HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT screens in St. Louis Friday through Sunday at Webster University’s Moore Auditorium at 7:30pm
Review by Stephen Tronicek
A great alternative name for Kent Jones’s explosively entertaining HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT would be “Reasons Why Alfred Hitchcock was Awesome.” It may seem unprofessional to go about it like that, but that’s what the film truly is. It’ll play better to those who actually care about why Hitchcock was awesome, but to those that do it’s a slice of encouraging and fulfilling documentary filmmaking.
HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT is a film buff’s movie but the blend of analysis, and interpretation of all of Hitchcock’s work is quite exciting. There’s an optimistic energy that fuels what makes filmmaking such a viable and entertaining craft behind HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT . On top of that the fact that interviewees like Martin Scorsese and Wes Anderson show up to share in this makes the film even more entertaining. Hitchcock clips are exciting by themselves, but when you have directors that are preaching to the choir the entire time the clips transcend their original conception. That said it’s probably better if you are a member the choir. There’s also a palpable optimism in the relationship between Alfred Hitchcock, and Francois Truffaut. The documentary is based on Truffaut’s own book on Hitchcock written off a series of interviews between the directors. They became good friends and all the synergy of filmmaking and their friendship is on camera.
It’s this warmth that fuels an otherwise low key documentary. For all the narrative and tonal jest of the film – and the pedigree that is behind it– HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT is surprisingly visually bland in its approach to documentary filmmaking. This visual style contrasts how creative Sacha Gervasi’s HITCHCOCK was in its portrayal of events and its stylistic choices. Of course the dramatic portrayal of Gervasi’s film would automatically be more compelling, but there still could have been a more creative use of imagery in HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT. The energy here is enough to hold the audience, but the visuals are not.
HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT provides some of the most satisfying Hitchcock worship that one can find. It holds the excitement and beauty of film and highlights the triumph of one of the greatest directors of all time.
Maggie Smith brings an irresistible irascible charm to her role as a homeless woman who parks her van the driveway of playwright Alan Bennett and then stays for 15 years, in THE LADY IN THE VAN. Although this is a far different character from her role as the Dowager Countess, “Downton Abbey” fans will delight in finding a similar comic brilliance in Smith’s Miss Shepard, with the same sense of her own importance and an iron determination to have her own way. The quirky and charming THE LADY IN THE VAN showcases Smith’s considerable skill in dominating every scene – in fact, the whole film.
Nicholas Hytner, who also directed HISTORY BOYS, brings a lot of dry, self-deprecating British humor to this screen adaptation of Bennett’s partly biographical play. Although the story is narrated by and told from the point of view of playwright Alan Bennett (Alex Jennings), it is Smith’s eccentric, maddening character that steals the show.
The film manages the difficult task of walking a line between comedy and pathos by not sentimentalizing Smith’s Miss Shepard. Reprising her stage role, Smith is a delight as this difficult yet intriguing old woman. Hytner also brings in some cast members from his HISTORY BOYS, such as Dominic Cooper, in small roles.
To its credit, the film avoids sentimentalizing homelessness or mental illness,in part by keeping a distinctly British dry-humor tone. An early scene deals in a frank, funny way with an inescapable consequence of living in a van without a shower. As Bennett describes it, the mix of odors trailing in Miss Shepard’s wake are distinctive, including the onions she is fond of eating and the lavender powder she is equally fond of using to disguise the onions and other smells. As delivered by actor Alex Jennings as Bennett, the observation is both pointed and very funny.
The story mixes fact and fiction, which Jennings’ character bluntly tells the audience. Bennett’s character is divided into two parts – the writer and the private man – which allows the actor to engage in comic conversations with himself – about his work, his flagging personal life, his conflicted feelings about his aging mother and the lady in the van living in his driveway.
The story is set in 1960s London, a time when tolerance towards the homeless has become a fashionable attitude but being gay is still something the playwright might keep under wraps. The eccentric, bossy lady living in the van, Miss Shepard, had taken up residence already on the leafy, prosperous street when Bennett bought a house. The neighbors express a pitying tolerance of the homeless woman while silently hoping she would move on. Strong-willed, rude and odd, the old lady parks in front of one house after another, until the homeowners irritate her into moving down the block. Those irritations include by playing music or interrupting her with offers of food, which she takes but for which she never thanks them.
When street cleaners pester her to move her now-non-functional van, she basically browbeats the playwright into letting her park the van in his driveway. Temporarily, of course. For 15 years.
Despite having little hesitation about manipulating people to get her way, Miss Shepard is surprisingly secretive about her past and even who she is, telling people she is “incognito.” A man who appears creeping around one night, Mr. Underwood (Jim Broadbent), hints at a sinister secret but we learn little about her history until late in the film. An early scene suggests a traffic accident is part of why this secretive old woman is living in a van.
The reserved, almost reclusive Bennett is struggling in his work as a playwright, and also with what to do about his clinging aging mother, who would like to move in with him. It is a prospect the playwright dreads, although he ends up with another old lady, a stranger, camped out on his doorstep. Trying to establish a personal life, the gay Bennett brings home a series of nice looking young men but never seems to be able to quite speak up and make a connection.
The story contrasts Bennett’s relationship with his mother and the lady in the van, as well as coping with his own struggles as a writer and to build a personal life for himself. Miss Shepard is never forthcoming about her past although there are intriguing hints that she was once a nun and has a special connection to music. Despite her rudeness, Bennett becomes protective of her, even possessive, and begrudgingly fond.
Bennett’s two-part character, both played by Jennings with perfect low-key humor, provides a running comic dialog, while expressing Bennett’s inner thoughts. Sometimes those inner thoughts are to stand up to Miss Shepard, who bullies him mercilessly, although the polite, reserved Bennett never does. Despite their long acquaintance, the pair only ever call each other Mr. Bennett and Miss Shepard, and Bennett even bristles at a social worker who is assigned to the old woman, when she calls her Mary, informing her that it is not her real name which he has learned is Margaret – he thinks. In some ways, the social worker prompts Bennett to learn more about the woman who lived in his driveway all these years.
The film takes a turn towards whimsy at its end, which might irritate some viewers but fits well with determinedly unsentimental and comic tone. For those who relish low-key British humor, THE LADY IN THE VAN provides a pleasant ride, especially with the incomparable Maggie Smith at the wheel.
THE LADY IN THE VAN OPENS IN ST. LOUIS ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5
A kidnapping is at the center of some of the Coen Brothers’ most indelible pictures. From RAISING ARIZONA to FARGO to THE BIG LEBOWSKI, someone goes missing and it’s through this unfortunate victim’s disappearance that characters are revealed. You can now add HAIL, CAESAR! to this list. However, while most of these kidnappings spawn a colorful cast of characters where hilarity and morality often sway from the light to the very dark, HAIL, CAESAR! doesn’t exactly use the taking of the half-wit Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) as the catalyst to propel most of the characters and the story. In fact, it becomes simply just another piece of this collage that the Coens have assembled that is equally both an ode to classic cinema and a biting satire showcasing a facade of what many believe to be what Hollywood is really like.
As studio fixer for Capitol Pictures (a Marvel-esque shared universe nod to the studio in the Coen’s BARTON FINK), Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) struggles with Catholic guilt, a neverending workload, and a smoking habit he’s trying to quit. Nevertheless, none of that is going to stand in his way as he deals with the disappearance of the title character in the studio’s new film, saving actresses from late night photo shoots, securing alibis for actresses with out of wedlock children (Scarlett Johansson), and arranging couples for the gossip columnists (Tilda Swinton in two parts).
The Coen Bros. newest madcap dash through their clever collective mind feels like the most Coeny, Coen film you have seen yet. You have a self-reflective and imperfect main character, an allegory about the hardships of the creative process, conversations about faith and the search to describe “God,” and elements of film noir all heavily dropped right at the onset. And although I would classify myself as a worshipper at their self-aware and sarcastic altar, none of these scenes early on truly connected with me. It was as if HAIL, CAESAR! was playing like a greatest hits collection of the Coens and I was only hearing a brief snippet of the melody without hearing the entire song.
But something happened about halfway in. Everything seemed to make sense even though it didn’t entirely at all. So many of their previous films are connected by a central plot that I was grasping to find and never found with HAIL, CAESAR!. It wasn’t until Alden Ehrenreich was standing in the middle of a Hollywood street adorned in his signature cowboy shirt and hat and swinging his lasso in circles with palm trees behind him and a limo to his right, that I suddenly understood the fantasy that was being painted for me. Sure, we had previously seen Ehrenreich as the glum but lovable Hobie Doyle sing his folky tune during one scene and then later corrected over and over again in an instantly iconic scene opposite Ralph Fiennes’ as the director Laurence Laurentz (“Would that it t’were so simple.”), but it was during this simple moment that the film began to win me over. Although many might complain how random scenes such as this only contribute to the random and disconnected way HAIL, CAESAR! unfolds, I think anyone who sees the film will walk away thinking a star is born from Alden Ehrenreich’s silent but strong performance.
What also shines in the film are two classic film within a film moments expertly choreographed and staged like classic films of the 50s. The jaw-dropping water ballet in the style of Busby Berkely is beautifully filmed by the great Roger Deakins. This is followed later by a romp of a number showcasing Channing Tatum’s dancing abilities (the boy indeed has the MAGIC) along with a crew of sailors getting rowdy in a bar. Fans of classic cinema will find these two scenes an absolute delight, resulting in a grin ear to ear.
How some of the characters evolve or not evolve is one of the biggest things holding this film back from being a great Coen’s film. Mannix is meant to be the nervous, hardworking hero, but we never quite feel the weight of his job or the stress that seems to come with the tasks he’s been given. Not unlike the Coen’s childish and unsuccessful BURN AFTER READING, a large cast of familiar faces populate this world. While some of the known talent elevate their roles to more than just a bit cameo (Frances McDormand is remarkable in a scene that shows her comedic timing while highlighting the sad fact that men called the shots back then – and still mostly do), others feel like an attempt to use their star power to bolster the film (Sorry Miss Johansson).
Amid the not so subtle gay subtext of the sailor routine and the corporate suits running around tinsel town pulling the strings behind the curtain and the cigarettes Brolin’s character hides from his wife, lies a film about rumors and lies. More specifically, it shows what outsiders want Hollywood to be like because it’s what they always suspected. They don’t want the truth per say, they simply want proof to what they believe Hollywood is really like. The Coens have constructed a picture that paranoia driven pundits will no doubt point at and exclaim with complete sincerity, “See! I told you that Hollywood is filled with a bunch of two-timing, no-good, lying communists!” What they’re missing is that the joke is in fact on them. The Coens are smarter than they are and have openly acknowledged this in their sly (albeit, slightly rambling) script. What is the name of the communist group that kidnaps Clooney: The Future. What year is mentioned that a secret contract will be finally revealed to the public after decades of secrecy: 2015. Although the setting is 1950s Hollywood, HAIL, CAESAR! pokes fun at the modern day grand illusion – a world that is as far-fetched and full of twists and turns as the stories that are depicted on screen.
HAIL, CAESAR! is a social satire of the highest order. Through showing a zany world of forced romantic setups, secret child adoptions, and Commie leftist writers (complete with a Soviet submarine, of course), the Coens have fully embraced the cliches and rumors that are often associated with the Hollywood system. Even though it’s a regular issue throughout the film, it’s safe to assume that Mannix lying about not smoking cigarettes to his wife might be the least disingenuous thing that occurs in a film that revels and has fun with the presentation of a false reality.
Overall score: 4 out of 5
HAIL, CAESAR! is now playing in theaters everywhere
Zombies make everything better! Jane Austen devotees needn’t worry that the makers of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES have ridiculed her perennially popular story of love among the British upper classes. They’ve merely added zombies to it – an improvement if you ask me! I’ve never had the inclination to read Austen’s novel (I’ve heard it’s good), but I once saw a big screen treatment starring Keira Knightly. This high-concept hybrid adapted from novelist Seth Grahame-Smith’s revisionist tome is one of the more interesting horror movies I’ve seen in a while. Not only does director Burr Steer skirt the edges of camp with PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES, he accomplishes a wonderful sense of surrealism and whimsy missing in much modern horror. Here’s a movie that delivers on exactly what its title promises. There are the unmarried Bennet sisters, as well as Mr. Darcy and various other suitors, and they do indeed battle the living dead for a great portion of the film. Adapted for the screen by the director, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES is absurd, outlandish, and even ridiculous in concept, but thanks to a team of filmmakers who take a straight-faced (but not entirely serious) approach to the material, it works. It’s as if the producers gathered and said “This is already going to be silly, so let’s just try to keep it from being stupid.’ They succeeded. Rarely is a film this silly also this clever.
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES is the story of the Bennet family and their lives in England amidst a mid-19th century zombie apocalypse. In the tradition of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice we still have Mrs. Bennet (Sally Phillips) on a quest to marry off all of her daughters while Mr.Bennet (Charles Dance) makes sure his girls have been to China to train in the art of eliminating the walking dead. In a world filled with the dead devouring the brains of the living, one would think it a low priority to find love, yet the two older Bennet sisters do. The eldest Jane (Bella Heathcoat) falls for Mr. Bingley (Douglas Booth), not for his money but for his affections. The more headstrong Elizabeth (Lily James) puts her pride and the prejudices that she had against Mr.Darcy (Sam Riley) aside, and after a furniture-smashing knife duel, finds she loves him too.
If you’ve read Austen’s book (or seen a movie version), you immediately recognize how faithful PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES is in regards to the romantic pairings and matrimonial deal-making – then there’s that whole zombie thing. This crazy concoction rests on the shoulders of these charming young actresses, and they carry the film exceedingly well. There are numerous quiet moments in which leading-lady Lily James (as instantly likable as she was in CINDERELLA) strikes a strong chemistry with Sam Riley’s Darcy as does Bella Heathcoat with Booth’s Bingley. Every plucky action heroine, especially ones introduced tucking their weapons into corsets and garters and bustiers, deserves some capable support, and this is a rather winning ensemble. As head antagonist we have a hissable Jack Huston as George Wickham, and he’s fun, though I wish they had fleshed out another villain or two. Lena Headley is an over-the-top hoot as one-eyed warrior woman Lady Catherine de Bourgh, the most famous zombie killer in all of Britain. Matt Smith plays the insufferable Parson Collins, the Bennet girls’ creampuff clergyman cousin with remarkable style and wit, handily stealing every scene he’s in. There’s not a weak link in this scrappy cast, and that’s no small feat for a risky flick like this.
Directed with high-octane energy by Steers and consistently eye-pleasing thanks to the cinematography by the excellent Remi Adefarasin, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES is a candy store of genre treats. I thought the bleary, red-stained zombie point-of-view shots were a nice touch. Those, along with some pulpy-but-quick decapitations, and bloodless brain-eating, were a creative way to keep the violence within the PG-13 parameters. The film does sag a bit in a mostly zombie-free middle section. The screenplay is so intent on hitting so many of Austen’s original plot points that the horror elements at times seem an afterthought. But why snipe at a couple of minor complaints when this mishmash is presented so craftily? Call it “better than it should have been,” a “pulpy matinee,” or (gasp) a “guilty pleasure” if you must, but it only seems right to give PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES a pat on the back for getting so much right.
2016 is five weeks old, so the new model is rolling off the assembly line. You might think I’m referring to an automobile company like Ford or Lincoln. Well, we are dealing with a brand name, one associated with popular novels instead of cars. Stephen King is still king of the horror/suspense novels, John Grisham has the legal thrillers, and Nicholas Sparks is best known for the swoony, sweeping romance paperbacks that fill the spinner racks at airport gift shops and often protrude from the tops of canvas beach bags. His best sellers quickly grabbed the attention of the movie studios, and almost a dozen have been translated to the big screen (easy to see why since they don’t require costly CGI action set pieces or big name superstars since Sparks is the name that draws ’em in). Back to the assembly line reference, there’s been a new film adaptation annually for the last five years. Last year was THE LONGEST RIDE, and the 2016 edition is THE CHOICE. Will it be a lauded critical smash like THE NOTEBOOK or a campy guilty pleasure like SAFE HAVEN? That choice will soon be made…
The story begins in the usual Sparks backdrop, sunny North Carolina. To be precise, it’s the picture perfect coastal town of Beaufort. Hunky Travis Parker (Benjamin Walker) steers his fishing boat while grimly contemplating…the choice (title!). Flashback jump seven years to his carefree bachelor days as his married pals marvel at his luck with the ladies (a real playa”), but are concerned when his “on-again, off-again” paramour, the raven-haired beauty Monica (Alexandra Daddario) flits back into his life. Back at “casa de Travis” he hosts a loud cookout, which disrupts the studying of his new next door neighbor, medical student Gabby Holland (Teresa Parker),who’s working at the local hospital alongside her beau Dr. Yan (Tom Welling). During the course of their first conservation Gabby berates Travis for his loud music (“Black Betty” fer’ gosh sakes!) and accuses his dog, good ole’ Moby, of knocking up her sweet pooch Molly. He recommends a local animal health clinic as she storms off. Observing this, his sister (Maggie Grace) remarks, “You are in trouble!” When Gabby takes Molly to the clinic, she’s stunned to learn that it’s run by Travis (he’s a vet?!) and his kindly widowed papa, Shep (Tom Wilkinson). She sees a softer, kinder side of him and when Ryan goes to Atlanta on business, she joins Travis, Steph, and their married buddies for a day on the boat. Which leads into a late supper, which leads to….But what will happen when Ryan returns, since this is more than a fling for this “good time” good ole’ boy? This romantic crisis will eventually lead to that present day “choice”.
The strength of these romances depends on the couple at its center, and these two talented actors make a noble effort to bring the tale to life (the bar was set impossibly high with McAdams and Gosling in THE NOTEBOOK). Walker (perhaps best known as ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER) exudes lots of laid back southern charm, but he’s more believable as the smitten suitor than the “can’t miss” ladykiller (the early scene of him talking up a couple of blonde bikini babes seems forced since he doesn’t have great “game”…talking about your dog’s swimming ability? uh huh). Still he’s got the longing, soulful looks down pat, although he often seems to be a cousin of them Duke boys than a pet doctor. And what is with those wisps of hair blocking his ears? Either grow a pair of 70’s sideburns or shave! Sorry it distracted me. Palmer (WARM BODIES) is a radiant screen presence, her blond locks almost a halo around her dazzling smile making her early scenes feigning annoyance with Travis a tough sell. We just know that her defenses will melt in the NC sun. Their romantic rivals aren’t written strong enough in order to be threats to this couple. We’re told that Daddario’s flighty temptress plays with the heart of Travis, but in her random appearances (Monica just shows up unexpectedly like Stratham in FURIOUS SEVEN) she’s pleasant (and actually instigates the exit that brings the T & G back together). Welling also seems a nice enough fella, certainly undeserving of his treatment. He’s the embodiment of that “rom-com” cliche made famous by the flick THE BAXTER, who has little to do aside from looking great in a lab coat and getting brushed aside. Wilkinson essays a Sparks mainstay, the older character played by a screen vet (Alan Alda in THE LONGEST RIDE, Gerald McRaney in THE BEST OF ME, etc…) who has to talk some sense to the ‘young-uns and make sure they end up together. He’s always a terrific addition to any film, but aside from a hesitant romance with a “dogmamma” divorce’, he never gets to shine.
This highlights much of the film’s problems: everybody is jes’ so nice. Neither one of the leads is trapped in awful relationships till they meet (cute). Monica and Ryan are okay (hey, maybe they end up together after the final fade out). I will credit Sparks for doing away with a couple of clichés that pop up in several flicks. There’s no evil ex-hubby or suitors (or parents) conspiring to keep the couple apart. And , thankfully, no little kids in jeopardy (SAFE HAVEN, THE LUCKY ONE), but he does get this couple drenched in a sudden shower (THE BEST OF ME, etc.), along with the wonders of old record albums. Can’t give up all those sure-fire, go to moments, I guess. One sequence circles spirituality (when his mum passed Travis rejected religion while Shep embraced it) briefly, perhaps in a bid for the growing faith-based film audience, but it’s dropped by the film’s last act concerning the big “choice”. It’s a delicate ethical one, which the film glides pass in order for a “feel good” finale. The location, and actor, are pretty, but without any palpable chemistry between the two leads and little conflict the movie’s bland. Eliminating many of the campy Sparks trademarks, THE CHOICE, is more believable, but ultimately forgettable. Maybe the 2017 model will be a better ride.
Many big screen biographies are often accused of taking…liberties…with the facts, often to help the finished film’s pacing. After all, unless it’s a TV mini-series, it’s difficult to compress a remarkable life into an evening at the movies. Film makers will frequently switch the order of events along with the popular practice of using composite characters (a little bit of this fella’, and a bit of this old pal, and…), even inventing supporting roles, or tagging real folks with invented names. And then there are fantasy tales using a real person (and elements of his life) as the story’s heroic center. In Hollywood famous true Western outlaws like Billy the Kid and Jesse James were the leads in many fictional flicks (hey, those two “met” Dracula and Frankenstein’s daughter!). Those on the opposite side of the law like Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson got their share of screen time, to say nothing of the Davy Crockett craze created by Walt Disney is the 1950’s. Lawmen of later years were also at the center of media franchises like Elliot Ness in “The Untouchables” and Buford Pusser in “Walking Tall”. Well, a similar film and TV feeding frenzy has been going on for the last dozen or so years over in China with the legend of a real man named Yip Kai-man, perhaps known best as Ip Man. He was the martial artists master (his specialty was Wing Chun) who trained silver screen icon Bruce Lee. Ip was the subject of 2013’s Oscar nominated THE GRANDMASTER. And since he was not a fictitious (and copyrighted) figure, many other Asian studios have made competing flicks (even a weekly TV show). The most popular may be the film series begun in 2008 starring Donnie Yen (BLADE II, and the upcoming ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY). The current (and supposedly final installment) takes us into the master fight trainer’s time in 1950’s Hong Kong with IP MAN 3.
To be precise, it’s HK circa 1959 and Ip Man (Yen) is running a martial arts training center while sharing a home with wife Cheung Wing-Sing (Lynn Hung) and seven year-old son Ip Ching (Wang Yasn Shi). After a scene in which an aggressive young man tries to become one of Ip’s students (we find out later that he is really…no spoilers from me!), we see Ching engaged in a schoolyard smack down with another classmate. When Ip and his wife are called into the principal’s office (the other lad’s pop is stuck at work), Ip has the boys shake hands and invites the other boy, Fung, to their home for dinner. After the meal, Fung’s father, Tin-chi (Jin Zhang) arrives to pick up his son. Tin has a rickshaw service, but hopes to open his own training center (he compliments Ip on his skills). Later we find out that Tin supplements his income by fighting in a black market boxing match organized by gangster Ma King-sang (Patrick Tam), who also works for a “foreign devil”, a shady American property developer named Frank (Mike Tyson…yes that ole ear-chomper!). Franks has his eye on some land , namely the school where Ching and Fung attend. When Ma and his gang of thugs try to strong-arm the principal to sign over the deed to the school, IP intervenes. His policeman pal, Sergeant ‘Fatso’ Po (Kent Cheng) can offer little help: the force is short-handed and his commanding office, another foreign devil, is in Frank’s pocket. Ip, along with his students, will guard the school. This time away from home makes Wing feel neglected and contributes to her worsening health. Ip tries to keep his family together as his duty brings him into a showdown with Frank and eventual rival Tin.
While the aforementioned GRANDMASTER was the art house/critical darling, this would be the more family friendly version of this real life icon, perhaps one that could easily play on TV (hmmm, makes me wonder about the actual Ip TV show). The two recent RAID films brought back a real sense of danger and brutality to martial arts movies with deadly, bloody bone crunching blows causing true damage to the battlers, but here no one appears to get terribly hurt. The school principal has some jaw bruising and one of Ip’s pals has his arm in a sling. The highly planned fights nearly remind one of the 60’s Batman TV show, with the bad guys getting knocked out quickly (we almost expect animated stars and cartoon birds circling their noggins). Another almost camp element is the near endless army at Ma and Frank’s beck and call. Once Ip and his cohorts take a battle stance, endless streams of thugs come charging from every alley and doorway (a cliche so expertly parodied in the “A Fistful of Yen” segment in 1977’s KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE). The US ads feature Tyson prominently, but he has just around five or six minutes of screen time. And yes, he does speak English most of the time, with a few Chinese phrases tossed in (luckily it’s all subtitled for us). Still, he’s an impressive, scary screen presence, although it’s doubtful that his brute force could match Ip’s speed and skills (prior to this showdown, he has easily taken out dozens of men). But their three-minute brawl is not the film’s showcase scene. Rather it’s the finale’s throw down with Tin as they go from swinging long “dragon poles” to “butterfly swords” (right from the chefs at Benihanna) and finishing with precise hand to hand combat. Happily some of the action is slowed down, but never excessively so we can appreciate the swiftness of the very impressive Mr. Yen (for a fella’ in his fifties he’s still got the moves). Though the story gets a tad goofy at times (Ip will repair his marriage by learning a newskill…ballroom dancing!), “chop-socky” fanatics should enjoy the action set pieces cause in IP MAN 3 “everybody’s kung-fu fightin'” and they’re “faster than lightnin'”.
2.5 Out of 5
IP MAN 3 opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Wehrenberg’s Ronnies 20 Cine
NASCENT screens at the Africa World Documentary Film Festival Friday, February 5, 2016 at 6:00. The festival takes place at the Missouri History Museum, 5700 Lindell Blvd (63112). For a complete schedule of all of the films, go HERE
It’s one thing to find a good documentarian. It’s another to find a good documentarian with artistic vision. In just six short minutes documentarians Lindsey Branham, and Jonathan Kasbe unleash a surrealist documentary that through sheer force of vision leaves the viewer perplexed.
NASCENT follows the story of two young Central African Republic children each telling their own story about the result of the war going on in their country. These stories won’t be revealed here since this is a six minute film. That said Nascent isn’t all about those stories. There’s a splash of aforementioned surrealism in here that allows the stories to not only become more powerful in themselves, but also allows the film to shine in it’s undeniable beauty. Also the fact that surrealism is ultimately better at pulling out emotions than anything straightforward is fully apparent. NASCENT seems to be the best short of the festival so far, and hopefully the vision here is appreciated.
MULLY screens at the Africa World Documentary Film Festival Friday, February 5, 2016 at 6:00. The festival takes place at the Missouri History Museum, 5700 Lindell Blvd (63112). For a complete schedule of all of the films, go HERE
Scott Haze’s MULLY brings up the one of the most interesting questions about a documentary. That is, is it possible to make a documentary about a person that is so inherently good, that there’s actually a chance that their story might not be compelling? That is in fact possible. Charles Mully was one of the leading merchants of oil and goods in Africa, but one day he stopped his entire enterprise, and used the large sum of money that he had acquired to help the homeless children of Africa. He eventually grew this into one of the largest children’s care organizations in the world. That’s a powerful story and an inspiring piece of work, but it leaves a notion that there’s nothing really interesting in the subject himself. How do you make a film compelling if the protagonist has already un-ironically become the greatest person on the planet? It certainly helps that Mully himself is a very charismatic person. He’s mostly featured as an offscreen narrator, but he’s a warm storyteller who can really carry much of the story.
I also helps to show how the actions of a good person can lead to the dislike of others. For all his good intentions there were still people that Mully failed to satisfy, or who he burdened too much. The accounts of these people are what makes the film so rewarding. They mostly include family members who slowly had to watch the business that he had built fall apart as he dumped money into saving the children, but their talk about his detachment from them and his all giving into this plan create a palpable sense of tension as one starts to realize that everything in this process could have fallen apart.
A spiritual element that the film has also keeps it engaging. The whole “man being so good” ideals of the film perfectly ties in with the more secular aspects of the story, and even the most jaded person will break at it. There’s too much confidence in Mully, and the film to make it seem in anyway preachy.
In the effort to tell Mully’s story there are also acted sections it the film. They are just as compelling as the rest of it, and the actors are real finds. It gives the sense that the filmmakers could have made a narrative drama out of Mully’s story and it would have been just as good. If one pops up from the same filmmakers it wouldn’t be a surprise.
MULLY is a good documentary about a subject who is surprisingly compelling. Mully himself is an interesting character, and the way that his story and actions affected people is even more interesting. This seems like a comfort food movie, and is definitely a more optimistic documentary.
One would think that after 45 years of marriage, a husband and wife would know everything about each other. As the British drama 45 YEARS reveals, in devastating fashion, there are some unknowns that may always remain between two people.
Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay give brilliant performances as a long-married couple in 45 YEARS, a subtle, moving drama about a couple whose lives are changed by an event long in the past. Rampling is deservedly nominated for an Oscar, after having gathered already a number of awards for her riveting performance, a performance that shows what a real actress can do.
As Kate (Rampling) and Geoff (Courtenay) Mercer prepare for their 45th anniversary party taking place at the end of that week, Geoff gets a letter from Switzerland, that reveals unknown parts of a long-ago past that have a profound effect on their marriage.
The film begins with the couple putter happily about their rural English cottage home, taking long walks with their dog and trips into the nearby Norfork village, where they meet with old friends. They have the kind of comfortable, almost telepathic connection of a happy long-married couple. Despite never having children, they seem content living a comfortable middle-class retirement after careers as a teacher for Kate and factory manager for Geoff.
When the letter arrives, things begin to take a strange turn. The letter, written in German that Geoff struggles to read, tells him that the body of his long-ago girlfriend Katya has been found in a crevasse where she fell to her death decades earlier. The letter comes to Geoff because he and Katya had been hiking through the Alps when the accident happened, and Geoff has been listed as her husband, as they were posing as a married couple although they were not actually married. The letter asked him, as next-of-kin, to come to Switzerland to identify the body although it could not be retrieved from the ice, something that would require him to hike up the mountain.
The request was impractical, of course, and it seems as if Geoff dismisses it. Kate vaguely remembered her husband telling her about the girlfriend who died before they met but had not thought much about it. Yet, as the week progresses, Geoff’ seems more agitated and obsessed with the long-dead woman, going through old mementos in the attic and secretly smoking again. Kate is put in the strange position of feeling jealous of a long-vanished rival, wondering about what it means for her marriage.
After seeming the kind of couple their friends hold up as a perfect marriage, that their marriage can be thrown into a sudden crisis by someone long dead, gone before they even met, seems inconceivable. Still, the film reveals how someone can be married to someone else for many years and still not truly know that person.
The film avoids the stereotypes commonly found is films about older people. British director Andrew Haigh (“Weekend”) structures the drama as a day-by-day countdown, as they prepare for a party to celebrate their 45th anniversary. Courtenay is excellent but the drama’s real focus is on Rampling, who delivers the performance of a lifetime.
As they count down the days to the anniversary party, the news works on their relationship, with Kate feeling an unreasonable jealousy of a dead rival, and Geoff descending into a secretive nostalgia, where he talks about going to Switzerland to see her body, still encased in ice and inaccessible, sneaking up to the attic to go through old mementos from that time in his life.
While Kate’s view of her marriage is unraveling at home, they have to maintain their “perfect couple” facade for their friends as they prepare from the big party. The anniversary seems an odd one to celebrate with a big party but we learn that a 40th anniversary party had been canceled after Geoff had a health crisis. The 45 year mark might seem like a good substitute for a couple where there are questions about whether the husband will make it to the 50th.
45 YEARS is exquisitely acted with Rampling giving a tour-de-force performance of such subtle power it is breathtaking. The subtle, sensitive way this story is told adds to its strength, an quiet yet powerful exploration of emotions and perceptions. Rampling is astounding, and while Courtenay is excellent, it is her performance dominates in this film. While Courtenay’s emotions are all on the surface, even where Geoff is less forthcoming on his thoughts, Rampling’s performance is all subtlety and small gestures. In the final sequence, a series of emotions play across her face indicating she is seeing her husband in a new and unwelcome way, one that undermines all she believes about her marriage.
The film ends as a shattering realization dawns on Kate, while she is surrounded by people at the festive party. The epiphany is one that she must face going forward, and effect on the audience is devastating, despite the subtle way it unfolds across Rampling’s face and through her body language. It is a haunting scene, painful and inevitable, one that will linger in the mind just as 45 YEARS does.
45 YEARS OPENS IN ST. LOUIS ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 29TH AT LANDMARK’S PLAZA FRONTENAC CINEMA
Toss on the life jackets (or as they were called during WWII, “Mae Wests”) and prepare yourself for a nautical thriller, one “inspired by true events” (barely a month into 2016 and here’s the second “non-fiction” flick after 13 HOURS). Now it’s not a wartime actioner with destroyers battling subs. As you may have gathered from the numerous TV spots, this story is more of “man versus Mother Nature” one, along the lines of THE PERFECT STORM from way back in 2000. Since then we’ve seen film heroes fighting storms and killer waves in LIFE OF PI, ALL IS LOST, and the very recent (maybe six weeks) IN THE HEART OF THE SEA. This new flick is not set a couple hundred years ago like that whale-hunting adventure, only 64 years next month. This is a tale of determination and courage exemplified by the US Coast Guard in one of the most astounding sea rescues, often referred in maritime legend and lore as THE FINEST HOURS.
The quiet seacoast village of Chatham, MA is where we first encounter Coast Guard Boatswain’s Mate First Class Bernard Webber (Chris Pine) in late 1951 as he meets Miriam (Holliday Grainger), on a blind date that a buddy has arranged. Jump ahead a few months, and things are going so well that the two decide to marry. Although as a formality, Bernie needs to get the OK from his boss, Warrant Officer Cluff (Eric Bana). But it’s a hectic day as a brutal “nor’ easter” storm is approaching. Meanwhile, ten miles off the coast, the T2 oil tanker SS Pendleton is being pummeled by said storm. First assistant engineer Ray Sybert (Casey Affleck) pleads over the ship’s phone with the captain to reduce speed. When Ray gets no response he sends one of the crew to run to the ship’s bow with an update. The sailor is horrified to see that the bow is gone (a great effects shot), the ship has split in two with the front half sinking into the sea. Ray must try to find a way to steer his half into the shoal while several crewmen insist that they use the lifeboats (useless against the violent wind and waves). Back at Chatham Station, the radio picks up distress calls from another tanker, SS Fort Mercer, but a closer radar blip shows up, the Pendleton. Cluff orders Webber to head out in the 36 foot wooden motor lifeboat the CG36500 with three others, just as Miriam shows up. She pleads with Bernie not to go, but he knows that they are the only hope for those men at sea. Despite his courage, can they make their way through the storm before Ray and his men perish?
As the soft-spoken, awkward Webber, Pine is almost playing the inverse of the film role that has brought him enormous success-the cocky younger rebooted Captain James T Kirk. There’s a sweetness to the shy sailor in the opening courtship sequences, but this almost works against the big action set pieces at the film’s center. His determination is admirable, but he almost merges with the steering wheel with his low key persona. Grainger is nearly the polar opposite as Miriam, whose personality runs over her usually passive fiancee. After the dreamy “meet cute” intro, she often comes off as strident and overbearing (almost emasculating) when she invades the CG station.
She’s particularly grating at she spouts an almost endless mantra to Cluff- “Call him back in. Call him back in. Call…etc.”. It’s a shame that the script does not serve the talented Ms. G. At least their characters are given more personality than the rest of the cast. Affleck is convincing as the voice of calm and reason on the floundering tanker, going from being MacGyver, rigging a way to steer, to a the Mr. Spock-like logical debater with a sailor insisting on using the lifeboats. Bana has little to do beside trotting out a Southern drawl, looking concerned, and being exasperated with Miriam.
The most underused may be Ben Foster as Webber’s co-captain on the rescue boat, who offers little beyond a world-weary cynicism. What is an incredibly inspiring true tale of courage is seriously scuttled by an inconsistent script, despite solid direction by Craig Gillespie. The three screenwriters attempt to mesh an intimate character study/romance with epic adventure making the finished piece neither fish nor fowl. Once the Chatham group is aware of the Pendleton’s plight, the movie settles into a pattern: Bernie’s boys getting tossed about the waves like a game of “hot potato”, cut to the antics of the increasingly abrasive Miriam, then cut away to the sullen Sybert arguing with his crew as the water seeps in. The repetitive rhythms wear down the most dedicated film goer ( losing 20 minutes might’ve made the whole thing a bit more buoyant). The thick “Baaasten” accents also wear thin (“Hey Webbah’! Webbah’!”) even as they mock Cluff’s ultra-genteel deep South twang. Perhaps due to the Disney label (the ole’ castle logo opens the flick), there are no rough edges to these hard-bitten sea dogs (there’s no one that “cusses’ like a sailor”). At least the vintage fashions and autos (love those tank-like behemoths) are great eye candy. Oh, and the 3D upconvert doesn’t add anything aside constant sea spray The real-life heroes deserve to be remembered while the soggy, water-logged, dreary dramatics of THE FINEST HOURS will be forgotten. Film overboard!
