and the area is becoming more popular. He’ll have to increase the rent, more than double it. Brian finally meets with Leonor (after she avoided him), and informs her of the increase. But she will not hear of it, bemoaning soft sales and telling him that Jardine senior considered her and Tony more of a family than Brain. Oh, and senior was ashamed of Brian’s thespian dreams. She insists on staying put and not paying a cent more in rent. Brian is feeling intense pressure from sister Audrey. Will he be forced to evict? And what will happen to the friendship of Tony and Jake? Can it possibly survive their parents’ battle?

This film truly depends on the casting of the two title characters. Happily Mr. Sachs found a pair of young gifted actors more than up to the formidable task. Taplitz captures the distracted look of an intense artist who’s exploding with ideas, but somewhat disconnected with his environment. His head is often “in the clouds”, only landing to interact with his parents. But this new friendship opens Jake up. In Taplitz’s best work in the film, he conveys Jake despair when he learns the truth about the war between the two families, pleading between sobs for a solution. It’s an amazing emotional bomb blast. Fortunately he has an equally talented acting partner in Barbieri as the motor-mouthed Tony. Full of outer confidence, and often unintentionally funny, when he’s hanging with Jake, he reveals his pain over his absentee father. Papa Calvelli is a globe-trotting medic, going to any and all disasters. Tony tells of infrequent visits with him that follow a sad pattern: happy reunion followed by a quick angry spat between spouses, then a hasty exit. All of his bravado acts as a shield, one that we know won’t withstand the harsh disappointments waiting to pummel the gentle soul. He gets a taste of the mean ole’ world when he acts on an infatuation. And we’re shattered for him, wanting to “take the hit”, to lessen the pain. I look forward to the next projects from the superb Taplitz and Barbieri.

Hey, what about the grown-ups? They’re pretty great too, especially screen veteran Kinnear as a most understanding film father. Brian has followed his dream, which may have cost him a relationship with his own father. After the mourners have left, Brian takes out the trash and finally gives himself a chance to weep, in a memorable early scene. Later, we see this gentle man backed into a corner, and forced to be confrontational . Kinnear conveys through his weary eyes, the toll this takes on the actor’s spirit. However it doesn’t damper his unconditional adoration for his son and respect for Jake’s talent. We should all be lucky to have such a nurturing parent in our lives. Now the person that backs Brian into a corner is Leonor, played with passion and a touch of venom by the formidable Garcia. In her initial scenes, she’s passive and accommodating to the Jardines. But when Brian finally confronts her about the lease terms, Leonor throws off the soft “lamb-skin” to reveal a feral beast that goes right for the emotional jugular. She tosses photos off Brian’s father hanging out with her and Tony, images intended to pierce Brian’s heart like a dagger. While most people facing eviction would softly plead, she spews casual cruel jabs at her landlord and his professional (“you’re in ‘The Seagull’? Bet it’s a big hit!”). Garcia is frustrating, exasperating, and unforgettable. Ehle has the less showy role as the always-on-the-go Mama Jardine, but she’s an excellent partner to Kinnear and is a terrific peacemaker when her hubby finally loses his patience when the lads give him “the silent treatment”.Oh, and the always interesting Alfred Molona shows up for a couple of brief scenes as a Calvelli family friend and legal advisor.

Ira Sachs has given movie audiences an involving, compelling family drama, thanks in large part to the sensitive, emotionally engaging screenplay he co-wrote with Maurico Zacharias. And as mentioned previously, his guidance of an exceptional cast. The film really captures the first real friendship between two young men, both perhaps yearning for a brother. In one sequence, Sachs follows them as they dash through the streets, one on skates, the other guiding a scooter, just enjoying day, one made better just by having someone to share it. If only that feeling could last, and perhaps survive all the attacks from those aloof adults. At a brisk, but very satisfying 85 minutes, LITTLE MEN is a sweet, charming film fable that will touch the child inside the most jaded audiences.

4.5 Out of 5

LITTLE MEN opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark’s Tivoli Theatre

THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS – Review

The lushly beautiful THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS is a three-hankie historic drama set on the coast of Western Australia. With heart-tugging performances by an attractive trio of Oscar nominees (with two winners), Michael Fassbender, Alicia Vikander and Rachel Weisz, the film is an adaptation of M. I. Stedman’s 2012 bestseller of the same name. The tale set in a remote corner of the world, in the years after the devastation of World War I, which nearly wiped out a generation of young men in Europe and left those who survived scarred by this most brutal of wars.

Derek Cianfrance, whose previous films include BLUE VALENTINE and THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES, both wrote the script and directs, and it is hard to imagine a more perfect director for this moody historic tale of moral choice. The title refers to the story’s setting, a remote lighthouse in Western Australia, at the point where the Indian and Southern Oceans meet. With its talented cast, evocative photography by Adam Arkapaw, and a moving score by Alexandre Desplat, the romantic stage is set.

Tom Sherbourne (Fassbender) is a shell-shocked veteran and a man with no living family, who seeks solitude and the solace that brings, by taking a job as a lighthouse keeper on remote, uninhabited Janus Rock. While waiting to take his new post, he unexpectedly meets a beautiful young woman, Isabel Graysmark (Vikander), the daughter of the couple he is boarding with,Violet and Bill

Graysmark (veteran Australian actors Jane Menelaus and Garry McDonald) in the tiny port town nearest to Janus Rock. Isabel has lost two brothers in the war, who she still mourns, so Tom’s war experience draws her attention. Her parents note that available young men have become scarce in their little village since the war, and handsome ones like Tom Sherbourne rarer still. Reserved Tom is overwhelmed by the attention of lively, inquisitive Isabel, who awakens unsought feelings, and he proceeds cautiously and slowly. Their shared love of language and poetry creates a link between them. After a few months of exchanging letters, the pair are wed, and return to begin married life alone on the wind-swept island.

On the island, the couple experience both joy and hardships. A fateful moment comes when a small boat washes ashore, containing a dead man and a crying baby girl.

This is a tale of secrets, deceit, and moral choices with heartbreaking consequences. The film starts well, building atmosphere, tensions and mood in glorious wind-swept locations, and crafting the love story between Isabel and Tom. From the start, the film is gorgeous to look at and creates at wonderful sense of the time period. But once the story’s central fateful decision is made, it is easy to guess what will happen next.

Derek Cianfrance is the perfect person to direct this brooding romantic tale. As Cianfrance’s previous films BLUE VALENTINE and THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES amply demonstrated, he has a deft touch with romance and tragedy. That skill allows him to craft a searing drama with moral overtones here, using the wild beauty of the seaside location to help build grandeur into the film. But make no mistake – this is still a weeper but just one set in a grand, sweep-you-away setting with sterling acting.

The film’s strength is in Cianfrance’s skill building romantic mood, its moving performances and gorgeous visuals. The film’s flaw lies with the too-predictable melodramatic story. Once that certain fateful event occurs, what will follow is plainly clear. After the expected tragic dilemma unfolds, the films does take a turn and it becomes less clear what will ultimately happen. The end result is a satisfying moral lesson but not a very surprising one.

The story touches on timeless questions of right and wrong but also deals with the echos of the war, not just Tom’s shattered nerves but the lingering anti-German feeling. This aspect comes out in the story of Hannah, the character played by Rachel Weisz, the daughter of a wealthy couple who marries a German immigrant, and faces discrimination and heart-ache through that decision.

The starkly beautiful location is almost another character in this story, an isolated world at the edge of a stormy sea, where anything can seem possible. The film was shot on location in New Zealand and the island of Tasmania, with Cape Campbell lighthouse in New Zealand standing in for the one on fictitious Janus Rock. Cinematographer Arkapaw, who also shot the Australian crime thriller ANIMAL KINGDOM and the visually-striking MACBETH with Fassbender, fills the screen with lush views.

This strong cast certainly helps lift the film, too. Fassbender is well-known as a gifted actor but the film may help lesser-known Swedish actress Alicia Vikander gain wider audience recognition. Fassbender’s talent is on full display as a quiet, lonely man whose deep sense of right and wrong comes up against his passionate devotion to his wife. Vikander, who turned in striking performances in EX MACHINA and earlier in the Swedish historic drama A ROYAL AFFAIR, gets to more fully display her acting range playing the vivacious, impulsive Isabel, whose tragic experiences and frustrated longing drives her to desperate measures. Rachel Weisz, as usual, is wonderful as the complex Hannah, a woman also driven by longing, but also grief and anger.

Supporting roles are filled with talented actors as well. Australian actor Jack Thompson (BREAKER MORANT) plays old salt Ralph, the captain of the ferry that resupplies Janus Rock, who becomes Tom’s steadfast friend. Fellow Aussie Bryan Brown (also in BREAKER MORANT), plays Hannah’s stern wealthy father, Septimus Potts. Septimus cut his daughter off without a cent when she defies him to marry German immigrant Frank Roennfeldt (Leon Ford). Frank is a gentle soul who nonetheless faces the wrath of the town for his heritage during the war. Septimus remains a strong-willed man but softens a little in light of the events that unspool, a transition that Brown handles well.

This is not a drama for every taste, as the story’s inherent melodrama keeps it grounded in its romantic genre. Still, for those who enjoy a good cry, and especially one set against a gorgeous natural landscape in a romantic, historic period, THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS provides the sweeping, satisfying, heart-tugging goods.

RATING: 3 OUT OF 5 STARS

THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS opens Friday, September 2

MORGAN – Review

Many storytellers have used science fiction to question human existence. Even if you haven’t read Mary Shelley’s iconic novel, you know the story of Dr. Frankenstein and his creation. You know of a scientist – I’ll leave calling him “mad” up to you – and his search to understand life and in doing so how he magically creates new life. You know of a tragic creature who is thrust into a world that is both fascinated and yet repelled by it. Though many would call the Frankenstein creature a him instead of an it, Kate Mara’s character Lee Weathers would be quick to correct you. Apparently artificial life should not be given proper pronouns, and while Luke Scott’s feature film debut seems ready to address the contemporary concerns over gender labels and life existing outside male and female labels, MORGAN regresses into yet another forgettable attempt at breathing life into the Frankenstein mythos, failing to spark new ideas in a story you have heard before.

Lee Weathers (Kate Mara) is assigned to examine the collateral damage of a violent attack that occurred in her company’s research laboratory and gauge the risk of a future incident. When she arrives, she is met with apprehension from those that have been raising Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy from this year’s THE WITCH). Morgan is said to be only 5 years old, but has evolved quickly enough to have the appearance of an 18 year old but with the mental powers of something far beyond human ability. Things go even more awry when Lee and a psychiatrist begin questioning the motives and actions of this advanced creature. Can she… it be trusted?

Right from the opening shot where a surveillance camera from high above the action shows a meeting between Morgan and a scientist played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, there is instantly a sense of cold distance placed between the film and the audience. This sense of detachment continues throughout the duration of the film – and not just because of the blue and grey color scheme of the film – despite attempts to get to know the people in the lab. Luke Scott (Ridley Scott’s son) has gathered a talented cast even if they aren’t given much material. And how could they. With such a brief running time that is mainly spent showing the creature striking back at its creators, there isn’t time to connect with the characters as much as we probably should. Paul Giamatti, in a sequence that shows him playing an overly antagonizing psychiatrist, is the only one that makes the most of what little screen time he is given.

Located behind a musty Victorian home, the lab where most of the action takes place is all too familiar looking, but when juxtaposed with this old house in the middle of a field, it enhances the dichotomy that Luke Scott occasionally plays with. You have the clear divide between subject and scientists with the glass wall separating them; the interview and interviewee during a central scene in the film; even the focus that is put on the romantic entanglements of the scientists. However, these binary male and female lines are intentionally blurred when looking at Morgan, dressed in a nondescript grey hoodie shrouding her makeup-less features. The character of Lee furthers this with her own androgynous haircut, demeanor, and buttoned-up suits. She exemplifies zero signs of the tradition idea of femininity. Both characters even bear names that could be either male or female. Elements such as these where you see Scott making purposeful decisions to start an interesting dialogue are wasted by adhering to the typical Hollywood model of how these stories should be told. B-movie blood and theatrics are the eventual focus instead of subverting what audiences are already expecting.

Given the lo-fi, futuristic, dream-like quality of Luke Scott’s previous short film LOOM, it’s puzzling that he would settle on Seth W. Owen’s pedestrian script for his feature debut. Although a film is assembled by incorporating many parts, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. In fact, MORGAN is more or less cobbled together with ideas that we have seen in far more memorable films, such as last year’s EX MACHINA and the under-seen SPLICE, to name a few. Dull, stale, and lifeless aren’t what you want from the first feature that you create; especially when there was potential trying to grow in some of its parts.

Overall rating: 2 out of 5

MORGAN opens in theaters on September 2, 2016

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

RATING: 4 OUT OF 5 STARS

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

RATING: 3 OUT OF 5 STARS

Share this:

Share this: