Movie Review: "The Scorch Trials"

The Scorch Trials (2015)

PG-13

2 Stars out of 5

Director                                                Wes Ball
Writer                                                   T.S. Nowlin (screenplay); James Dashner (novel)

Dylan O’Brien                                      Thomas
Kaya Scodelario                                   Teresa
Thomas Brodie-Sangster                   Newt                                    
Jacob Lofland                                       Aris
Patrica Clarkson                                   Dr. Ava Paige
Aiden Gillen                                          Janson
Giancarlo Esposito                              Jorge
Rosa Salazar                                         Brenda

 

“The Scorch Trials” is the second cinematic version of the three part book series “Maze Runner” by James Dashner. In part 1, we met Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) a young man apparently suffering from some serious memory issues. The opening of “Maze Runner” (2014) is visually clever. Thomas is shown rising in some sort of freight elevator. He is confused and disoriented. When he reaches the upper floor of the elevator’s run, he finds he is in the middle of a large expanse of grass. Unfortunately once at the surface the cleverness stops. Thomas meets a group of young males living their version of “The Lord of Flies”. They are led by Newt in an area they refer to as the Glade. This is a “safe” area within a valley that is surrounded by high rock walls. The walls are un-climbable, but there is a way out. Thomas is shown this way and is warned he cannot risk it as he is too new to the Glade and too inexperienced to life in this strange world. Thomas ignores the prohibition (are you surprised?) and goes through the passage-way in the rock walls, he finds a maze; a maze filled with lethal dangers. Thomas will eventually lead a team of fellow courageous teens (now including one young woman, Teresa played by Kaya Scodelario, who seems to share some history with Thomas) out of the Glade via the maze into a new world. The other world exists behind the walls of the maze and appears to be a manufacturing space with no clear purpose. In this manufacturing realm, they meet via a video connection, the Maze’s maker, the evil corporation WCKD, led by the very wicked Dr. Ava Paige (Patricia Clarkson). She thinks she has the boys cornered and about to be captured, but no!! They escape. Thus ends part 1.

Where they escape to is part 2 of this poorly told, extremely derivative tale: ”The Scorch Trials”. In part 2, returning director Wes Ball will with writer T.S. Nowlin take our intrepid heroes from one “maze” equivalent to another. Little ground and even less in terms of theme or thought was covered in Part 1. In Part 2, Ball and Nowlin will make up for that deficiency in terms of geography, if not in theme. First up is a frantic helicopter flight from the manufacturing grounds last seen in part 1 to a refuge of sorts. Why the flight was so frantic and who the pilots fear as they ferry the gang is far from clear. In any event, the gang of former Gladers runs into a building housing a large group of similarly aged teens – all apparently fellow escapees from other mazes. Oddly, this refuge is managed by the creepy character Petyr from Game of Thrones (Aiden Gillen). In this movie he is known as Janssen, but it seems to be pretty much the same underhanded character that Gillen plays so well in GoT. Thomas smells a rat despite all of his comrades telling him to chill out and enjoy the hot showers and food they now get each day. Thomas’ fears are heightened through his interaction with one of the boys he meets at Janssen’s refuge, Aris (Jacob Lofland). Aris really seems to have issues; nevertheless, Thomas follows him into (where else) the a/c ducts. This allows them to leave their locked dorm room at night while the rest of the Gladers sleep peacefully away. From the ductwork, Aris and Thomas are able to find a room where other escapees are in a trance-like state and are hooked up to various evil-looking tubes. It turns out the Gladers and all the other maze-escapees are immune to the Flare, the disease that has ravaged the Earth. And the evil WCKD Corporation is bleeding the escapees in the room Thomas has found in order to create a serum for those with the disease. Problem is for the escapees, life in a trance hooked up to tubes draining your blood is kind of a bummer.

Now Thomas has had his fears realized. He leads the gang in a new escape; they are on the run, again. This is a pattern repeated several times in “Scorch Trials”: reach a new safe haven; find out it isn’t safe, escape, run to a new “safe” haven, repeat. This time the boys (and Teresa) run through the desert to an abandoned mall. They meet some zombies (called Cranks in this story), actually advanced state victims of the Flare. The Gladers run away from the Cranks only to be captured by a bunch of tough guys. The tough guys hang the Gladers upside down over a pit for no obvious reason that I could discern. The tough guys are led by Jorge (Giancarlo Esposito) and his young ward, Brenda (Rosa Salazar). Kudos are due to the writing team for creating the laconic Jorge and to Esposito for playing him as a weirdly subdued, wild card character. This character is not beholden to WCKD, the zombies, or the official resistance team (the Right Arm) that Thomas is now searching for. Sadly for Jorge, Rosa and the Gladers, (wait for it), the really bad guys, WCKD shows up and the Gladers have to escape again – joining forces with the now contrite Jorge and Rosa. Hmmm… what could happen next? They run away, find The Right Arm, feel safe, and you will never guess it; they have to run away again when WCKD shows up again. Thus ends Part 2.

The endless running and escaping are pointless enough, but they really never seem to get anywhere. Is this some kind of philosophical point or merely bad writing designed to get us solely to Part 3? Perhaps there is deep down a point worth considering in Part 2: there is the implied warning created by the Flare virus; we don’t know where or why the disease came into being, but it safe to assume it is a Frankenstein metaphor to society not to mess with things they really don’t understand. And perhaps there is another theme within the concept of using the young people, the escapees immune to the disease being harvested as if they were cows producing milk for a dairy farmer. There is a kind of warning there to society to take better care of our animals and to certainly not treat other humans as poorly treated livestock. But I fear I may be reading far too much in this simple, poorly written film; maybe the books better illustrate ideas more complicated that running and escaping as the true themes in the Maze stories.

The chief problem with “Scorch Trials” is that it is so derivative of much better Young Adult post-apocalyptic worlds: chief among them parts 1 and 2 of The Hunger Games. There is little reason to watch Scorch Trials other than maybe, just maybe you really like the books and would like to see them illustrated via a film. I fear that even for such fans, they will be disappointed.

Movie Review: "Creed"

Creed (2015)

PG-13

3 Stars out of 5

Director                                Ryan Coogler
Writer                                   Ryan Coogler, Aaron Covington
Cinematography                 Maryse Alberti
Music                                    Ludwig Göransson

Adonis Creed                       Michael B. Jordan
Sylvester Stallone               Rocky Balboa
Tessa Thompson                 Bianca
Phylicia Rashad                   Mary Anne Creed
Tony Bellew                       “Pretty” Ricky Conlon

 

I try to keep an open mind about all movie genres: slasher/teen exploitation, sophomoric comedies, celebrity bio-pics, even sports movies; but I admit, that last category is real trial for me. I readily admit to feeling the adrenalin and the emotional strings a really good one like (say) “Rocky” (1976) or even a moderately good one like “Invictus” (2009) can engender. But the reality is they almost all employ the same plot and the same gimmicks to trigger emotion in the audience. Just like every worthless teenager staffed slasher movie, they are completely predictable. Occasionally, and if the acting and other production values are real good, I’ll watch such movies as “Rocky” or “Creed” (aka Rocky VII), but I go into the movie expecting to be disappointed, and I usually am.

That being said, I was drawn to writer/director Ryan Coogler’s attempt to re-start Sylvester Stallone’s “Rocky” franchise due to all the critical raves for Stallone’s performance as Rocky Balboa. And here let me vent just a little bit more by asking a pointed question: “where does one set the bar for good, Oscar-worthy acting for Hollywood veterans like Stallone?” Was all the talk about Stallone’s performance simply due to his years in Hollywood without critical approval for his acting; was it due to some sentimental memories for his accomplishments as the writer for the original “Rocky”; or was it due to the fact that in all of his previous roles, Stallone was nearly incapable of stringing three sentences together, with or without various guttural sounds that sort of passed for language? I am quite frankly leaning towards the latter-most question; that is, so little is expected from Stallone as an actor that when he turns in a journeyman performance, as he does in “Creed”, everyone gets thoroughly excited. He does do a decent job in “Creed” as an aged, tired, sad and lonely former boxer. It was not an Oscar-worthy performance any more than dozens of similar performances that take place in Hollywood every year and go completely unnoted.

“Creed” tells the tale of an orphaned child of a former Rocky boxing opponent, Apollo Creed. Creed the Elder left behind a woman carrying his child. The child is brought into this world just prior to Creed the Elder’s death in the boxing ring (see Rocky part 4, or thereabouts). The child (Adonis Creed,  played by Michael B. Jordan) born into a world without the wealth and prestige of his famous father grows up angry and often in trouble with the authorities. He is rescued by his step-mother and Apollo’s wife, Mary (Phylicia Rashad). She tries to steer him towards a life outside of the ring, but fails. Grown-up “Baby-Creed” (as one character refers to him) leaves Mary and her wealth for Philadelphia. Adonis wants to track down Rocky and get him to train Adonis (aka Donny) to become the boxer he knows he truly is. Rocky is too tired and says no; but not surprisingly, he relents, though for no clear reason other than to let the movie continue. The ostensible reason Rocky changes his mind is that Rocky sat in a cemetery reading the newspaper to his deceased wife Adrian and trainer, Paulie. Fortunately for the aged Rocky, he does not have to stand to read the paper nor sit on the ground as Rocky has stashed a folding chair in a nearby tree for his presumably frequent visits. Sure.

Writers Coogler and Aaron Covington work hard via their script to create a Philadelphian world of blue-collar camaraderie where Rocky Balbo can’t walk down a street without being called out to by almost every passer-by, where he can store his chair in the cemetery’s tree as if the cemetery is his living room, where he can go to the local jail to bail out Donny when he gets in trouble and do so with the local cops knowing and loving Rocky to the point they give him free run of the jail. These scenes and others all add up to a two hour long homage to Rocky; “Creed” is not a stand-alone, original movie. It is clear from the start that what Coogler and Covington really want to do with their film is to acknowledge the earlier film, Stallone as the writer, and Rocky as a character. There is some technical skill in the script being able to refer back to certain “Rocky” moments in Creed: Rocky’s triumphant run up the stairs of the Philadelphia Museum of Art vs. Adonis’ run through the streets of Philadelphia paced by a group of motorcyclists; the build-up of the cocky young Adonis, only to have him fall and then get back up; Adonis’ strength and speed in the ring buttressed by his dogged determination, and his final “unexpected” good showing in the ring against the world champion “Pretty” Ricky Conlon (actual boxer Tony Bellew). The problem is, it is all just so clichéd.

There are two things about “Creed” that must be actually praised. Number one is Adonis’ girlfriend, Bianca as played by Tessa Thompson. Thompson was last seen in “Dear White People” where her acting was one of the stand-out features of that fine movie. In “Creed” Thompson seems thoroughly genuine as she portrays a young singer slowly going deaf. Is her hearing problem a functional point to the movie; no, though it provides a plot point as she must play her music loudly in her room right below Adonis’. He storms down to ask her to lower the volume and instead, he is completely entranced by her beauty and attitude; and thus this part of the movie arc is off and running. Thompson’s smile is the most believable part of the entire movie. She seems truly happy in her reactions to Adonis/Jordan’s more wooden acting during their one on one scenes. However, Jordan plays the boxing scenes exquisitely and while this at times seems more like superb athleticism than acting, his performance in the ring scenes is an important part of the other major plus for “Creed”: the cinematography/directing. Director Coogler and cinematographer Maryse Alberti employ a steady-cam method of squeezing into various street scenes where Rocky and Adonis are walking; this strongly creates a sensation that the viewer really feels like he is walking the streets of Philadelphia with the two protagonists; that he is part of the camaraderie, too. Even more effective are the scenes shot in the ring during Adonis’ various bouts. Virtually all of these scenes are shot so close to the action, one has to wonder how the actor/athletes are able to perform their roles without banging into the camera. Apparently, they don’t and the end result camera-work is just outstanding.

As sports movies go, “Creed” is fine, one more in an over-crowded field. As homage to “Rocky” it also hits every note just as carefully as the original. As an opportunity for Stallone and Thompson to show what they can do as actors it is a fine vehicle for both. But as an opportunity to explore real people living real lives as portrayed by characters that might be someone you know or can relate to, it failed for me. If you like sports movies, love the original Rocky or just want to see Stallone speak coherently, then this is your movie. If you are looking for something more intelligent, then try the last movie I reviewed: “Brooklyn”.

Movie Review: "Brooklyn"

Brooklyn (2015)

PG-13

5 Stars out of 5

Director                                John Crowley

Writer                                   Nick Hornby (screenplay); Colm Tóibín's (book)

Cinematography                  Yves Belanger

Saoirse Ronan                      Eilis Lacey

Emory Cohen                      Tony Fiorello

Maeve McGrath                  Mary (friend)

Fiona Glascott                     Rose Lacey

Jane Brennan                       Mary Lacey (mother)

Jessica Pare                          Miss Fortini

Jim Broadbent                      Father Flood

Domhnall Gleeson              Jim Farrell

Julie Walters                        Mrs. Kehoe

Brid Brennan                       Miss Kelly

There is a kind of European movie that stands in stark contrast to almost every American movie. This European genre includes good writing, good acting, and themes focused on the human experience. To be sure, there are many American movies with these elements, too. The difference is the manner in which this “genre”, this European film type tells its story (at least in my mind), and this is with kindness. To simplify this special quality into a single word is far too inadequate a way of looking at the point I am trying to make. Perhaps an analogy would work better. Let’s use that staple from Hollywood, the road trip. In most well-made American movies (and we can certainly use Ridley Scott’s “Thelma and Louise”, 1991 to illustrate what I am trying to say) there is the three part sequence to the story: describe the back-story, build some dramatic tension/conflict, and then resolve the tension via some climatic scene. It is the path the American film will inevitably take, that aspect that makes it stand apart from the European film, the American will almost certainly introduce violence. Consider for example, Thelma and Louise’s final wave good-bye as they sail over the cliff, not to mention the gun-play that led them there. Now consider the 2015 Irish-Canadian film “Brooklyn”: a young woman comes to America from Ireland to find her way in life. It is a simple, sensitively told tale. It too has tension, a villain, conflict, and a climax. What it utterly lacks is violence. The story can be related to and enjoyed by anyone, even Americans - even though, not one bullet was fired.

“Brooklyn” begins in 1950’s Ireland with the introduction of a young woman working in a store, Eilis Lacey (Saoirse Ronan). She works with several other young women for an older woman, Miss Kelly (Brid Brennan). We quickly learn Miss Kelly is a very mean-spirited creature and all of her young workers live in fear of her. If there is any lingering doubt in the viewer’s mind as to who is this film’s villain (if it truly has one), Miss Kelly will work hard to help you identify her. Eilis lives with her older sister Rose (Fiona Glascott) and widowed mother, Mary Lacey (Jane Brennan). Rose loves Eilis deeply and wants more for Eilis than their little town of Enniscorthy can provide. Rose will arrange with the help of an Irish priest in America, Father Flood (Jim Broadbent) to get Eilis out of the boy-friendless/Miss Kelly rut, fate has placed her in. Rose’s generosity will be for the films’ first third, a good example of “good deeds reaping a kind of punishment” (to paraphrase the saying somewhat).

Eilis will wave good–bye to her mother and sister from aboard a steamship bound for America and her future. She will gain a new friend and useful advice on the ship, but her seasickness on-board will foreshadow another type of sickness that she will soon experience in America. She will have her physical needs all prepared for her via the thoughtful intervention of Father Flood. Eilis will live with an understanding if somewhat demanding landlady (Mrs. Kehoe; Julie Waters) and with several other young women of Eilis’ age in a boarding house in Brooklyn. She will get a job at an up-scale department store and work for an experienced woman who also will care for Eilis’ emotional and physical needs (Mrs. Fortini – Jessica Pare). But Eilis is not happy. It is not immediately clear if Eilis is having troubles dealing with the culture shock of New York City vis-à-vis Enniscorthy, or if her rambunctious fellow boarders are intimidating her, or if she simply misses and fears she will never see again her sister Rose (tellingly, her sense of loss relative to her mother is somewhat more subdued).

Again with some helpful intervention from those around Eilis, people that care for her and worry about her worsening emotions, she is put into a situation where she meets a young Italian-American, Tony Fiorello (Emory Cohen), Like almost all of her American experiences, Eilis has little to fall back on in terms of understanding Tony; fortunately for Eilis, she doesn’t need any more understanding than simple human kindness. The match is made, it matures, it crosses a threshold, and then the movie’s conflict is brought in: there has been a tragedy back home in Ireland. Eilis feels strong pressures to return home, at least temporarily. The conflict is that now Eilis has a new home, new friends, a boyfriend, the new life for which she left Ireland for America; and back home, she remembers all too well the reasons why she left in the first place. Even though Ireland was her home, there were too many “Miss Kelly’s” and too few “Tony’s”.

Eilis will eventually return to Ireland and to the aftermath of the sad event that drew her back. This time, though, the town will seemingly rise up as one (barring one individual) to apparently try to convince her to remain this time. She will get a new, professional level job that she is particularly good at, she will get a new boyfriend, Jim Farrell (Domhnall Gleeson) who is clearly a good man, she will be reunited with her former best friend, Mary (Maeve McGrath), and she will feel unrelenting pressure from her mother to stay in Ireland. Everything will move into alignment to keep her in Enniscorthy; everything but Eilis’ conscience. Ironically, it will be through the self-righteous involvement of the movie’s villain, Miss Kelly, and her new attempts to hurt someone, that will finally show Eilis the path she must take in life.

I have written the above summary in a pretty obtuse manner by not detailing the tragedy that draws Eilis back to Ireland or the details of Eilis’ mother’s motivations. The details are emotional, compelling and key plot points. Besides these undisclosed aspects of the plot, it is sufficient to say that Eilis makes several decisions in her young life that are largely understandable (even if not all of them are honorable or sensible). Her actions have created the dramatic tension in this movie. She freely made some choices that were hers to make: move to America, fall in love with Tony, return to Ireland, become involved with Jim. These were her choices. Her mother’s attempts to draw Eilis back and to keep her were her choices; they too were understandable, if not all honorable. The meanness and bitterness of Miss Kelly were her choices in life, though in one case, there was something decent that actually came out of her spite – it helped Eilis open her eyes to her situation.

With respect to the movie arc as a whole, the conflict in the movie is real and compelling, it is understandable by anyone. The pain of departure at the Irish port as Eilis bids her sister farewell is there for all in the audience to feel and think about. We all watch the little steps in Eilis’ maturation, we might wonder what each of us would do, and likely we all want the best for her as she moves through life; a simple story, beautifully told. “Brooklyn” is most notably told by Saorise Ronan’s remarkable skill of portraying Eilis.  Director John Crowley brings the camera close in on Ronan’s face, often framed by some significant scene in the background. The background will help to convey the time or mood at some point in the movie, but in fact, it will be Ronan’s lovely, expressive eyes and mouth that will be the true conveyors of mood. The direction, camera work and writing are all significantly good in “Brooklyn”, but it is on Ronan’s vulnerable shoulders that this movie truly rests.

Writer Nick Hornby has decided to use a kind of symmetry in his story telling. Such symmetry creates a point of view about life in general. On Eilis’s trip across the Atlantic, she is befriended by a travel-experienced Irishwoman. Eilis will have her own opportunity to help someone in a similar manner. Tony will pick up Eilis from night-school each evening, even though he must leave work to do so – it is sweet, and it helps illustrate his love and devotion to Eilis. But there will come a time in the movie when Eilis picks him up from work (the camera view of her waiting is framed by the Brooklyn Bridge) – both the framing and her actions work together to support the idea of her devotion to Tony and to Brooklyn. These examples of life repeating itself for Eilis all have her as the one taking the action previously done by others on her behalf. It will help establish her growth, but it also helps to make the bigger point that life, simple and beautiful can come around in each person’s life and can do so in a manner that is at the very least dramatic to the individual. And quite frankly, can be thought to be dramatic to any one as an example of how life is truly lived: people love and care for one another or maybe (as with the Miss Kelly’s of the world) don’t; but all of this goes on without car chases, shoot-outs or false examples of human drama.

This movie is a treat for your heart and your mind. There was one flaw: I found the character of Tony’s little brother way too Hollywood stereotypical of the precocious (but sweet) young brother. This character seems to me to be a rare example of poor writing in this movie (the actor was fine and largely stole each of his scenes). However, that poor character choice aside, this movie is a gem and easily earned its various Oscar nominations (Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay) – it is the unusual example of where I am in complete agreement with the academy on all choices.

Movie Review: "The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2"

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 2 (2015)

PG-13

2.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Francis Lawrence
Writer                                   Peter Craig and Danny Strong (Screenplay); Suzanne Collins (novel)

Jennifer Lawrence              Katniss Everdeen
Josh Hutcherson                 Peeta Mellark
Liam Helmsworth               Gale Hawthorne
Woody Harrelson               Haymitch Abnerathy
Donald Sutherland             President Snow
Philip Seymour Hoffman   Plurtach Heavensbee
Julianne Moore                   President Alma Coin
Elizabeth Banks                   Effie Trinket

 

How does one judge a Young Adult (YA) movie these days? So many of them have decided to go the post-apocalyptic route (e.g. Divergent, Maze Runner), or at least the ones adapted to the big screen, have done so. Should you compare them to earlier versions of the series from which they spring; perhaps to the book that inspired the movie; or perhaps to a comic book movie? One certainly should not use the standards used in evaluating a thoughtful movie from the same year (e.g. “Spotlight”); well maybe then to an action movie from the same year (e.g. “Mad Max: Fury Road”); no that seems unfair, too. Okay, then let’s compare it to the movies from earlier in the Hunger Games Series; e.g. Mockingjay, Part 1 and to the original book trilogy.

Suzanne Collins created in the original series of books a good build up to her climatic confrontation between evil President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and Collins’ heroine, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence). Both the movie and book series depict a post-apocalyptic world where the remnants of the United States haven broken into 13 districts and a Capitol City to comprise Panem. Each district seems to represent certain parts of the old US: southern agrarian, Rocky Mountain mining/military headquarters, etc. One big difference from the US and its states is that the people of the districts are treated like second class citizens relative to the decadent Capitol City residents: they suffer under the lash of the police, get too little to eat, and must send each year to the Hunger Games two adolescent tributes. Having fought her way to success as one of these tributes in the previous two books and three movies, Katniss has acquired the aura of “Hero of the Revolution”; for indeed, the districts are for the most part in rebellion by the end of the series. The clever thing about this series (which has become something of a benchmark for contemporary YA authors) is that it is hard to impossible to tell the difference in the morality (as displayed by their orders to their military forces) of President Snow and the leader of the rebel force, Alma Coin (Julianne Moore).

The first three movies got Katniss into the position of being the de facto leader of the rebellion, even as Coin is the actual leader. Coin will use Katniss in a variety of tasks designed to take advantage of her star power in a series of propaganda movies made to inspire the rebels. However, Katniss soon learns that Coin has other plans for her as well. These plans will ensure that Katniss will not survive the coming final battle with Snow. It won’t surprise the reader or viewer that Katniss does survive, of course. She does it in part by winning over through her courage and integrity some of those set to destroy her. These are good lessons for teenagers, I agree, but a little too idealistic for the real world; or as we shall see, even for Panem. Nevertheless, Katniss reaches Capitol City and witnesses a scene of startling inhumanity. This atrocity was so well described in the books, that it might bring you to tears (as it did me). It is a scene filled with a specific loss to Katniss, a general loss to many of the citizens of Capitol City, and as an example to the viewer of just how amorally cruel some leaders can be as they strive to keep (or gain) power. It is a powerful scene – perhaps the best in the book. It was unfortunately far less effective in the movie.

And that is also unfortunately, the problem with “Mockingjay, Part 2”. Peter Collins and Rodney Strong as the screenplay writers along with director Francis Lawrence have simply failed to show cinematically the conflict of emotions running through Katniss as the truth of her situation slowly begins to dawn upon her; it frankly even fails to convey one tenth the pathos of the scene of mass murder referred to above. There is emotion and feeling throughout the books, and to some extent the first two movies in the Hunger Games series, but it is almost wholly absent in this final installment. This movie is little more than several action scenes in the last half of the movie following a slow, grim build-up in the first half.

“Mockingjay Part 2” even lacks to the extent displayed in the previous three movies the art as shown in the costume design, make-up and set design. Much of this might be excused due to the exigencies of “Part 2’s” story line being primarily one of guerilla-like warfare, but in effect it leaves the movie looking and feeling very drab. There are scenes where Katniss acts out her downtrodden state and her disconsolate mood in the same drab manner; in many ways, her mood seems an unintended metaphor for the theme of the first half of the movie. This series though has had previously a good narrative flow that features action scenes of Katniss overcoming her enemies. “Part 2” does this too in one extended sequence in the sewer system of Capitol City where Katniss and her allies are pursued by exceptionally fast and fierce mutant lizard-dogs (I guess they were dogs once, or maybe lizards). This scene has more going for it than just its effects on the viewer in terms of action. Katniss and her allies are chased so viciously and so relentlessly, they hardly know where to turn to save themselves. There is a sense of paranoia created by the mutants’ determined ferocity that is almost overwhelming to Katniss and company. It is one of the few times in the movie where the characters emotions are laid bare to be felt by the film’s audience.

The movie is filled with first rate actors: Lawrence, Moore, Sutherland as previously noted, but also Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee (Games Master); Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket (make-up consultant); Stanley Tucci as Ceasar Flickerman (over the top TV host); and Jeffery Wright as Beetee (electronics genius ally of Katniss). However, with the exception of Snow/Sutherland and Katniss/Lawrence each of these roles are fairly minor in terms of screen time in “Part 2”. Banks and Tucci had their moments in earlier movies and quite frankly brought some needed comedy to the series. The role of Beetee was an intriguing one in the books, but largely under-used in terms of character development in all the movies. Even the marvelous Julianne Moore cannot do much more than look sinister as she prepares to replace President Snow – there is far too little to her character in the movies to properly develop the storyline of her deceitful behavior; even her come-uppance when it comes, flies by so fast that there is little impact, let alone emotional release.

Lawrence as she always does makes her character one that can be believed; she really seems to be living in a world filled with internal conflict: who is the real villain, Snow or Coin, or both; who does she really love, long- time boyfriend/rebel army hero Gale (Liam Helmsworth), or the former bakers’ boy, the now broken Peeta (Josh Hucherson). Again, much of her conflict is better explored in the books as the reader is better able to experience her emotions. In the movie, in the manner in which it is written, her feelings are harder to determine in all the gun-play, running, and noise of the various action set pieces. Lawrence to her credit makes much of her emotions open to the viewer to see, if not feel.

Even better in terms of acting and perhaps it is because his character is so obviously evil and knowing, is Sutherland’s performance as Snow. He has continually played the manipulative liar in the earlier editions of this series; so much so, that Katniss hardly knows what to believe when the movie’s final awful scenes of death and destruction as the Capitol is over-run are fully explained to her by Snow. Katniss will make a decision regarding Snow’s explanation. But it is one of the movie’s few examples of cleverness that at this late point in the story, Katniss is so confused, she no longer is certain that she knows what is true and what is not. Sutherland’s scene where he explains reality to Katniss and the later one as he ruefully laughs at Katniss’ final arrow shot were for me the actual dramatic highlights of the cinematic version of “Mockingjay, Part 2”.

Weirdly or perhaps quite in character for this poor written movie, the film ends on a very different emotional note (as did the book). If the purpose of the series was to reach the dramatic point in the tale where Katniss can hardly tell up from down, or must sadly conclude that in the world she lives in, they are all doomed to have one bad leader after another, then the movie’s and series’ ending scenes with a happy and presumably politically disconnected Katniss is a very odd final lesson to the series’ young readers/viewers. Maybe it is a mistake to look for intelligent writing in Hollywood versions of YA fiction. It is just that the Hunger Games writers and directors managed to set the bar quite bit higher in the first two movies than where “Part 1” and “Part 2” reached.

There is simply too little to praise about P"art 2"; it is in effect a disappointing conclusion to a series that started so well in the first two movies of the Hunger Games series. I am tempted to call attention to the fact that Part 3 in the books was (as is now the routine for a Hollywood all too often only interested in ROI) broken into two movies. Did the screenplay writers have too little to work with in order to make two movies out of one, or did they think that they could jettison character development, tone and theme for action scenes as they sought to entertain their presumed adolescent market? Whatever the root cause for the failure of Part 2, it is there for anyone who wishes to do so, to ponder. I recommend skipping it.

Book Review: "Franklin and Winston - An Intimate Protrait of an Epic Friendship" by Jon Meacham

Franklin and Winston: A Portrait of a Friendship (2003)

4 Stars out of 5

Jon Meacham

490 pages

Having recently read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s fine book on Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt (“No Ordinary Time: Franklin and EleanorRoosevelt, The Home Front in WWII”, 1995) I was captivated with her description of the closeness in the relationship between the US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. It was thus with some enthusiasm that I sought out and read Jon Meacham’s book on that very subject, “Franklin and Winston: “A Portrait of a Friendship” (2003). This was Meacham’s first book as an author, though his second actual published book (the first was as an editor). It is a remarkably clear and concise book written with apparent conviction in the character of the two men being profiled. Two men that most definitely stand up to Meacham’s comment: “…it does matter who is in power at critical points.”

FDR’s first meeting with Winston did not bode at all well for their future relationship: Winston had no memory of it, while FDR did not like what he saw in Winston’s brusque manner. It was at a party held in London, 1918. At the time, Winston was the former 1^st Lord of the Admiralty, while FDR was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Even though they didn’t know it at the time, they had much in common: not just positions within each country’s navy, but as one might guess considering their occupations, great fascination in naval strategy and how it could be used in the defense of their countries; coupled with this was a similar thirst in both men for political power. They were also close to the same age (Winston was 43, FDR was 36), loved strong drink, tobacco, and both were filled to the brim with self-confidence and courage – twenty years later they would have ample opportunity to display these characteristics.

They renewed their stalled relationship in the autumn of 1939 when FDR wrote Winston to congratulate him on his re-appointment to the Admiralty. Winston had re-joined the Navy under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. This PM with his doomed strategy of trying to negotiate a lasting peace with Adolph Hitler did not care for Winston Churchill.  The problem Chamberlain had with Churchill was Churchill’s public enthusiasm for using the military to solve international disputes. Nevertheless, Chamberlain was clear-headed enough to see by September of that year that the English people needed a warrior, not a negotiator. Winston would shortly thereafter become PM and replace Chamberlain in May 1940.  Early in this period as PM, as the situation in Europe deteriorated further with the Nazis taking one country after another, Winston would devise a simple maxim: the only sure path to victory required getting the Americans into the war. He decided the needed tactic was to “woo” the American people with him and England as the suitor, and the Americans and FDR as the reluctant maiden.

Winston’s decision and actions taken in the “wooing” of FDR seemed in the context of Meacham’s book to often set Winston into a position of inferiority in the relationship between the two men. In some circumstances their relationship was as between two close families: they would spend 131 days together between 1939 and FDR’s death in the spring of 1945; but like families everywhere, they would have some very bad times as well. Their meetings together in the US would be amongst their closest as they spent various Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays celebrating simply (almost simply) as two close friends. I note it was “almost simply” as these gatherings were never just about the holidays: they were always meeting to formulate the needed plans to defeat Hitler.

Winston brought to these discussions a personal major lesson from history: the English defeat at Gallipoli in WWI. He had had a big role in the planning of that disastrous affair for the British and to a great degree it played in the back of his mind each time FDR, (Soviet Premier) Stalin and Winston discussed the long delayed invasion of France by the Allies. Stalin was fighting a brutal war with Hitler and pressed constantly for his two capitalist comrades to invade France in order to force Hitler to transfer some of his eastern troops to the western front and thus reduce the pressure on the Red Army. Winston fearing a repeat of the debacle at Gallipoli never seemed convinced that the Allies were truly ready to storm the beaches of France; he pushed first for a North African and then an Italian campaign. Despite the sympathetic manner in which Meacham presents these discussions, it frankly seems as if Winston was stalling; it certainly seemed so to Stalin. FDR in the meanwhile backed Winston on each of the two campaigns that came before Normandy, but his position in backing Winston never seemed fully whole hearted to Winston. Meacham on the other hand notes that it almost certainly was the right decision to delay the invasion to help up Allied forces in terms of materiel and troop experience. That being said, it still seemed as if the special two-way relationship between FDR and Winston was breaking down to some extent. It most definitely never became a solid three-way relationship with Stalin as an equal emotional partner. The special nature of the two-way bond changed in order to let Stalin into the relationship, and this fundamental change was overtly bothersome to Winston; meanwhile, FDR seemed oblivious to these effects.

This situation started to seriously deteriorate during the conference in Tehran in 1943 and then worsen still more in Yalta in late early 1945. The Tehran conference is especially instructive. During this meeting, FDR decided he wanted a one on one with Stalin. His reasons are far from clear, but Meacham notes that like Winston he may have felt he could gain control of any situation if he could only form a relationship with the person with whom he was negotiating; and it would appear that Winston’s strong personality and similar desire to control the conversation was disruptive to FDR’s technique. In any event, FDR’s attempts to speak to Stalin alone while not completely hidden from Winston were still done without Winston’s full consent. It left Winston deeply hurt. This situation was badly exacerbated during at least one dinner conversation where FDR was bantering with Stalin and doing so at Winston’s expense. It worked (for FDR) to the extent that Stalin ultimately would erupt in laughter, but failed to some degree as Winston would leave the table deeply chagrined; likely feeling betrayed. The irony of this whole episode is that the take-away from these exchanges between the three was that both Winston and FDR felt they understood and could control Stalin – Eastern European history has shown that nothing could have been further from the truth.

Late in 1943, their relationship would recover from the emotional depths of Tehran as both the Churchill and Roosevelt clans would meet again without Stalin, this time in Quebec during the holidays. During these festivities new highs and lows would occur. Their relationship would regain its feet and both would feel that this period was one of the happiest of their lives. The lows (for Winston at least) would occur when he tried once again to delay the pending May invasion at Normandy (it was ultimately deferred to 5Jun, and then again to 6Jun due to weather). Winston would fail in his quixotic quest, and would again in July when he would try to divert some of the forces in France to another fight the British were waging in the Mediterranean. Winston was endlessly convinced of the wrongness in FDR’s comment that the “shortest route to Berlin was a straight line” (from Normandy); it seems almost like a monomania. He just never truly gave up on the idea of not going through France.

Poor Winston was to have one more rough meeting with Stalin and FDR; this one in Yalta in early 1945. The meeting could not have had more importance: the shape of the new world order following WWII. In Yalta as in Tehran, FDR would seek out private meetings with Stalin. The difference this time is that there may have been more to his reasons than a tactical sense he could out-maneuver Stalin better singly than with Winston present. This time there was publically stated evidence from multiple occasions of FDR’s growing impatience with Winston’s verbosity. FDR would in the presence of his own staff (and at least one occasion with a lieutenant from Winston’s staff) make cutting remarks about Winston’s long speeches and his continued opposition to the Normandy invasion plan. While these comments were generally about how wordy Winston could get, there was also evidence of a divide between the two men that was defined by how each viewed Stalin. It is certain that both saw the threat (Winston perhaps more clearly than FDR), but being the type of man that each of them were, they possibly also felt they each saw it the more clearly. However, Meacham adds a second idea: that due to his rapidly failing health, FDR was no longer physically the man that he once was; and with this thought, came an increasing personal sense that he had to win every argument to prove that he was still on top of his game. Whatever the reason, the once robust friendship between the two men was suffering as the war drew to a close.

In the two examples of the Tehran and Yalta conferences, Meacham amply demonstrates his strength as a writer of historical narratives. Via his research coupled with his astute analysis of FDR and Winston’s decisions and their consequences, the reader gets a very clear idea of not just what took place but also gets a fairly good sense of the thoughts and passions that ran through the primary actors in these stories. For example, Meacham’s descriptions of the emotional Winston (“perfectly content to cry in public”) and the publically cold FDR (Truman: “the coldest man I ever met”) leads the reader to wonder at how with these personality differences they could become allies, let alone such close friends. Meacham notes that Winston as the son of an Englishman and an American woman may have brought something unique to the situation in terms of personal history; that he clearly had an emotional tie to the American people that was tighter than most English politicians; and being the strategist that he was, he could see the distinct advantage in cultivating a close relationship to FDR as the leader of the American people. But for me, it still begs the question, was there something else that brought these two men so close? Had WWII not intervened, would they have become friends at all? It is to me a little frustrating that Meacham does not really ask this question, or the follow-up question: do great men arise in time of need, or do the events shape men into great men?

The origin of Great Men/Great Leaders is a subject really worth discussing further and one I think about a lot. Examples of such men can readily be found by reading about certain American presidents (Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR in particular).  While it is certainly true that learning about such Great Men of American history in the context of their individual times of war may leave one awed at what each of these men did in terms of preparing our country for war and in prosecuting the war, it always for me leads to the real question: where do such men come from? And in the case of Winston and FDR, did their close (and productive) friendship also arise as a result from the same forces (i.e. the demands of WWII)? These may well be a kind of question that does not have a solid, generally true answer. In the case of FDR and Winston Churchill though, there can be no question of their individual greatness, the value of their partnership during WWII, and the world’s considerable benefit derived from that relationship.

“Franklin and Winston: A Portrait of a Friendship” is an excellent companion piece to the aforementioned Goodwin book on the Roosevelts during WWII. While she does an excellent job of digging deep into how people’s personalities can play critical roles in world events, Meacham’s book and style brings needed content and analysis. Meacham’s utilization of heretofore un-accessed letters from Pamela Churchill Randolph (married to Winston’s son during WWII) and interviews with many of those still living that observed the interaction between Winston and FDR bring useful insight and authenticity to the subject material. More critically though, Meacham brings his careful eye to both the events and the two principals’ histories and behavior (e.g. one of my favorite bon mots: “Governing was what Churchills and Roosevelts did”). These two men may well have “loved to hear their own voices”, and their relationship may have had its low points, but their separate insistence of being involved in all strategic decisions during the war, and their use of a strong hand in running the military would be essential elements in their ultimate success. Such a team combination of skills, attitudes and training would combine in these two men to bring out their greatness in leading their countries over the fascists of WWII.

This is a book worth reading in order to better understand the events of WWII and also to gain some insight into the minds of two men that helped shaped the course of the 20^th century.

Movie Review: "Grandma"

Grandma (2015)

R

4 Stars out of 5

Director                                Paul Weitz
Writer                                   Paul Weitz

Lily Tomlin                           Elle Reid, grandma
Julia Garner                         Sage, granddaughter
Marcia Gay Hardin             Judy, mother
Judy Greer                           Olivia, girlfriend
Sam Elliott                           Karl, former husband

 

The Bechdel test first appeared in a comic strip in 1985. It is a simple test that is failed about half the time by modern American movies: the test states that in a work of fiction, two women must speak to one another about something other than a man. To say that “Grandma” passes this test is somewhat demeaning to the movie and the test, but also both relevant and true. It’s demeaning to some extent as it seems to imply that the movie is narrow in scope (at least from a male’s perspective); it is certainly true about the movie, there are but two males in “Grandma” and while important in their individual ways, they really are not the point. No, the point of this movie and the reason the Bechdel test is a relevant point to be made about the movie is that the titular subject of the movie, Grandma (Lilly Tomlin) is a kind of foil to introduce a wide range of subjects: family relations, lifestyles from the 60’s, sexual orientation, abortion, and really the main point: the choices we make and their consequences.

Elle Reid is a somewhat successful poet and part-time academic nearing the end of her career. As the movie opens, she is breaking off an intimate relationship with one of her young admirers, Olivia (Judy Greer). Tomlin makes it perfectly clear during this scene that she is a woman that says what she wants to say, but equally clear that she is not saying everything that she feels about Olivia. That she says she does not mind the break-up is abundantly clear in the harsh words and apparent disinterest she feels for Olivia’s feelings; that it is all an act is made quietly clear when she later sobs alone in the shower. Following her shower, she mourns alone in her living room; she is dressed in her professorial robes and staring at mementos from her long relationship with her previous partner, Violet. Evidence of Violet’s absence will be felt by Elle and her progeny throughout the movie. As she sits there musing, her granddaughter, Sage knocks at the door.

Sage is in trouble. She’s eighteen and pregnant with the child of her boyfriend. That he is immature and useless will soon be made clear. Sage’s immediate problem and the reason she came to her grandma is that she needs $650 to cover the cost of an abortion. The next problem is, Elle doesn’t have the money and she has cut up her credit cards to make a mobile for her porch. Thus ensues a kind of road trip wherein Elle and Sage get to know one another. Their road trip will take them in Lily Tomlin’s own 1955 Dodge. This car stood out for me as an anomaly in an otherwise very well written film to this point. It seemed far too cutesy: see the cranky old woman and her equally cranky old car. That the car’s crankiness would be significant in a couple of minor plot points only irritated me the more. (However, I learned later it was Tomlin’s car; so, maybe it is just writer/director Paul Weitz’ personal nod to his star.) Elle would soon learn what a loser Sage’s boyfriend is as they first approach him for money. The exchange between Elle and the boyfriend (I shall leave him nameless as my own nod to his vacuous nature) will serve to again highlight Elle’s aggressive, take no prisoners attitude. More to the point it will illustrate vividly during the face to face exchange in and in a following conversation that while the male plays a role in the situation, the heaviest burden obviously falls upon the female.

After a couple of inconsequential visits to others seeking money and not getting it, the film takes an unexpected but very satisfying left turn. Elle has made a surreptitious call to her former husband, Karl (Sam Elliott). Both the call and the existence of her grandmother’s relationship to Karl were unknown to Sage. She like her mother had grown up in the warm embrace of Violet and the shadow of Elle’s temperament; that there was a man/sperm donor in Elle’s history was presumed due to Sage’s mother’s birth, but who he was, was unknown to all but Elle. It turns out not to be Karl. Karl is a wonderful protagonist to Elle as the antagonist; and is delightfully played by Elliott. The movie’s best moments come with the scenes involving Elle and Karl. We learn that Elle’s harshness and self-centered approach to life began long ago and left a lasting mark on Karl. She chose to leave him and to so without a good-bye let alone an explanation or apology. Elle further hurt Karl by making a unilateral decision to abort a baby she carried from her relationship with Karl. Sure, as with Sage, Elle had the greater burden to bear than the father, but unlike Sage who sought her boyfriend’s input and help (and failed to get it), Elle left Karl out of the decision or even the awareness of a baby. Such choices by Elle were hard and they too carried a burden; this one borne by mother and father alike.

Karl will refuse to help once he learns the purpose of the money Elle seeks from him. Elle and Sage will now (somewhat predictably) be forced to go to Sage’s high-powered businesswoman/mother, Judy (Marcia Gay Hardin). Hardin will like Tomlin perform her role at an outstanding level. Judy is in CHARGE of her life and she thought of Sage’s. Her reaction of anger and frustration over Sage’s pregnancy seem more rooted in the fact that Sage was not in Judy’s control after (she states on several occasions) that she, Judy, had straightened Sage out. This complete lack of self-awareness stands so beautifully in contrast to her sense of empowerment; it is a remarkably clear portrayal and well written character.

A part of the intrinsic Woman-centered theme in this movie was revealed just prior to the meeting with Judy as Elle explains that the man, the “father” in the procreation that led to Judy was just some passing flame of Elle’s following her abandonment from Karl. She discusses the similar nature of Sage’s origins when it is revealed that artificial insemination from an unknown donor led to Sage. This may have met Judy’s need for a relation-free pregnancy, but failed Sage’s need for a father, or even any knowledge of who that donor “father” was. Again, these stories of absentee father figures align with the movie’s central theme of choices by one person leading to consequences for another.

“Grandma” seems at first glance and throughout the early stages of the movie to be merely a three generation story of three women getting to know each other better. It seems to be under-laid with the sub-text of abortion and is spiced up with some pretty salty humor and crankiness from the aged, still living in the 60’s Elle. But it is in fact more. Here is a short movie made on a thin budget that manages to explore several areas that all have in common one central theme: one may be free to make choices that meet your immediate needs, but all too often those around who must suffer the consequences. For example, Sage has no father and clearly would have liked to know one; Judy also had no father and may or may not have been positively affected by a strong paternal influence such as Karl; Olivia might have wanted to stay and love Elle despite the late reveal that Elle wanted her to seek out someone of her own generation. These choices made by Elle or any of the others in this film might well be appropriate decisions for the times and for the person making the choice, and had some two way communication between some of the others affected by those choices been effected, then all of these choices might have had happier outcomes.

These may not be deep thoughts, they may not be hard for anyone to puzzle out, and yet how often does just about anyone in daily life act the same? “Grandma” is a short movie, and its central themes are easily understood, but you put them together with the great acting of Tomlin, Elliott and Hardin, and the direction of Paul Weitz, and you get a very nice movie in the end. It is your choice to watch or not watch this movie: I recommend, watch it.

Movie Review: "Legend"

Legend (2015)

R

1.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Brian Helgeland
Writer                                   Brian Helgeland (screenplay), John Pearson (book)

Tom Hardy                           Reggie Kray/Ron Kray
Emily Browning                   Frances Shea
Colin Morgan                      Frank Shea
Paul Anderson                    Albert Donoghue
Christopher Eccleston       Leonard “Nipper” Read
David Thewlis                      Leslie Payne

 

Is there anywhere an actor that uses fewer words with more than one syllable than Tom Hardy; or for that matter uses more words that sound like little more than grunts? Perhaps it is his choice of recent movie roles: Bane in “The Dark Knight Rises”, Max Rockatansky in “Mad Max: Fury Road”, and now the Kray twins in “Legend” (the first movie was in 2013, the latter two in 2015). One even wonders if his grunting in these three features played a role in getting him the role of the belligerent John Fitzgerald in his Oscar nominated performance in “Revenant” (2015). Hardy can talk, he proved it in his earlier roles: as the English spy Ricki Tarr in “Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy” (2011), or even more appropriately as Eames in “Inception” (2010) – a role where he played someone known for his sarcastic tongue. Somehow though around 2012 when Hardy appeared in “Lawless” and started taking on roles as various tough guys, he dumbed down his vocabulary and comprehensibility so much, close captioning is almost always a requirement. It is really no surprise then in “Legend” when he chose to play both roles of the violent mobster twins, Reggie and Ron Shea. It is an even smaller surprise with respect to the manner in which he plays the psychotic twin, Ron – grunts and grimaces galore. No, the big surprise is when he channels his earlier roles to play someone who actually talks, appears fairly intelligent and actually tries to win a woman based on his personality; the “normal” twin, Reggie.

In London during the 50’s the Kray twins were building a reputation as gangsters. However, Reggie wanted to branch out and become a club owner, albeit a club owner that employed threats and intimidation to get his way. The twins differ physically only in the use of a set of horn rim glasses used by Ron, but in terms of deportment, there were enormous differences. Reggie was not just the more sophisticated in demeanor and appearance; he was also quite functional in society. Ron on the other hand was so disturbed and delusional; he was placed in a psychiatric facility for the criminally insane. His release via the use of third party threats initiated by the nominally sane twin, Reggie is a great introduction to the twins and their methods. It was also an opportunity to see that while Reggie could function in society far better than Ron, he was at heart also quite capable, in fact, seemed to prefer to use violence to obtain his goals.

Following the release of Ron, Reggie decided to move forward in his pursuit of a club. Sadly the owner did not want to sell; well sadly for him, Reggie really wanted that club. A little physical intimidation and voila, Ron and Reggie are now club owners. Oddly, the club becomes quite a success as Reggie runs with the marketing concept that the “swells” want to associate with the criminal element in some kind of thrill/clubbing experience. At about this time, Reggie also meets the woman he will marry, Francis Shea (Emily Browning). She is the brother of Reggie’s driver Frank Shea (Colin Morgan). These early scenes were largely predictable enough in their direction and outcome, but were surprising in the sense that Tom Hardy in the form of Reggie Kray actually appears to be somewhat human and verbal as he pursues Francis. She is unfortunately enough both for the movie and for poor Ms. Browning’s efforts a weakly defined character. She loves Reggie, she tries to change him from a life of crime, she fails and turns to drink, and she has an unhappy outcome. The simplistic nature of her scenes is one of the worst written aspects in the movie, and possibly the reason the movie is a failure – not due to Ms Browning, solely due to the writing.

Francis is little more than the mob moll archetype, but even that is really not the chief problem with her character. She also acts as the film’s narrator. The use of an over-voiced narrator is often a sign of troubles in the writing department, and it most certainly is in this movie. Her seemingly God-like knowledge of the actions and motivations of the Kray problems, her ridiculous portentous statements (“It was time for the Krays to enter the secret history of the 1960’s” and others) are enough to cause the average movie goer to cringe. When her big reveal comes near the end of the movie, the explanation of her omniscience completely obscures the actual tragedy of the situation. This then is the movie’s core thematic problem: there is no grasp whatever of normal human emotion. We see the Krays (crazy one and not so crazy one) portrayed as people that solve all problems with their fists, and bats, and guns, and whatever implement of mayhem is at hand. This animalistic worldview is bad enough on its own, but its effects on the movie are worse as it seems to influence writer/director Brian Helgeland into coloring and distorting the entire movie in a patina of gratuitous violence; every real human situation that might otherwise be explored, isn’t. Francis is just a stick figure accessory to Ron, not a character as a human being that can be related to any better than the monstrous twins.

Even the twins are ridiculous in their actions with one another, let alone the outside world. The best example of this is the scene that follows Reggie’s incarceration. Not long after obtaining the club, Reggie had to leave the now popular venue to go into prison for a short spell. Under crazy Ron’s tutelage, the club begins to fail. When Reggie returns, a violent confrontation between the two brothers over the club’s mismanagement by Ron (and in front of what few guests remain) takes place. They beat each other senseless, by the fight’s end they can hardly stand, but (ahh…) they still love each other, and the problem is solved. Really, in what world do such scenes take place; in Martin Scorcese’s world of cinematic mobster behavior? This may be Helgeland’s muse, but if so, he is focusing on the surface and failing to see beneath it. Scorcese’s characters are violent to be sure, but as bad as they are, the average viewer can live in the various characters’  persona for the duration of the movie and come away from it with a sense of understanding about each character, flawed human or not. This is so not true in “Legend”, it could easily be classed with the endless rain of comic book movies coming from Hollywood these days – or maybe not, many of them have a better grasp on human feelings and behavior than the characters in “Legend”. There is plenty of violence in “Legend” but it is solely a superficial examination of the world in which that violence dominates .

There is virtually no reason to see “Legend” that I can think of. If you like Tom Hardy in his earlier years as an actor and you would like to see him utter poly-syllabic words once again, then you might, maybe like the parts of this movie where he woos Francis; then again maybe not.

Movie Review: "Black Mass"

Black Mass (2014)

R

4 Stars out of 5

Director                                Scott Cooper
Writer                                   Mark Mallouk and Jez Butterworth (screenplay)
                                               Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill (book)

Johnny Depp                       James “Whitey” Bulger 
Joel Edgerton                      John Connolly, FBI
Benedict Cumberbatch     Billy Bulger
Kevin Bacon                        Charles McGuire, FBI
Dakota Johnson                  Lindsey Cyr
David Harbour                    John Morris, FBI
Julianne Nicholson            Marianne Connolly
Corey Stoll                          Fred Wyshak, U.S. Attorney

 

It is so nice to see Johnny Depp play a real person again, and to play the character so well that it is his performance that is the primary reason to see the movie in which he plays that character, James “Whitey” Bulger. This is the second time Depp has had an outing as a gangster; the last time was in 2009’s “Public Enemies” where he played John Dillinger. In each movie, he disappears into the role, not a trace of Depp is to be seen. This is in stark contrast to his “comic” portrayals as the fey Captain Jack Sparrow; a role that was amusing in the first version of the series, but quickly degenerated into little more than a cash machine for Depp and Disney. Depp had a distinguished career in the 90’s but once the new millennium began and with the exception of his two gangster movies and 2007’s “Sweeny Todd…” there is precious little to praise about his roles or performances. This time in “Black Mass” he has redeemed himself and given substantial heft to the movie’s overall effect on the viewer.

In 1975 rising FBI star John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) returns to his South Boston hometown in order to bring down the regional Italian mob locally led by the Angiulo Brothers. Connolly goes to great lengths to convince his highly skeptical boss, Charles McGuire (Kevin Bacon) and contemporary, John Morris (David Harbour) that he, Connolly can get Whitey Bulger to act as an informant to the FBI and thus bring the Angiulos to justice. Meanwhile, the film depicts Whitey as a part-time father and husband to Linda Cyr (Dakota Johnson) and their young son. Bulger’s real life is that of a small time mobster, one who is losing ground to the far more successful Italian mobsters, the Angiulos. Whitey’s politician brother, Billy (Benedict Cumberbatch) sets up a meeting between the former childhood friends Connolly and Whitey where Connolly presents his plan to Whitey. Whitey initially refuses in typical gangster fashion, but as the Angiulos increase their pressure on him, he eventually changes his mind.

The movie then begins a multi-year examination of the manipulation by Whitey over Connolly, not the intended contrary. Connolly infatuated with his “success” via the Whitey Bulger connection gains prestige within the FBI but slowly and sickeningly in fact becomes one of Whitey’s pawns. Connolly starts to dress in a more flashy style, ignores the worried advice of his wife, Marianne (Julianne Nicholson), and even drags fellow FBI agent, John Morris into Whitey’s web. Connolly’s subornation by Whitey goes so far that not only does Connolly dismiss information linking Whitey to the murder of two competitors, but he also feeds Whitey information regarding a betrayal of Whitey by one of his own men; that man losing his life in the process at Whitey’s hands. The height of irony is revealed later in the movie when it is shown that almost all of the “intel” supplied by Whitey to Connolly was information already supplied to the FBI by other informants. Thus, the only real “intel” being exchanged was from Connolly to Whitey, and not the other way around.

The story is an excellent one beyond the powers of Depp to become Bulger. We see with increasing dismay as the once moral and capable Connolly ignores the worries and concerns of his non-South Boston wife and the continued reluctance of his boss McGuire, and is instead slowly seduced by the power of Whitey’s personality. He tells his wife and co-workers because of their shared childhood history he knows Whitey and trusts him. And he continues to trusts him even as more and more evidence of Whitey’s criminal brutality slowly comes to light. A good but flawed man is taken down the road of corruption. Equally insightful is the portrayal of Whitey’s brother, Billy by Cumberbatch. Billy a very successful and influential Boston politician would like so many that knew the true nature of Whitey, greatly prefer to merely turn his gaze away from what he did not want to see. Billy was in many cases as much an enabler of Whitey’s crimes as the confused Connolly. Connolly’s wife Marianne could see the truth about Whitey; she would in time leave Connolly in an emotional stew of fear and frustration over Connolly’s behavior. Whitey’s common law wife, Lindsey would also clearly see the truth. But she like Billy would turn away her gaze. She would eventually leave as well, but only after the death of their son left her with nothing. When it was convenient to avoid the truth as both Connolly and Billy did, Lindsey would ride the gravy train just as surely as Connolly. The lack of any moral compunction is rampant in the people surrounding Whitey Bulger.

This rosy set-up for Whitey comes to a crashing halt when a new US attorney comes to Boston, Fred Wyshak (Corey Stoll). This one comes with a backbone. Here is a man that would not be coerced, diverted or controlled. He could see clearly the incongruity of Whitey’s crimes and the failure by the FBI to follow up on them. He would not stop digging until the whole sordid affair was brought into the light. This kind of the story is not told for the first time by this movie, but it was refreshing nonetheless to witness. This film’s depiction of how Whitey raised himself and his gang through the misguided, but active participation of the FBI is a clear lesson in how fuzzy the lines can become between the criminals and the undercover means used to bring those felons to justice. This movie also emphasizes how childhood connections can create stronger alliances, stronger even than the marital, legal or moral equivalents in the later adults. A man might very well as Connolly does in this story throw away his wife, job and reputation as he almost blindly falls into patterns of dominance and submission that were set up in childhood. It is interesting to note the ones that seem to see the problem most clearly do not have an intimate connection to South Boston: FBI agent McGuire, wife Marianne, and US Attorney Wyshak.

 The individual childhood cases from South Boston aside, this movie’s story of corruption is primarily significant because it tells the story of how power corrupts. For their corruption and their resulting crimes of cover up and worse, Connolly will go to jail, as will Whitey’s brother, Billy. Not surprisingly, many of Whitey’s criminal crew will go to prison as well. What is surprising is that even several of the crew will be so repulsed by the moral depths that Whitey will go to and require his crew to go to, they will be self-driven to become State Witnesses. All of these friends, cohorts, and allies would eventually be caught up in the web enclosing about them set by Wyshak; all but Whitey himself. He would escape and remain in hiding for over two decades before he too would be finally caught and sentenced to life in prison.

This is an excellent movie in terms of acting, directing, and story content. It carries a truly meaningful message about the corrupting influence of Power. It is not an easy movie to watch, and should certainly only be seen by mature adults. But it is both entertaining and informative; a movie well worth seeing.