This was an incredible story: a man lands a passenger jet full of people on the Hudson River between Manhattan and New Jersey. It was one of the few successful water landings and one of the few times a crash investigation could interview both the pilot and the co-pilot.
This story had a few complications which made it difficult to dramatize:
1) The whole incident took two minutes. All the action occurred in the average length of a commercial break during a TV show, so the movie had to take some liberties with the narrative. In Flight, as a contrast, the plane took a long time to crash, and that maneuver occupied a good chunk of the narrative time. Here, the entire flight from take off to forced water landing took two-hundred and eight seconds. While this fact makes it all the more impressive that Capt. Sullenberger acted with such confidence and poise, it hardly makes for an interesting movie alone. Which leads me to...
2) Capt. Sullenberger was a good man who did his job well. Again, to return to Flight, the dissonance between the character's flaws and his acts of heroism create a natural narrative tension. Here, no one was terribly surprised that Sully did such a good job. No one wants to see a movie where a good person does a good job without much struggle. Which leads me to...
3) The tension between the investigators and Capt. Sullenberger felt forced because he was such an excellent pilot and all the passengers survived. The movie seemed to suggest that overly stingy insurance regulators and reliance on technology called into question the heroism of the singular pilot who could have made that landing work. I am not sure that actually happened. There is little to suggest that anyone would have questions Sullenberger's decision past the initial question. Because the audience could clearly see that a competent man with years of experience handled the situation with such confidence and decisiveness that everyone managed to live, the actors playing the investigators seemed cartoonishly villainous.
In the end, though, the story was well-told and well-performed. It was a naturally interesting story, and I wish the focus had been more on the trauma of the lived experience than the obviously staged battle over regulations and system testing. Still, it was well-worth seeing.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
66.) Hands of Stone [9/12/2016]
Despite how cliched they can be, I tend to like fighting movies (see: Warrior and South Paw), and I particularly like when sports are used as metaphors for international relations (see: Bend it Like Beckham and Race). This movie caught my eye immediately: a boxer from Panama who fights an American legend during the height of the Panama Canal disputes (around the time Carter lost his re-election to Reagan).
That alone would have been enough for the movie: two boxers at the height of their careers fighting with vastly different styles and representing their own countries agendas in both an actual and a metaphorical fight. Unfortunately, the movie kept adding layers: there was an examination of poverty, as Roberto Duran was a street kid who learned to fight as a means of survival. Once he became overly wealthy, then, his transition into a different socio-economic class was hardly smooth. There was a discussion of the seedier sides of boxing, as both Duran and his American trainer, Ray Arcel, had suspicious dealings with shady characters.
In the end, the movie tried to cram in so much narrative that it felt overstuffed and bloated. At just under two hours, there simply wasn't enough time to develop the different narrative strands into a cohesive movie. All the different arcs seemed unrelated and the transitions between scenes could sometimes be jarring. Still, Edgar Rameriez made for a convincing fighter, and surprisingly Usher played Sugar Ray Leonard perfectly. It wasn't a terrible movie, so if you are inclined to like boxing movies, movies about South America, or Robert Deniro films, you could do worse than this. That said, it wouldn't be the one boxing movie from the last ten years I suggest anyone watch.
That alone would have been enough for the movie: two boxers at the height of their careers fighting with vastly different styles and representing their own countries agendas in both an actual and a metaphorical fight. Unfortunately, the movie kept adding layers: there was an examination of poverty, as Roberto Duran was a street kid who learned to fight as a means of survival. Once he became overly wealthy, then, his transition into a different socio-economic class was hardly smooth. There was a discussion of the seedier sides of boxing, as both Duran and his American trainer, Ray Arcel, had suspicious dealings with shady characters.
In the end, the movie tried to cram in so much narrative that it felt overstuffed and bloated. At just under two hours, there simply wasn't enough time to develop the different narrative strands into a cohesive movie. All the different arcs seemed unrelated and the transitions between scenes could sometimes be jarring. Still, Edgar Rameriez made for a convincing fighter, and surprisingly Usher played Sugar Ray Leonard perfectly. It wasn't a terrible movie, so if you are inclined to like boxing movies, movies about South America, or Robert Deniro films, you could do worse than this. That said, it wouldn't be the one boxing movie from the last ten years I suggest anyone watch.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
65.) Hell or High Water [9/10/2016]
I loved this movie. Chris Pine, Ben Foster and Jeff Bridges were great. The writing was great. It was shot with deft subtly. I can't recommend this movie highly enough.
Set in Texas, it follows the exploits of two down-on-their-luck brothers (Pine and Foster) as they pull a series of small heists. The robberies catch the attention of two Texas Rangers (Bridges and Gil Birmingham), and the two groups of people set about trying to accomplish contrary goals: find financial freedom and stop the bad guys. The characters separate motivations unfold during the game of cat and mouse to complicate the viewer's sympathies, and the film resists simple catharsis.
Again, I could go on about this movie, but I don't want to spoil it. Go see it. A great film with a great cast and crew.
Set in Texas, it follows the exploits of two down-on-their-luck brothers (Pine and Foster) as they pull a series of small heists. The robberies catch the attention of two Texas Rangers (Bridges and Gil Birmingham), and the two groups of people set about trying to accomplish contrary goals: find financial freedom and stop the bad guys. The characters separate motivations unfold during the game of cat and mouse to complicate the viewer's sympathies, and the film resists simple catharsis.
Again, I could go on about this movie, but I don't want to spoil it. Go see it. A great film with a great cast and crew.
64.) The Light Between Oceans [9/9/2016]
Recently, I have been reading a lot about empathy and literature. One article I read discussed the difficulty of empathizing with the charactrers in Toni Morrison's Beloved as the characters resist catharsis. They can never move away from the slavery in their past, and as such, the reader is unable to fully immerse into the story.
While I am not entirely sold on that argument, I like the idea of characters which are difficult to empathize with. Catherine and I saw this movie, and had vastly different reactions to it, hinging on how we related to the actions of the main character. For Catherine, she found Elizabeth Greysmark's (played by Alicia Vikander) behavior entirely unconscionable; while I didn't agree with her actions, I could understand (and found heartbreaking) the life-altering decisions she made. There are massive swaths of grey in the characters here, and though we didn't agree, it certainly occupied more than a few nights of conversations. If for nothing else, the movie is worth seeing as a conversation piece.
63.) Morgan [9/8/2016]
In 2015, Ex Machina was one of my favorite movies (might have been my #1 movie of the year, but I can't be asked to go and find out), and Morgan is along that same vein: an artificial intelligence housed in the body of something young and feminine looking (the amazing Alicia Vikander in Ex Machina and Anna Taylor-Joy in Morgan). The idea is that the AI has shown a tendency towards dangerous behavior and an outsider needs to be brought in to determine whether or not the project is viable (Domhnall Gleason and Kate Mara, respectively).
The movies seem to be built on identical plot structures, though the differ in key areas: the handlers of Morgan feel something akin to love for their project, while Oscar Isaac is far more sadistic in how he handles Ava; the reasons for building the AI projects are vastly different (any more would give away too much of both plots); and the AI interacts much different in both movies.
There is some insightful gender criticism to be made here, especially in Morgan where the key interaction is between two women (a rarity in movies, as is, to say nothing of a movie in which one woman is definitely a captive, dangerous person). Certainly, books have been written about how women and androids can easily be conflated, and this film (or these films) will definitely add to that conversation. In all, I really enjoyed this movie.
The movies seem to be built on identical plot structures, though the differ in key areas: the handlers of Morgan feel something akin to love for their project, while Oscar Isaac is far more sadistic in how he handles Ava; the reasons for building the AI projects are vastly different (any more would give away too much of both plots); and the AI interacts much different in both movies.
There is some insightful gender criticism to be made here, especially in Morgan where the key interaction is between two women (a rarity in movies, as is, to say nothing of a movie in which one woman is definitely a captive, dangerous person). Certainly, books have been written about how women and androids can easily be conflated, and this film (or these films) will definitely add to that conversation. In all, I really enjoyed this movie.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
62.) Independence Day: Resurgence [9/7/2016]
It was a incoherent hot mess of a movie with massive plot holes, and a lot has been, and can be, said about that. Here, I want to focus on one part of this train-wreck I feel best epitomizes the issue with the movie: the hole the aliens were drilling into the Earth.
The whole reason for the movie was not revenge, as one might expect seeing as how Earth managed to annihilate the previous attempts at colonization. The first wave of aliens even sent out a distress signal to which these new aliens were responding. Once these new aliens arrived (same species, different ship), they set to work mining the planet for it's molten core. This wasn't a war ship, though it was equipped with lots of little fighter ships (for suppressing protesters, I would assume); this was a construction crew, like all of those running around the midwest constructing fracking wells (who also wish they had fighter ships to suppress protesters). There might be some clever eco-criticism here, but the film doesn't fully explore the issue. Instead, it sits back on the age old sci-fi trope: aliens bad; people good. The film gave only passing consideration to why they were there, and instead just went around killing without asking any questions. In fact, they even attacked the alien that came to help--and which will feature prominently in the next filmic installment.
The construction crew sets about mining the planet by drilling a hole in the ocean a mile wide. This hole will extend to the molten core of the planet, which the ship was meant to extract...somehow. Like the first movie, this gave the action a timer, as the intrepid humans had a limited amount of time to kill the queen before, as several characters noted, "the end of life as we know it." The hole is a mile wide in the middle of the ocean (they didn't specifically say which one, but the legs of the drilling space ship set down on the East Coast of the US and London, so likely it was the Atlantic). The drill gets to within two minutes of cracking the mantel and extracting the molten core, which suggests it was pretty damn close. The images from the radar screen on the salvage ship which happened to be in the ocean nearby (close enough to see the mile wide hole and the lazer drill, but not too close to be affected by it...somehow) suggested that there were mere feet between the tip of the lazer and the molten core. Mankind succeeds, and the aliens leave without filling in this hole. Of all the plot holes in the movie, this is the one that seems most unforgivable.
At first, I thought that a mile wide, 4000 mile deep hole would drain the oceans, but after crunching the numbers (thanks, Internet), it turns out the approximately 3200 cubic miles of water which would inevitably drain into that hole would only account for a small fraction of the 800 million cubic miles of water on the surface of the planet (.0004% to be exact, which would likely not even shift the coast line that significantly). It's possible (read: likely) that I did the math wrong, but my take away from an afternoon's research is that a hole that big wouldn't affect the water level too much because the ocean is fucking massive.
A bigger issue, and one that Oklahoma is certain to attest to, is that tampering with the crust of the planet will lead to cataclysmic earth quakes. Granted, the hole itself wouldn't affect the overall surface area. According to the internet, there are roughly 197 million square miles on the surface of the earth, and digging out about 3.5 of those would likely go unnoticed (there have been massive holes dug around the world, and the Earth continues to spin, though it should be noted that none of the man-made holes goes nearly as deep: the current record is about seven miles). However, filling much smaller holes with water has caused innumerable issues around the US. The use and disposal of fracking waste water has been tied to the steep increase in the number and intensity of earthquakes around the US, and the amounts of water and the hole being dug are paltry when compared to this massive hole dug by the aliens. Getting the exact data on size of holes and quantities of water used are beyond the reach of the simple Google searches I did, but it can be assumed the volumes are significantly less and the results have been fairly conclusive. Pumping extra water into the earth is not a good idea. In the movie, that water would be dumped into multiple layers of the earth. It would be instantly irradiated (as much of the fracking waste water is), full of all sorts of toxic heavy metals, and would likely dissipate the heat trapped towards the core. If nothing else, it would certainly destroy our water supply, raising the temperature of the oceans and melting what is left of the dwindling glaciers. It's also possible that such a fissure that deep and wide would allow the massive amount of pressure at the center of the earth to have a weak spot to push against, and whole planet would fracture.
In short, stopping the aliens just before they achieved their goal would likely not leave us with a livable planet. It is very possible that the Independence Day franchise is playing a long game of eco-criticism, and that this movie will leave unexplored the consequences of such a drilling expedition so that it can use them as a catalyst for further space exploration and a mass exodus off the planet. Like actual mankind's efforts to halt global warming, our efforts to live on a mostly ruined planet would prove untenable. The trio of films, then, would be one long metaphor about the horrors of delving too greedily and too deep, like the dwarves in Moria.
More likely, the writers here simply didn't think too hard about the physics of their movie. A certain amount of suspended disbelief is required for sci-fi films, and I certainly don't begrudge the writers refusing to acknowledge the absurdity of a laser drill or how a ship that massive would have affected the gravity of the planet. That said, they should think about how such technology would work within the confines of the real world it inhabits. Look at the first Star Trek reboot: the hole they dug was much smaller, but immediately the planet being mined was destroyed (Futurama looked at the same issue with similar results). Independence Day: Resurgence was just not thought through very carefully, and instead hoped the big explosions and massive (often overcrowded) action sequences, after which the human race stands bruised, but not beaten, would distract from the inherent absurdity of the plot.
Unfortunately, such lapses in realism can become distracting. Untied loose ends like this pull attention away from what the movie did do well, which was have a lot of aliens flying around the planet fighting. Like a chip in a wall, once one flaw is spotted, others start to become more evident. Then the whole delicate house of cards tumbles down. This was the issue here: the movie hoped no one would notice how unconsidered the conceit is.
The whole reason for the movie was not revenge, as one might expect seeing as how Earth managed to annihilate the previous attempts at colonization. The first wave of aliens even sent out a distress signal to which these new aliens were responding. Once these new aliens arrived (same species, different ship), they set to work mining the planet for it's molten core. This wasn't a war ship, though it was equipped with lots of little fighter ships (for suppressing protesters, I would assume); this was a construction crew, like all of those running around the midwest constructing fracking wells (who also wish they had fighter ships to suppress protesters). There might be some clever eco-criticism here, but the film doesn't fully explore the issue. Instead, it sits back on the age old sci-fi trope: aliens bad; people good. The film gave only passing consideration to why they were there, and instead just went around killing without asking any questions. In fact, they even attacked the alien that came to help--and which will feature prominently in the next filmic installment.
The construction crew sets about mining the planet by drilling a hole in the ocean a mile wide. This hole will extend to the molten core of the planet, which the ship was meant to extract...somehow. Like the first movie, this gave the action a timer, as the intrepid humans had a limited amount of time to kill the queen before, as several characters noted, "the end of life as we know it." The hole is a mile wide in the middle of the ocean (they didn't specifically say which one, but the legs of the drilling space ship set down on the East Coast of the US and London, so likely it was the Atlantic). The drill gets to within two minutes of cracking the mantel and extracting the molten core, which suggests it was pretty damn close. The images from the radar screen on the salvage ship which happened to be in the ocean nearby (close enough to see the mile wide hole and the lazer drill, but not too close to be affected by it...somehow) suggested that there were mere feet between the tip of the lazer and the molten core. Mankind succeeds, and the aliens leave without filling in this hole. Of all the plot holes in the movie, this is the one that seems most unforgivable.
At first, I thought that a mile wide, 4000 mile deep hole would drain the oceans, but after crunching the numbers (thanks, Internet), it turns out the approximately 3200 cubic miles of water which would inevitably drain into that hole would only account for a small fraction of the 800 million cubic miles of water on the surface of the planet (.0004% to be exact, which would likely not even shift the coast line that significantly). It's possible (read: likely) that I did the math wrong, but my take away from an afternoon's research is that a hole that big wouldn't affect the water level too much because the ocean is fucking massive.
A bigger issue, and one that Oklahoma is certain to attest to, is that tampering with the crust of the planet will lead to cataclysmic earth quakes. Granted, the hole itself wouldn't affect the overall surface area. According to the internet, there are roughly 197 million square miles on the surface of the earth, and digging out about 3.5 of those would likely go unnoticed (there have been massive holes dug around the world, and the Earth continues to spin, though it should be noted that none of the man-made holes goes nearly as deep: the current record is about seven miles). However, filling much smaller holes with water has caused innumerable issues around the US. The use and disposal of fracking waste water has been tied to the steep increase in the number and intensity of earthquakes around the US, and the amounts of water and the hole being dug are paltry when compared to this massive hole dug by the aliens. Getting the exact data on size of holes and quantities of water used are beyond the reach of the simple Google searches I did, but it can be assumed the volumes are significantly less and the results have been fairly conclusive. Pumping extra water into the earth is not a good idea. In the movie, that water would be dumped into multiple layers of the earth. It would be instantly irradiated (as much of the fracking waste water is), full of all sorts of toxic heavy metals, and would likely dissipate the heat trapped towards the core. If nothing else, it would certainly destroy our water supply, raising the temperature of the oceans and melting what is left of the dwindling glaciers. It's also possible that such a fissure that deep and wide would allow the massive amount of pressure at the center of the earth to have a weak spot to push against, and whole planet would fracture.
In short, stopping the aliens just before they achieved their goal would likely not leave us with a livable planet. It is very possible that the Independence Day franchise is playing a long game of eco-criticism, and that this movie will leave unexplored the consequences of such a drilling expedition so that it can use them as a catalyst for further space exploration and a mass exodus off the planet. Like actual mankind's efforts to halt global warming, our efforts to live on a mostly ruined planet would prove untenable. The trio of films, then, would be one long metaphor about the horrors of delving too greedily and too deep, like the dwarves in Moria.
More likely, the writers here simply didn't think too hard about the physics of their movie. A certain amount of suspended disbelief is required for sci-fi films, and I certainly don't begrudge the writers refusing to acknowledge the absurdity of a laser drill or how a ship that massive would have affected the gravity of the planet. That said, they should think about how such technology would work within the confines of the real world it inhabits. Look at the first Star Trek reboot: the hole they dug was much smaller, but immediately the planet being mined was destroyed (Futurama looked at the same issue with similar results). Independence Day: Resurgence was just not thought through very carefully, and instead hoped the big explosions and massive (often overcrowded) action sequences, after which the human race stands bruised, but not beaten, would distract from the inherent absurdity of the plot.
Unfortunately, such lapses in realism can become distracting. Untied loose ends like this pull attention away from what the movie did do well, which was have a lot of aliens flying around the planet fighting. Like a chip in a wall, once one flaw is spotted, others start to become more evident. Then the whole delicate house of cards tumbles down. This was the issue here: the movie hoped no one would notice how unconsidered the conceit is.
61.) Florence Foster Jenkins [9/4/2016]
There certainly needs to be a bio-pic about the most requested recorded performance at Carnegie Hall, and such a movie would have been smart to cast both Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant as the titular character and her philandering husband, St. Clair Bayfield. Jenkins was an interesting character: a pianist of some repute (played for the president at age 8) who was stricken with syphilis and lost her ability to play. She went on to then use her inheritance to float the high-art music scene in New York during the war. Because of her patronage, no one wanted to be overly honest with her, and thus she believed she could sing quite well. Her husband went to great lengths to keep her in the dark about her singing ability.
There is a really interesting story here at the cross-section of art, war-time economics, personal confidence, fidelity, and talent. There has to be a reason why Jenkins's record, which was objectively terrible, is the best selling album in Melotone Recordings Catalog. There has to be a reason her performance at Carnegie Hall is the most requested recording from their archive. Something about this woman spoke to the nation at a time when there seemed to be nothing positive happening.
The actors did their best with the script (Streep and Grant were amazing; Big Bang Theory's Simon Helberg was okay), but it never quite examined the metaphorical value of Jenkins's career. The audience's surrogate, Cosme McMoon (played by Helberg), never seemed to realize the importance of the singer's performance, and instead focused on his own successes which came by riding her coattails. I left the film thinking it was interesting, but not sure why it was important.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
60.) Southside With You [9/3/2016]
I am torn on this film. I am unashamedly a huge fan of the Obamas, as both a family and public figures. I was the idea candidate for this strangely under-advertised film. The film, which focused on the first date of the current President and First Lady, lacked authenticity. I am sure it's hard to portray two people who are very much alive, and both the leads (Tika Sumpter as Michele and Parker Sawyers as Barack) did a fine job playing their real-life counterpoints. That said, the writing left a lot to be desired. It felt at times like the two were reading their own future Wikipedia pages to each other.
And even though I know first-date movies are meant to be low on action, the film lacked any inherent drama. There were a few moments which needed to have the intensity ratcheted up a few ticks to bring out the deep tension in the film.
Maybe it is too soon for this movie. Its hard to be objective about the current president's life while he is still very much a public figure. Regardless, this movie was only alright, and I was really hoping for better.
And even though I know first-date movies are meant to be low on action, the film lacked any inherent drama. There were a few moments which needed to have the intensity ratcheted up a few ticks to bring out the deep tension in the film.
Maybe it is too soon for this movie. Its hard to be objective about the current president's life while he is still very much a public figure. Regardless, this movie was only alright, and I was really hoping for better.
59.) Equity [8/30/2016]
Most, if not all, of the financial movies featuring risky maneuvers by high powered bankers feature men in the lead roles (and most auxiliary roles). If nothing else, Equity was a nice change from that, with Breaking Bad's Anna Gunn playing Naomi Bishop, a senior investment banker with a checkered past. She has one last opportunity to land a deal which could secure her the promotion she has ruthlessly pushed for. What follows are the standard tropes of financial sector films: double crossing, shady deals, immoral banking practices, etc.
Because two of the films leads were women, they also sprinkled in a health dose of feminism: glass ceilings, disrespectful co-workers (and clients), and the troubling question of when to have a family balanced against an aggressive upward career arc. On paper, this seemed like a really interesting idea, but unfortunately, the movie just didn't pan out. While there were some significant weaknesses in the plot (Naomi, whose climb to the top was only possible by her crushing anyone in her way, was somehow blinded by the love she felt for a personal banker who was milking her for information), the biggest issue was that no one on the cast could carry the story. Anna Gunn was fine, but it needed someone with a more presence on camera who convey have a range of emotions (instead of Gunn's constant steely stare).
Still, there is room for gender parity in this particular genre of film, and it was worth the attempt. Hopefully, this will open the door for more, and better, films like this.
Because two of the films leads were women, they also sprinkled in a health dose of feminism: glass ceilings, disrespectful co-workers (and clients), and the troubling question of when to have a family balanced against an aggressive upward career arc. On paper, this seemed like a really interesting idea, but unfortunately, the movie just didn't pan out. While there were some significant weaknesses in the plot (Naomi, whose climb to the top was only possible by her crushing anyone in her way, was somehow blinded by the love she felt for a personal banker who was milking her for information), the biggest issue was that no one on the cast could carry the story. Anna Gunn was fine, but it needed someone with a more presence on camera who convey have a range of emotions (instead of Gunn's constant steely stare).
Still, there is room for gender parity in this particular genre of film, and it was worth the attempt. Hopefully, this will open the door for more, and better, films like this.
Monday, September 5, 2016
58.) Bad Moms [8/27/2016]
I really liked Mila Kunis in Black Swan, and thought that her career might take her in bold new directions. But after Jupiter Ascending and now Bad Moms, I am not sure she has it in her to carry a feature length film.
Or maybe she is good in good movies, and not good in terrible movies. And this movie was terrible. It was one slow-motion montage scene after another until a bunch of characters I didn't like stopped doing things I didn't care about. I guess lessons were learned, but, again, I didn't care. Furthermore, the writers (the same team behind The Hangover) clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman, a mother, or a member of a PTA.
I was expecting a stupid movie, but this was terrible. It lacked the cohesive cast from The Hangover and the writer's inherent knowledge of a men's drunken, debaucherous weekend. The only scene in the whole movie worth watching came at the end-credits scene where the central actors talked with their real-life moms about their own childhood. Those snippets were endearing and funny, and could have made for a great movie. Instead, we were left with a hot mess.
Or maybe she is good in good movies, and not good in terrible movies. And this movie was terrible. It was one slow-motion montage scene after another until a bunch of characters I didn't like stopped doing things I didn't care about. I guess lessons were learned, but, again, I didn't care. Furthermore, the writers (the same team behind The Hangover) clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman, a mother, or a member of a PTA.
I was expecting a stupid movie, but this was terrible. It lacked the cohesive cast from The Hangover and the writer's inherent knowledge of a men's drunken, debaucherous weekend. The only scene in the whole movie worth watching came at the end-credits scene where the central actors talked with their real-life moms about their own childhood. Those snippets were endearing and funny, and could have made for a great movie. Instead, we were left with a hot mess.
57.) Indignation [8/25/2016]
The first of two Philip Roth novels turned into a movie this Summer/Fall, Indignation is the smaller release, with the two fairly unknown actors cast in the leads: Sarah Gadon as Olivia, a mentally unstable and sexual promiscuous suicide survivor, and Logan Lerman as Marcus, an atheist (formerly Jewish), first-generation college student. Marcus, in seeking to escape his over-bearing father, leaves New Jersey and attends college in Ohio. There, he almost willfully refuses to identify with any sort of group mentality, abjectly refusing to follow a religion, join a fraternity, or really associate with anyone.
He does eventually fall for Olivia, and after her sexual experience challenges his notions of propriety and confuses his feeling for her, a series of poorly made choices leads to his expulsion and eventual drafting into the Army to be shipped off to Korea.
It was a slow movie examining the far reaching consequences of snap judgments, and there isn't a happy ending. But, if you like Philip Roth novels, you'll like this mostly-faithful adaptation.
He does eventually fall for Olivia, and after her sexual experience challenges his notions of propriety and confuses his feeling for her, a series of poorly made choices leads to his expulsion and eventual drafting into the Army to be shipped off to Korea.
It was a slow movie examining the far reaching consequences of snap judgments, and there isn't a happy ending. But, if you like Philip Roth novels, you'll like this mostly-faithful adaptation.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
56.) War Dogs [8/20/2016]
This movie had the same tone and feel as The Wolf of Wall Street, and that is not meant to be a compliment. Much in the same way that Scorsese's film focused on a reprehensible jerk who dragged everyone down with him, War Dogs focused on David Packouz (Miles Teller) and Efraim Diveroli (Jonah Hill), two young dudes who were making money hand over fist by supplying the US military branches with their munitions by bending (or outright breaking) several international laws.
I think, like Wolf of Wall Street, we were supposed to find something cool about these gun runners, driving a truck load of handguns through Fallujah and buying up second-hand arms out of Albania, but either both actors lacked the charisma to pull-off a convincing anti-hero or, more likely, both of these asshats were insufferable. In one particular scene (frequently shown in the trailer), they should have died, but it was only through sheer luck and a military helicopter that they survived. This can be tolerated if the characters have some compelling backstory to suggest that such recklessness has purpose. Neither of the gun-runners had anything redeemable in their lives. When David eventually has a change of heart and tries to get out, I didn't care. When they went to jail, I didn't feel it was tragic, but instead found deep catharsis in idiots getting their comeuppance.
Bradley Cooper was good, but merely window dressing on a really flat, grossly cynical movie that made no attempt to critically engage with the complexity of the subject matter.
I think, like Wolf of Wall Street, we were supposed to find something cool about these gun runners, driving a truck load of handguns through Fallujah and buying up second-hand arms out of Albania, but either both actors lacked the charisma to pull-off a convincing anti-hero or, more likely, both of these asshats were insufferable. In one particular scene (frequently shown in the trailer), they should have died, but it was only through sheer luck and a military helicopter that they survived. This can be tolerated if the characters have some compelling backstory to suggest that such recklessness has purpose. Neither of the gun-runners had anything redeemable in their lives. When David eventually has a change of heart and tries to get out, I didn't care. When they went to jail, I didn't feel it was tragic, but instead found deep catharsis in idiots getting their comeuppance.
Bradley Cooper was good, but merely window dressing on a really flat, grossly cynical movie that made no attempt to critically engage with the complexity of the subject matter.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
55.) Operation Chromite [8/19/2016]
On a spectrum of movies which try to re-frame discussions of famous moments in history, Operation Chromite--the Korean-made movie with actors speaking in English, Korean, and Russian, and subtitles in both English and Korean--falls somewhere between the very good Anthropoid and the quite terrible Stalingrad (which, I think, is still available on YouTube in it's entirety for free, if you have three hours to blow on a terrible movie).
Blessedly, it was a movie made by Koreans, so the Korean actors really got to shine, and Liam Neeson, playing a guy giving his best impersonation of Liam Neeson playing Douglas MacArthur, phoned in a performance which, at best, was an amalgamation of all John Wayne's characters. Still, since Saving Private Ryan, which did not shy from the gritty realism of war, I have troubles getting into films where a heroic character is shot multiple times and doesn't just crumple into a ball. Like a lot of war films from the 50s and 60s, this was clearly an attempt to valorize a national symbol of heroism, and the characters on which the movie was based deserve some respect for essentially allowing the UN forces to gain a foothold in Korea. That said, what they did was heroic enough. Their actions didn't need to emphasized by an overly dramatic score and prolonged highly-emotive scenes (complete with a teary-eyed goodbye scene to one of the soldier's babies, in which the soldier confidently ensured he would be back after the fighting, before he went off and died).
In the end, there isn't enough out there about the Korean resistance in American history, so that was nice to see. Also, the white guy didn't come in an save a bunch of inept indigenous people, bring his superior intellect and firepower to save the day. Instead, MacArthur needed to wait until the Koreans provided the opportunity for the UN forces to make landfall. The decision to film each character speaking in their native language was a nice touch, instead of having everyone speak in some accented English. Again, it was much better than Stalingrad, but still a far-cry from some of the better war movies out there.
Blessedly, it was a movie made by Koreans, so the Korean actors really got to shine, and Liam Neeson, playing a guy giving his best impersonation of Liam Neeson playing Douglas MacArthur, phoned in a performance which, at best, was an amalgamation of all John Wayne's characters. Still, since Saving Private Ryan, which did not shy from the gritty realism of war, I have troubles getting into films where a heroic character is shot multiple times and doesn't just crumple into a ball. Like a lot of war films from the 50s and 60s, this was clearly an attempt to valorize a national symbol of heroism, and the characters on which the movie was based deserve some respect for essentially allowing the UN forces to gain a foothold in Korea. That said, what they did was heroic enough. Their actions didn't need to emphasized by an overly dramatic score and prolonged highly-emotive scenes (complete with a teary-eyed goodbye scene to one of the soldier's babies, in which the soldier confidently ensured he would be back after the fighting, before he went off and died).
In the end, there isn't enough out there about the Korean resistance in American history, so that was nice to see. Also, the white guy didn't come in an save a bunch of inept indigenous people, bring his superior intellect and firepower to save the day. Instead, MacArthur needed to wait until the Koreans provided the opportunity for the UN forces to make landfall. The decision to film each character speaking in their native language was a nice touch, instead of having everyone speak in some accented English. Again, it was much better than Stalingrad, but still a far-cry from some of the better war movies out there.
54.) Emily and Tim [8/18/2016]
I wanted to like this movie. It was a small release with some great actors (Thomas Mann from Me, Earl and the Dying Girl, Alexis Bledel from Gilmore Girls, Zozsia Mamet from Girls, Kal Pen from a number of good things, including the first Van Wilder movie, Olympia Dukakis, Andre Braugher and Phylicia Rashad). The metaphorical conceit of the movie was clever: six different sets of actors are used to tell the story of one marriage to show that these themes (love, loss, betrayal, etc.) are universal.
Unfortunately, this never got off the ground. The script was not great (despite being adapted from what the credits told me was an award winning author--same said author wrote and directed the movie), and the actors had no chemistry. I was surprised at the outset that I was the only one in the theater when the movie started; by the end, I was less surprised. There are better romantic dramas out there, with more clever narrative techniques and better directing.
Unfortunately, this never got off the ground. The script was not great (despite being adapted from what the credits told me was an award winning author--same said author wrote and directed the movie), and the actors had no chemistry. I was surprised at the outset that I was the only one in the theater when the movie started; by the end, I was less surprised. There are better romantic dramas out there, with more clever narrative techniques and better directing.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
53.) Edge of Winter [8/17/2016]
Holy hell was this a dark film. Joel Kinnaman plays Eliot Baker, a divorced father of two, who takes his kids on a spur of the moment trip to middle-of-nowhere Canada (in the middle of Winter) to shoot guns and learn how to drive. Things take a turn for the worse as Eliot, who struggles to hold his own life together, realizes his kids are going to move away soon. What follows is a series of increasingly bad ideas Eliot uses to hold his crumbling life together.
I hadn't read much about this movie before going to see it, and I was really pleased I took a flier on such a small film (only one theater in the suburbs is even playing it). It was a great, tense movie about family, masculine identities and terrible decisions.
I hadn't read much about this movie before going to see it, and I was really pleased I took a flier on such a small film (only one theater in the suburbs is even playing it). It was a great, tense movie about family, masculine identities and terrible decisions.
52.) Anthropoid [8/12/2016]
As an American, most of what I learned about World War II involved the big highlights: invasion of Poland, capture of Paris, bombing of London, America's entry into the war, and the eventual end of the war. The histories we learn here are skewed towards the Allies involvement, and often glosses over the horrors of the Western Front and the involvement of other countries like Finland or, in the case of Anthropoid, Czechoslovakia (or what is now the distinct countries of the Czech Republic and Slovokia). Evidently, a whole year before invading Poland, the Germans occupied Czechoslovakia, murdering thousands of Czechs in Prague. Sadly, the Allied countries of Europe could have prevented the occupation, but fearing war, they allowed Hitler to invade and claim the valuable industrial resources.
Anthropoid focused on the only successful assassination attempt of a high-ranking Nazi official to happen during the war. Two operatives from the government in exile parachute into the countryside around Prague, and lay out a risky plan to assissinate Reinhard Heydrich to an uncertain assembly of active resistance agents. The film follows the operatives as they go about doing their spy-craft: collecting data on Heydrich, evading the SS, and eventually performing the assassination. Of course, nothing goes as planned, but I won't spoil the ending of the film.
This was a really interesting, well-done movie about a horrendous moment in history. It's hard to say I liked the movie, considering the situation, but I was glad to have seen it: good actors, good story, well-told.
Anthropoid focused on the only successful assassination attempt of a high-ranking Nazi official to happen during the war. Two operatives from the government in exile parachute into the countryside around Prague, and lay out a risky plan to assissinate Reinhard Heydrich to an uncertain assembly of active resistance agents. The film follows the operatives as they go about doing their spy-craft: collecting data on Heydrich, evading the SS, and eventually performing the assassination. Of course, nothing goes as planned, but I won't spoil the ending of the film.
This was a really interesting, well-done movie about a horrendous moment in history. It's hard to say I liked the movie, considering the situation, but I was glad to have seen it: good actors, good story, well-told.
51.) Pulse [8/11/2016]
I honestly didn't expect much out of this movie. I saw very few advertisements for Pulse, it had no real actors of any note in the leads (the lesser of two Francos and one of TVs Scream Queens), and it looked squarely aimed at people who use SnapChat. Plus, the summer is not known for surprising indie hits. But, I was bored and the movie seemed short, so I went to the late showing on a Thursday, thinking I would be alone in the theater.
I was genuinely surprised, though, by the end. Granted, the movie was not amazing, but it was surprisingly enjoyable, and Dave Franco and Emma Roberts were pretty good in it. Still, the premise was clever: people could win money playing a crowd-sourced version of Truth or Dare which was often heavy on the dares. Vee (Roberts) was bored with her life and decided to become a "Player" in Nerve rather than a "Watcher," the first of many ham-fisted metaphors for living life. At first, the dares developed along a fairly believable difficulty curve, until Vee was asked to guide Ian (Franco) on his stolen motorcycle through the streets of New York as he was blindfolded. From there, it rapidly became more unbelievable as the writers showed little understanding about how the internet works and mankind devolved into a sort of Lord of the Rings meets Gladiator mentality. The end message was disappointingly cliched, and I am surprised the "End" title didn't come with a question mark.
Still, for 40 minutes, it was an interesting movie and had a neat concept. It was worth a watch if you have a soft spot for teen movies or science fiction with a poor understanding of the internet.
I was genuinely surprised, though, by the end. Granted, the movie was not amazing, but it was surprisingly enjoyable, and Dave Franco and Emma Roberts were pretty good in it. Still, the premise was clever: people could win money playing a crowd-sourced version of Truth or Dare which was often heavy on the dares. Vee (Roberts) was bored with her life and decided to become a "Player" in Nerve rather than a "Watcher," the first of many ham-fisted metaphors for living life. At first, the dares developed along a fairly believable difficulty curve, until Vee was asked to guide Ian (Franco) on his stolen motorcycle through the streets of New York as he was blindfolded. From there, it rapidly became more unbelievable as the writers showed little understanding about how the internet works and mankind devolved into a sort of Lord of the Rings meets Gladiator mentality. The end message was disappointingly cliched, and I am surprised the "End" title didn't come with a question mark.
Still, for 40 minutes, it was an interesting movie and had a neat concept. It was worth a watch if you have a soft spot for teen movies or science fiction with a poor understanding of the internet.
Monday, August 8, 2016
50.) Jason Bourne [8/8/2016]
I thought the Jason Bourne franchise was done when the fourth installment, starring Jeremy Renner, Ed Norton, and Rachel Weiss, went off the rails by turning the spies into chemically engineered super-soldiers not too different from a gritty, juiced-up version of Captain America. I disliked Bourne Legacy so much that I went home and watched the original three movies the following afternoon.
Jason Bourne, the fifth installment featuring the return of Matt Damon and Julia Stiles, was not that bad, but it was a far shade paler than the first film. There, we are given these touching moments of character development where Bourne starts to stitch together his identity with the help of Maria (Franka Potente). There are long moments where no one is punched, and the audience comes to care about Bourne and root for his redemption.
All of that is gone. The movie is a cobbled together messy of action shots spliced with people looking aghast in disbelief that they are again tracking Bourne in relation to some sort of black-ops logistical nightmare. All the standard tropes of the Bourne franchise are there: grizzle old man with no regard for ethics or laws, an upstart woman who sees the good in Bourne (and the badness of those around him), a woman who can speak to Bourne and tame his feverish nightmares, an killer asset who speaks little and kills without remorse, a car-chase scene filled with a Keystone-Cop-esque police pursuit, and even a fight scene where the assailant has a knife and Bourne kicks his ass with a house hold item (this time a pot inexplicably found in a drainage canal). In the end, this felt more like a clips show, TV's version of a Greatest Hits album, than an actual movie, but they certainly left it open for a sixth one. Maybe that will just be several steady-cam shots of Bourne appearing behind people without saying anything.
Jason Bourne, the fifth installment featuring the return of Matt Damon and Julia Stiles, was not that bad, but it was a far shade paler than the first film. There, we are given these touching moments of character development where Bourne starts to stitch together his identity with the help of Maria (Franka Potente). There are long moments where no one is punched, and the audience comes to care about Bourne and root for his redemption.
All of that is gone. The movie is a cobbled together messy of action shots spliced with people looking aghast in disbelief that they are again tracking Bourne in relation to some sort of black-ops logistical nightmare. All the standard tropes of the Bourne franchise are there: grizzle old man with no regard for ethics or laws, an upstart woman who sees the good in Bourne (and the badness of those around him), a woman who can speak to Bourne and tame his feverish nightmares, an killer asset who speaks little and kills without remorse, a car-chase scene filled with a Keystone-Cop-esque police pursuit, and even a fight scene where the assailant has a knife and Bourne kicks his ass with a house hold item (this time a pot inexplicably found in a drainage canal). In the end, this felt more like a clips show, TV's version of a Greatest Hits album, than an actual movie, but they certainly left it open for a sixth one. Maybe that will just be several steady-cam shots of Bourne appearing behind people without saying anything.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
49.) Suicide Squad [8/7/2016]
For a movie whose advertisements are bathed in neon punk iconography, this was a dark, gritty, rain-filled, incoherent mess. The largest issue was character development, which is tricky with an ensemble cast. Margot Robbie deserved a better Harley Quinn (though she was good as Harley Quinn, if problematic). For all the hubbub about Jared Leto's method acting, he was barely in the movie, and when he was he was hardly as menacing as the rumors about his off-camera behavior. I didn't care about the relationship between Harley and the Joker, which can charitably be described as "glossed over" in the film. The other characters might have had motivations, but I didn't notice them. One character was literally brought onto a helicopter with no introduction and then was dispatched just as quickly, but I think I was supposed to know who he was.
I could go on: talk about all the rain, the agonizing 10-minute-long slow motion shot near the end, the overly emotive score, the terrible dialogue, the mystical characters who were immune to bullets and missals, but not a bomb, and so on. The fact of the matter is that DC just doesn't make good movies, and Suicide Squad was just another in a long line of evidence to suggest as much.
I could go on: talk about all the rain, the agonizing 10-minute-long slow motion shot near the end, the overly emotive score, the terrible dialogue, the mystical characters who were immune to bullets and missals, but not a bomb, and so on. The fact of the matter is that DC just doesn't make good movies, and Suicide Squad was just another in a long line of evidence to suggest as much.
48.) Gleason [8/6/2016]
There is no way for me to be objective about this movie. Steve Gleason, the former special teams player from the New Orleans Saints and current face of ALS, has done a tremendous service for those suffering from the disease that claimed the life of my father. This documentary of Steve's life tracked the development of the Team Gleason, his non-for-profit organization serving the ALS community. His first goal was so simple, but it was tremendously impactful. When Medicare and Medicad stopped covering speaking devices for those with ALS, Steve's organization set out to provide one to everyone who needed it. He used his fame to also put pressure on politicians to extend public funding for such a necessary medical device. Furthermore, inspired by his own two-week trip through Alaska, Team Gleason organized adventure excursions for wheelchair-bound people suffering from ALS, such as a hike up Machu Picchu.
More than just dump a bunch of information about the good works the foundation does, though, this documentary, like The Theory of Everything, humanizes an extremely difficult disease. Steve and his wife had a child shortly after he was diagnosed, and Michel was left to care for a newborn and her rapidly deteriorating husband (a nice visual juxtaposition: as their child developed new skills and abilities, Steve lost his). There were no perfect heroes in the film: Steve grew testy and sullen as the disease progressed and his wife had the lightness and her optimism slowly ground out down.
Steve is still alive, and his organization (linked below) is still doing great work. I am not sure who would like this movie, but I loved it.
http://www.teamgleason.org/
More than just dump a bunch of information about the good works the foundation does, though, this documentary, like The Theory of Everything, humanizes an extremely difficult disease. Steve and his wife had a child shortly after he was diagnosed, and Michel was left to care for a newborn and her rapidly deteriorating husband (a nice visual juxtaposition: as their child developed new skills and abilities, Steve lost his). There were no perfect heroes in the film: Steve grew testy and sullen as the disease progressed and his wife had the lightness and her optimism slowly ground out down.
Steve is still alive, and his organization (linked below) is still doing great work. I am not sure who would like this movie, but I loved it.
http://www.teamgleason.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)