Saturday, January 9, 2016

Movie Review: "Sicario"


Sicario (2015)

R

5 Stars out of 5
Director                                Denis Villeneuve
Writer                                   Taylor Sheridan
Cinematography                 Roger Deakins
Music                                    Jóhan Jóhannsson
Editor                                    Joe Walker

Emily Blunt                          Kate Macer
Benicio del Toro                 Alejandro Gillick
Josh Brolin                           Matt Graver

 

The German language is a kind of Lego language. One can take any two (or more) words and build a new word. One of my favorites is weltanschauung, it’s a mouthful for an English speaker to be sure. In English it means world view. In the original German philosophy sense, it refers to a person’s or a culture’s method of viewing, interpreting and interacting with the world they live in. One of the best movies of 2015, “Sicario” has at its foundation a clash of world views. While the story is superficially about the futility of the decades long drug war fought by the US government, this movie’s core theme is how Americans view not just that war, but how they wage it. Like Francis Ford Coppolola’s 1979 movie “Apocalypse Now”, “Sicario” has two factions waging a battle that is far deeper than simply killing one’s enemies. Both of these movies portray a battle of world views: one side that stubbornly clings (ah…, but maybe not that stubbornly by each movie’s ending) to an old world view that uses morality and the law to guide their way versus the other newer and also far more ancient view that says that the ends justify the means. “Apocalypse Now” had its Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) dueling with Captain Willard (Martin Sheen); and “Sicario” has former Mexican Prosecutor Alejandro Gillick (Benicio del Toro) testing the limits of FBI agent Kate Macer’s (Emily Blunt) sense of right and wrong.

This movie will certainly be on just about every professional critic’s Top Ten list for 2015. It should also, however, only be seen by an audience willing to see a movie with a horrifically high level of violence; a movie where such violence is an absolute necessity to the telling of this story. “Sicario” begins in a suburb of Phoenix Arizona. Kate Macer leads an FBI and local PD team into a house as they search for a group of kidnap victims. They don’t find their sought-after victims, but they do find a house filled with corpses. This opening scene sets the tone for the movie and like several others in the film borrow again from “Apocalypse Now” with its views of helicopters sweeping in for the “kill”. An additional purpose for this opening scene though is to show Kate’s capabilities in a war zone (one placed in an American suburb) and to provide her with the motivation she will need in the subsequent parts of this movie. She wants to find and stop the man responsible for the murdered victims in the house, a drug cartel hit-man (e.g. sicario in Spanish) by the name of Manuel Diaz. To do so, she will have to remember her motivation from that death house as she struggles with her goal and the means she will use to achieve it.

Because of Kate’s abilities as a leader and her experience in the field as an FBI agent, she is asked to join a CIA-led team to track down Diaz. Her partner, Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya) is also considered for the team but rejected because has been trained in the law. While Kate and Reggie do not hear the conversation where each is considered for the team, the audience does, and in so doing is given ample foreshadowing via the comment on Reggie, that the pending operation against Diaz will not be one “done by the book”. As a member of the team, Kate soon learns the truth of this last point: the CIA operation plays very fast and loose with American and Mexican law. Even more to the point though, is that once Kate starts to question the operation’s team leader, Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), Kate begins to learn that she is to be kept largely in the dark about all aspects of the operation including not only the methods, but also the goal and location of the operation. A perfect example of how little she is informed is demonstrated on a plane transporting her, Matt, and team member Alejandro Gillick (Benicio del Toro) from Phoenix to El Paso Texas. Matt goes to sleep immediately and is clearly not going to answer her questions, but even more telling is her “conversation” with Alejandro. Kate attempts to ask Alejandro for information regarding the operation and her role in it. Alejandro says basically nothing concrete in a stunning performance by del Toro. Instead, the coiled tension within the Alejandro character speaks volumes. The demons carried within by Alejandro and clearly seen by Kate portend ominously about the pending battles they will have with each other.

Kate has her own demons within, of course, but unlike Alejandro’s; they are not in charge of her. Matt almost surely had or has demons, too, but the character of Matt as played by Brolin is more of a cipher (in keeping with his job as a CIA agent) than a wound up spring like Alejandro. Each of these three characters are uniquely drawn by writer Taylor Sheridan, and under director Denis Villenueve, each actor achieves performances that should surely merit attention at Oscar time; del Toro, most notably. Villenueve’s direction and the editing by Joe Walker have created a movie filled with expert acting, cinematography, and music that is paced perfectly to create an alternate world of pending violence and unknown morality. Consider the scenes that come after the flight to El Paso. After a pulse pounding drive into Juarez from Texas to retrieve Diaz’ brother Guillermo, the operation team members return to the border crossing. They become bogged down in traffic. Each team member stares anxiously into the windows of the adjacent cars, wondering which car might contain a cartel member. The camera work, music and acting all combine to create a mood of impending doom.

Impending doom or its threat is constant throughout “Sicario”, and fully act as the motivators for the clash of worldviews: Alejandro and  Matt use it as justification to break the rules, and while Kate feels it too, she worries much more about its corrosive effect on her own seemingly anachronistic world view; a world view based on the rule of law. In a world threatened by terrorists and the erratic leaders of the Russian Republic or North Korea, this same sense of impending doom, of potential apocalypse is a feeling known all too well to modern America. What is the likelihood that any particular society will give into its fears and choose leaders that like Colonel Kurtz or Matt Graver throw out the values that once guided it? It’s a question worth considering in 2016 and it seems clear that Villeneuve worries about the choice and which world view will prevail.

The only criticism I have of the movie is a brief series of scenes near the end of the film that move the focus away from Kate as a foil and solely onto Alejandro. The big questions raised by this movie are dropped briefly in favor of a violent spate of revenge; having said that though, Villeneuve then moves quickly into several of the most thought-proving scenes in the entire movie. The closing scenes of “Sicario” have Alejandro forcing Kate to state in writing that all of their operations have actually “been by the book”. At first she refuses to cooperate, but as with her actions in the Juarez operation, she acquiesces over time. Her worldview may not have been permanently changed yet, but it is fair to say that it is “evolving”. And just like Kate, the final scenes of “Sicario” show how Juarez’ worldview has also moved on: a sound of gunfire is heard in the distance during a soccer game; the game pauses, and then goes forward; the crowd’s attention only momentarily distracted. The numbness they felt, and the acceptance of the new reality for the citizens of Juarez is shocking; no less so than Kate’s acceptance of her new reality. As violent as “Sicario” is, it raises questions that must be asked and it effectively uses violence to ask those questions.

This is not an easy movie to watch, but it is most definitely in my Top Ten for 2015.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Movie Review: "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation"


Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)

PG-13

4.5 Stars out of 5
Director/Writer                 Christopher McQuarrie
Cinematography               Robert Elswit
Music                                  Joe Kraemer

Tom Cruise                         Ethan Hunt
Jeremy Renner                  William Brandt
Simon Pegg                        Benji Dunn
Rebecca Ferguson             Ilsa Faust
Ving Rhames                      Luther Stickell
Alec Baldwin                      Alan Hunley
Sean Harris                         Lane

 

“Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” is the fifth in the Mission: Impossible series using the movie format, all starring Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt. It is possible that this entry is the best to date. But how does one separate out one movie in such a series; a series that features missions labeled as impossible and has a hero/superman that specializes in just such missions? One cannot look to great acting (unless one considers stunts as a sub-category of acting) or thoughtful writing featuring deep underlying themes that illustrate human needs. Moral quandaries that drive the human condition are not going to be part of the discussion. And yet Christopher McQuarrie as both writer and director has created a film that manages the pace of the thrills and intervening set up scenes in such a manner that the excitement and tone are so superior to its contemporaries, that Rogue Nation definitely stands above most movies in the action/spy genre.

Like the preceding entries in the Mission Impossible series, Cruise as Ethan Hunt leads a team that consists of two colleagues, Benji (Simon Pegg) and Luther (Ving Rhames); both seem to be hackers or electronics experts of some sort; the nerds that support their heroic and athletic leader, Hunt. In each entry, Hunt and pals must confront some arch-villain intent on destroying the existing world order. They must penetrate some impenetrable fortress employing a rich variety of awe-inspiring stunts (often done by Cruise himself), use all sorts of advanced electronic gear and at some point, they must wear masks that allow someone to impersonate someone else (ala Scoobie Doo). All of these elements will be used in Rogue Nation; so why does it stand out? For movies of this sort in general and in the case of Rogue Nation in particular, the movies that stand out will also introduce some amazing stunts/chase scenes that appear almost as a highly choreographed dance that maintain the tone and intensity of the movie, they will have unusual co-heroes (extra points for female heroes), and most particularly for Rogue Nation, such movies will introduce some embedded tropes that help illustrate some aspect of the story. Rogue Nation nicely does this latter point by using Puccini’s 1924 opera, Turandot; an opera describing a princess and a suitor that must past three riddles in order to marry her or face death if he fails.

Obviously, to over-interpret the use of Turandot in a spy movie is a move that should be avoided by the amateur critic, and yet, I still think it is a nice touch. In this theme, Rogue Nation brings in a female character/spy/superhuman in the form of the amusingly named Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson). It goes without saying she is very attractive, showing off her leggy beauty at almost every turn. One clever aspect of her character is to whom does she owe her true loyalty: Hunt’s IMF team, the British spy agency MI6, or to this movie’s arch villain, Lane (Sean Harris)? What Lane wants as the villain is of no note in this movie, though quite frankly I did puzzle over it as the movie progressed, and I never came to a conclusion. He’s just a bad guy, and Ilsa either works for him or pretends to – it really doesn’t matter very much. Adding to the pseudo-complexity of the movie is the sub-plot that CIA Chief Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) has convinced the US government to shut down the IMF group, their leader William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) and Hunt/Cruise.

As the movie rolls through the Hunt stunts and the complicated machinations of Lane and Hunt as they oppose one another, the female Ethan Hunt character, Ilsa Faust proves to be in every way Hunt’s equal in skill and intelligence. She saves him, compromises him, helps him, and proves to be at least superficially of unknown loyalty; but we know, don’t we? And of course Ethan Hunt knows her true self, no matter that she periodically appears to be at cross purposes with him. I do like the apposition of Faust to Hunt. It’s not mind bending in a particular way, but it helps set Hunt and Faust up as the supermen they are and to hint at some impossible love in the making. Being godlike in their abilities, there relationship must remain pure, platonic and unrequited, or so I imagine.

In any event, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” is a very entertaining movie for a movie in this genre. From the amazing opening stunt on the side of an airplane to the one in the depths of some kind of memory storage unit underwater (requiring Hunt to hold his breath for three minutes – surely no one but Hunt, Faust and other supermen could do that?), to the best chase scene (this one on motorcycles) I have seen in years, this movie delivers its quotient of amazing stunts. There is cleverness in the presentation of the gun fight within the Vienna opera house and in the allusion of Turandot’s story to the competing spy-craft of Hunt and Faust. But best of all, is the way the excitement introduced by the stunts, chase scene and fights are presented to the audience in such a way that the tension brought about by these elements are paced so skillfully throughout the movie. For aficionados of this genre, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” is a great example of the action movie.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Movie Review: "Tomorrowland"


Tomorrowland (2015)
PG

3 Stars out of 5

Director                                Brad Bird
Writer                                   Damon Lindelhof, Brad Bird
Cinematography                 Claudio Miranda
Music                                    Michael Giacchino

George Clooney                   Frank Walker
Hugh Laurie                          Governor Nix
Britt Robertson                    Casey Newton
Raffey Cassidy                      Athena

 
Brad Bird began his career at Disney as an animator studying under one of the original “nine old men”, Milt Kahl. His film career as a director (and writer) began with the remarkable “The Iron Giant” (1999). This film began a short string of critically noteworthy animated films: “The Incredibles” in 2004 and “Ratatouille” in 2007. In 2011, he turned his attention to live action films with “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”. Each of these four films has earned marks of 90% or higher on Rotten Tomatoes’ website. Besides the critical acclaim though, it is worth noting that there are themes throughout these four movies that come together with somewhat less success in his latest live action movie, “Tomorrowland”: who is best qualified to lead a society, great artwork, strange mixtures of peoples and/or archetypes, and the value of optimism over despair. Some of these are lofty ideas to be sure, but are poorly mixed in “Tomorrowland”, and ultimately introduced into a movie that could not quite deliver on its core philosophical message despite its good intentions.

To be sure, a movie rooted in a section of a famous theme park has a big challenge in front of the writer: how does one write a compelling story that utilizes the theme park and its inherently rosy view of the future without descending into drivel. This is clearly not an easy task, and I give full credit to Bird and Damon Lindelhof as the writers in crafting a story around that sense of wonder and optimism to found at Disneyland’s Tomorrowland, and in placing it in counterpoint to the growing sense of distress felt by so many Americans as they watch the daily news on TV. Bird and Lindelhof have written a story that describes a parallel world built by scientists and artists sometime around the end of the 19th century. This alternate world has advanced technologically far more quickly than the grey, humdrum world we all live in. They have flying trains, gravity defying swimming pools, and rocket ships that look remarkably like Disney’s old “Voyage to the Moon” ride. That is all well and good; we are talking about a movie inspired by a theme park after all. But what is a little unnerving about the underpinnings of this alternate world is the sense of elitism that underlies this alternate world’s creation and governance. Those poor scientists (Edison, Tesla, et. al.) had to leave our world where they and their science were underappreciated.

We first meet that alternate world’s Governor Nix (Hugh Lurie) at the 1964 World’s Fair in New York. A young inventor, Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) tries to interest the Governor in his flying machine – a backpack rocket device made from two Elextrolux vacuum cleaner canisters. The governor’s not interested, but his young assistant, Athena is. She manages to get Frank to Tomorrowland, the alternate universe world where she and the Governor come from. The story then jumps forward 50 years or so to the present where we meet the twenty-something, Casey. She is a young dreamer intent on going to space. Like Frank she is “recruited” by Athena, who is still a young girl. Thus begins an oddly violent and philosophically disconnected series of battles fought by the grown up Frank (George Clooney), Athena, and Casey against Nix and his minions. How did a story that preaches optimism in the face of despair turn into a series of scenes where homicidal robots (“audio-animatronic” robots in keeping with the Disney nomenclature) blast into non-existence first responders and anyone else that might seem to oppose the now murderous Governor Nix?

There is sci-fi artwork inspired by the Art Deco movement in some scenes, while others rely heavily on a Disney version of sleeping beauty’s castle brought into the future. This movie can be artistically clever, and while it is pointless to criticize the science, it is not pointless to decry the uneven philosophy/morality propounded overtly and covertly throughout this movie. I fully embrace any vision that argues for optimism with regards the future. Yes, let’s not give up in the face of global climate change, but fight to the end the right of those living on this planet to preserve it. To make such an argument is almost the only reason I don’t give this movie a lower score than the one I have given it. But when you have a group that seem to also have the upper moral plane in your movie such as those that live in Tomorrowland, and then have their leader to both extol the value of science in finding a way to a happier life and then to condemn those left on Earth to their fate since they are “savages” and thus deserve no less; especially when that same leader is the one manipulating events to bring about their demise. What a strange messenger for both hope in the future and disregard for others Bird and Lindelhof have created in Nix. It seems almost like an argument for not just the disregarded elites to survive but to also be the sole survivors.

The counter-argument could be made that Nix is merely the “bad guy” and Frank the “good guy”. It should surprise no reader who will win in the end. Maybe it is that simple: Frank’s vision is the one that prevails and Nix with his negative connoting name and vision get squished. Perhaps, but the sense of elite entitlement/victimhood is a theme that passes through this movie extensively and I end up with the nagging feeling that Nix was onto something in Bird’s mind but that he just needed to tweak it up a bit. The other aspect that is seriously disturbing is the relationship between Frank and Athena. Young Frank not realizing that Athena was a robot fell in love with her in a touching young love kind of way. By the time the 60 year old and now aware Frank re-meets the still nine year old appearing Athena, his love for her is hardly less dissipated. Okay, science fiction, so what are you going to do? I don’t know, but the scene where the elder Frank cradles the dying Athena is a good definition of creepy- not unrequited-love. When (spoiler alert),  he drops her into an infernal machine in order to blow herself up and the machine with it, I am left speechless at the weirdness of this whole scene. Clearly intended to be sentimental, the scene ends up being simply uniquely strange.

Whether to watch “Tomorrowland” or not, will depend on one’s interest in FX vs. story. The special effects are impressive and fun to watch. The scenes where Athena’s magical World’s Fair pin allows Casey to jump from our world to Tomorrowland in a visual sense but not in a physical sense is the FX center-point of the movie and partly what attracted me to movie in the first place. The other aspect that attracted me is George Clooney’s acting, and in this movie he is first rate. The scenes Clooney are in are believable despite the writing. However, his acting and the FX do not for me out-weigh the negative effects of a movie that so loosely grips its moral and philosophical foundations. “Tomorrowland” is a visually interesting but cinematically troubling movie that I cannot really recommend.

Saturday, January 2, 2016

TV Series Review: "Making a Murderer"


Making a Murderer (2015)

Netflix

TV-14

4 Stars out of 5

Documentary

Writer/Director                 Moira Demos, Laura Ricciardi
Steven Avery                     The Accused
Allan Avery                         Father to Steven
Dolores Avery                    Mother to Steven
Brendan Dassey                Nephew to Steven and accused co-perpetrator
Barb Tadych                       Mother to Brendan
Teresa Halbach                  Murder Victim
Dean Strang                       Attorney to Steven for Murder Trial
Jerry Buting                        Attorney to Steven for Murder Trial
Ken Kratz                            Prosecuting Attorney

 

Let me say right up front: I don’t like the True Crime documentary genre. The examples I can think of that have driven me away from this genre can be found on almost any episode of NBC’s “Dateline”. Each segment of the hour-long episode is written in cliff-hanger mode; but that is not the essential problem for me. Rather, it is the alternating and seemingly selective choice of material in each segment that tries to convict and then find innocent the accused. The viewer feels like they are being whip-sawed along a path; a path designed to manipulate and confuse the viewer’s emotions and sense of whether they are being shown all the evidence, let alone whether or not the accused is guilty or innocent. However, in 2014 when the public acclaim for the NPR broadcast of Sarah Koenig’s “Serial” podcast came out on the conviction of Adnan Sayed, I decided to make an exception. I was glad that I did. Koenig’s recitation of the events surrounding Sayed’s case was compelling without feeling manipulative. The listener had an opportunity to hear the evidence and the participants in the case to speak their minds, and since the program was twelve episodes, each roughly one hour in length, the listener likely came away from the “Serial” season one podcast with a sense that they have heard all the evidence. The listener can in that case draw a reasonably informed opinion on Sayed’s guilt or innocence. To comment further would ruin part of the enjoyment of Koenig’s well-crafted podcast.

Now in late 2015, there is again substantial public acclaim over another True Crime documentary. This time it is for Netflix’s broadcast of “Making a Murderer” by Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi. While still film school students at Columbia in 2005, they had learned of an Innocence Project in Wisconsin. This project had via DNA analysis cleared the conviction of one Steven Avery of a brutal rape in 1985 near his home in Manitowoc County, WI; a rape and conviction that had wrongly sent him to prison for 18 years. Demos and Ricciardi went to Manitowoc County to begin a 10 year project on Steven Avery that led them and Avery towards a future that it is almost certain none of them could have foreseen. They have recorded their 10 year journey in an excellent 10 part documentary that was released by Netlfix on 18Dec15. Like “Serial”, “Making a Murderer” is a program that has much to say and does a great job saying it.

As with the NPR podcast to reveal too much in this review would again ruin too much of the experience inherent in viewing “Making a Murderer”, but a brief sketch of the events is as follows. Following Avery’s release from prison for the rape charge, he began proceedings to file a civil case against the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s department and Justice System for wrongfully convicting him. Had Avery won his case, Avery could well have ruined the county financially and certainly would have ruined a number of officials professionally. As the depositions for the civil case are being taken, a young woman, Susan Halbach goes missing. The last person she is “known” to have seen is Steven Avery. As before, the eyes of the Sheriff’s department immediately focus on Avery. Search teams begin looking for Ms. Halbach, one of them finds her missing car on Avery’s property. The Sherriff’s department then begins an 8 day search of the Avery property. During the 8 day search, the Avery family is restricted from their property. The police eventually do find evidence: Ms. Halbach’s car key with Avery’s DNA, blood smears with Avery’s DNA in the Halbach car, Ms. Halbach’s bones in a burn pit, a bullet with Ms. Halbach’s DNA in the Avery garage. The evidence all appear to lead to Steven Avery. However, as damning as this evidence appears to be, it is but circumstantial and it is evidence that might have been planted. The authorities had only this circumstantial evidence until Avery’s young and clearly mentally-limited nephew confesses his own involvement and that of Avery in the death of Ms. Halbach.

Demos and Ricciardi pace the exposure in the documentary of each piece of evidence in a manner that seems consistent with their actual exposure to the police on-site in Manitowoc County. As a counter-point to the litany of evidence piling up against Avery, they also include multiple interviews with the various members of the Avery family and legal defense team. They do so in a manner that helps the viewer to see that for every piece of evidence against the accused, there is the potential for compelling counter arguments in defense of the accused. For example, the police had access to Avery’s blood from the rape case; was it used to plant evidence in the Halbach car. And why was the Halbach car key not seen in previous searches of Avery’s residence, and then when it was found, it was found by one of the police being sued in the civil case? There was also evidence that remains disturbingly un-discussed by the prosecution: why was the victim’s blood found in the back of her car, as if she had been transported in the car following an assault; why is there no blood from the victim found at the alleged sites of the victim’s rape and murder? These last two points conflict severely with the time line and crime scenario constructed by the prosecution. The most damning scenes in the entire 10 hour program though are those of the interview and “confession” by the sixteen year old Brendan; a young man with a 70 IQ. That he was led and fed a series of ideas that corresponded to what his interviewers wanted to hear seems incontrovertible to me, though apparently not to the prosecution, the judge, or eventually to certain members of the jury.

The value of “Making a Murderer” is not that the police might have framed Avery, or that the Prosecution and initial defense of young Brendan appear to be good examples of legal malpractice, or possibly even violations of the law. Rather it is contained in a comment by one of Avery’s defense team: “I am certain I will never commit a felony. But I am far less certain, I will never be accused of one”. It is the implications of this statement and the protections for the accused built into the US constitution that are the real issues at stake in this documentary. It is possible Steven Avery committed the murder of Susan Halbach (though from the evidence shown in this documentary, I do not think that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and if he is the murderer, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. What seems extremely clear in this program is that Steven Avery was because of his past relations with the police, presumed guilty from the beginning. Did the police pad their case against Steven and with the full complicity of the local justice system try an innocent man for murder; or did they do so against a guilty man? Our constitution says it makes no difference during the trial phase. Whether guilty in fact or not, he is presumed innocent. The evidence against this man is gathered with this presumption, other potential perpetrators are sought and evidence against them is gathered, and this man and all others like him should not be tried by the authorities in the court of public opinion prior to his actual trial. None of these things were done in the Avery murder trial case. Guilty or not, Steven Avery was railroaded into his trial. Again regardless of his innocence or guilt, this is not the American way.

Under most circumstances, I will continue to maintain my personal aversion to True Crime documentaries. However, in the case of “Making a Murderer”, Demos and Ricciardi have done the American public a service in documenting this case. Yes, there are issues I had with them showing far too many scenes of snow-covered cars on the Avery property in order to set an emotional tone, of leaving out Avery’s apparent interest in Ms. Halbach prior to her death, and possibly the series could have been trimmed down in length. It is also possible, their critics may find their presentation too tendentious – their point of view is pretty clear, and the program reveals it. That being said, I watch every documentary with the idea that some things are left out of the film, and some things over-emphasized. It is surely true in “Making a Murderer”, but the discussion of how justice can be, not necessarily always is, meted out in the United States, is a discussion really worth having. Watching “Making a Murderer”, offensive superficial topic and title notwithstanding is an exercise also really worth performing.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Movie Review: Star Wars - The Force Awakens


Star Wars VII – The Force Awakens (2015)

PG-13

5 Stars out of 5
Director                                J.J. Abrams
Writer                                   Lawrence Kasdan, J.J.Abrams, and Michael Arndt
Cinematography                 Daniel Mindel
Music                                    John Williams

Harrison Ford                     Han Solo
Mark Hamill                        Luke Skywalker
Carrie Fisher                       General (nee Princess) Leia Organa
Adam Driver                       Kylo Ren
Daisy Ridley                        Rey
John Boyega                       Finn
Oscar Isaac                         Poe Dameron
Lupita Nyong’o                  Maz Kanata
Andy Serkis                        Supreme Leader Snoke
Domnhall Gleeson            General Hux
Max von Sydow                 Lor San Tekka
Simon Pegg                        Unkar Plutt

 

Imagine the social and financial pressures on J.J. Abrams as he labored to bring to life part VII of the Star Wars saga. After Disney purchased Lucas Film (which included the saga) in 2010 for $4 billion, one knew the drive to successfully re-boot the series would soon begin. George Lucas had ideas for parts VII through IX and a recommendation for the director of VII; only his director recommendation was adhered to, and thus Abrams got the job. Based on the financial success of VII (fastest movie ever to reach $1 billion) or the endless discussion of the movie’s fans on the internet, one could easily believe that Abrams has done what the studio and the fans wanted: created an exciting addition to the Star Wars saga, one that has left the fans desperate for the next entry. However, Abrams has accomplished more than just excited the fans, he has more than pleased the critics as well. “The Force Awakens” may well use a script that is to some extent derivative to part IV – A New Hope (1977), but he and fellow writer Lawrence Kasdan (writer for parts V and VI) have infused this new edition with humor without destroying tone such as in part I and the lamentable Jar Jar Binks; has brought back beloved characters from IV – VI; has utilized FX to wonderful effect, has created a series of mysteries that will keep the fans sitting on pins and needles until part VIII comes out; and has directed his cast of returning stars and stars-to-be with easily the best acting in the series to date. “The Force Awakens” is a treasure and a fine reminder of the wonder that the movies can bring to the public.

“The Force Awakens” reprises many themes from “A New Hope”, beginning with a secret message entrusted to the care of a “droid”. Max von Sydow as the experienced and world-weary version of Obi wan Kenobi has come into control of a map that promises to lead to the missing Luke Skywalker. Von Sydow’s character, Lor San Tekka gives the chip containing the map to a Resistance fighter pilot, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) on this movie’s desert planet, Jakku. Poe must quickly give the chip to this movie’s version of R2D2, BB-8, as the encampment where the transfer of the chip has taken place is quickly over-run by a platoon of vicious storm troopers; storm troopers now working for the Empire’s replacement, The New Order. BB-8 flees into the desert, while amongst the storm troopers a clearly troubled trooper pauses during the ensuing slaughter. This trooper soon to be known as Finn (John Boyega) catches the eye of this movie’s version of Darth Vader, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). BB-8 will soon be saved as he runs into the wasteland by Rey (Daisy Ridley), a feminine version of Luke in part VII. Finn and Rey will join forces to get the chip to the Resistance. Along the way, they will encounter each of the three principles from parts IV through VI (Harrison Ford as Han Solo, Carrie Fisher as General Leia Organa, and Mark Hamill as Luke). They will also meet several new characters; one of the most significant being Maz Kanata (Lupita Nyong’o) for the good guys, while the emperor has been succeeded by Snoke (Andy Serkis). To avoid too many spoilers, I will go no further in describing the plot; sufficient to say, there are lots of light sabers, TIE fighters and action for all lovers of this series of movies.

That Abrams and Kasdan have chosen to bring in so many elements from “A New Hope” has created some level of criticism, but since they have done it so artfully, I actually applaud their efforts. By using part IV as a kind of framework to build on, Abrams and Kasdan have a kind of launch pad from which to introduce a series of new characters and many new mysteries: who are Rey’s parents and why was she left on Jakku, how was Snoke able to lure Kylo Ren to the dark side, and the central adult component to the theme of the series - in a universe of competing dualistic forces, can one force ever achieve a final victory over the other. The mythic elements that Lucas used in the parts IV through VI were the thoughtful parts of movie series that otherwise was merely another exercise of moving the Western genre into the Space Opera genre. When Lucas was able to bring in the elements of a fallen father figure, his savior-like son, the fight of good and bad, and a variety of similar themes again using the dualism concept, he was able to elevate the Star Wars saga to a higher level of art than mere Space Opera. Sadly, he lost this thread when he used parts I through III as little more than an introduction to part IV. Having re-launched the series with such expertly controlled use of humor, action plotting, acting, and reference to father/son relations during the struggle between good and evil, it will be very interesting to see if part VIII can continue the momentum.

“The Force Awakens” is an excellent addition to 2015’s string of science fiction-based movies. Like “Mad Max: Fury Road” or “Ex Machina”, “The Force Awakens” has shown that intelligent story telling can fully utilize the science fiction genre to tell a story in a novel manner; and in the case of “The Force Awakens” can tell the story with good use of humor, great music (John Williams comes back for part VII), excellent special effects and some very competent acting to tell the story in a fashion that can be both commercially and artistically satisfying. 2015 may be the year when the leading contenders for best picture at the Oscars will all come from the science fiction genre. “The Force Awakens” is a movie just about anyone will not only enjoy, but may well love.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Movie Review: "Jurassic World"


Jurassic World (2015)

PG-13

3 Stars out of 5
Director                                Colin Trevorrow
Writers                                 Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connolly, (and Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver)
Cinematography                 John Schwartzman
Visual Effects                       Phil Tippet (ILM), Tim Alexander
Music                                    Michael Giacchino

Chris Pratt                           Owen Grady
Bryce Dallas Howard         Claire Dearing
Irrfan Khan                          Simon Masrani
Vincent D’Onofrio              Vic Hoskins
Ty Simkins                           Gray Mitchell
Nick Robinson                     Zach Mitchell
B.D. Wong                           Dr. Henry Wu

 

Once upon a time in America, a time when circuses roamed the land, one could make a good argument that there was a public demand, if not a clamor for more exotic, bigger, and louder entertainment. How many tigers could one man control with a whip and a chair, or what wild new, death defying stunt would Harry Houdini pull? But today in late 2015 is this still the norm? Sure the David Copperfields and David Blaines of the world continue to play one up-manship with their stunts, and one could certainly make a good argument that Hollywood continues this trend with one comic-book inspired/ city wrecking movie after another. I wonder how bored the public might have become with the concept. If there were an amusement park like the one portrayed in “Jurassic World”, would the public really be so bored with mere dinosaurs such as T Rex and Apatosaurus that attendance would drop off; drop off to the point that the park’s scientists would be compelled to gene splice together something bigger and more ferocious, in order to pull in the public?

This question occurs to me as I think back to “Jurassic World” and its theme of corporate rapaciousness coupled with public demand for thrills; thrill that must be made bigger with the passage of time. I do applaud the effort by the writers to blend in some contemporary themes from modern life, but this theme of public boredom rings hollow to me. There is no argument in my mind as to whether greed and the profit incentive drives and will continue to drive much of human behavior, most certainly corporate behavior.  But this theme and the various two-dimensional characters in "Jurassic World" are symptomatic of my biggest complaint with the movie, and that is the writing. As odd as it might seem for a movie about dinosaurs, the writing just does not seem believable. Nevertheless, kudos to writers Trevorrow and Connolly for writing a story that tries to meld such an idea into a movie whose only real purpose is to answer the question: what would happen if T Rex got into a fight with a dinosaur spliced together with the DNA from T Rex, velociraptors, tree frogs, chameleons and who knows what all else. However to return to my complaint about the writing for one last moment, this latter concept of fighting reptilian carnivores conflicts with another theme shown in the movie, the treatment of animals in confinement. It seems counterintuitive to me to create a film that rests on a pedestal of massive dinosaurs fighting in order to make the movie exciting and appealing to the modern audience, while at the same time including the theme of animal mistreatment in zoos, etc. This seems like a cinematic version of “having your cake and eating it, too”. Ah well, it’s a movie about dinosaurs, why bother worrying about writing, acting, or logic; let’s get to what’s really real in this movie: special effects.

In this re-boot of Steven Spielberg’s 1993 “Jurassic Park”, director Colin Trevorrow has tried to bring back the story line from the first movie in this series. There are various nods to the original story in terms of props and evil-doers (e.g. Dr. Henry Wu played by B.D. Wong as the chief scientist is in both movies), and even in some small nods such as the restaurant on the park’s main street named after the lead special effects make-up director in the first three Jurassic movies, Stan Winston. (Winston died in 2008 and the restaurant’s name is a nice acknowledgement of his contributions.) However, Trevorrow’s chief accomplishment in his directing is the manner in which he suggests the violence the dinosaurs are capable of doing without graphically displaying it. There is a scene where T Rex approaches a bound sheep but concludes with only a spray of blood – this scene is also amusing from the point of the older of the two boys featured in this movie, Zach (Nick Robinson) as he ignores the T Rex in order to focus on his iPhone. Another scene of note is one in which a monstrously large (if that description has any meaning in this movie) dinosaur jumps from the water to swallow whole a Great White Shark. Trevorrow’s best accomplishment though in staging the various violent dinosaur encounters is his ability to make use of suggestion via flashing velociraptors in front of the screen with various actor extras (aka dinosaur chow) in the background. By doing many of the human/dinosaur interactions in this manner, Trevorrow is able to create both tension and fear and to do so without excessive amounts of gore; which would probably have drained away the anxiety, anyway. One thing this movie most definitely is, is exciting.

The human component of the movie focuses on Navy veteran Owen (Chris Pratt) as the trainer of a group of four velociraptors and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) as the park’s Ops manager. Owen knows everything (how to train and treat dinosaurs, when they’ve been mistreated, when they go bad, etc.), while Claire knows nothing (how to care for her two nephews, apparently even how to manage her personal life, or choosing to run in high heels from T Rex after she intentionally went to lure the monster). This odd fifties style of male/female behavior patterns is yet one more theme in this movie but unlike the others defies comprehension. Is there some point to dumbing down the woman, while exalting the man? Other members of the cast not intended to become some dinosaur’s meal is the park’s corporate CEO, Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), and Claire’s two nephews, Zach and his younger brother, Gray (Ty Simkins). The acting by Pratt and Howard is fine, but in my opinion, young Simkins actually had the only chance to play a character that was realistic throughout the movie, and his acting really helped make this character believable. Vincent D’Onofrio made his appearance as the stock bad guy, Vic Hoskins; a representative of the gene splicing firm working with the park. It struck me that the Hoskins and Dr. Wu characters were in the movie primarily to set up a sequel, and from what I have read just such a sequel is planned for 2018. For the third highest grossing picture in the US and the world history, this comes as little surprise. And it certainly underlines the hypocrisy I allude to above with respect to rapacious corporations – how is Universal’s production of the Jurassic Park movies any less avaricious than the fictional park’s parent corporation referred to in this movie?

“Jurassic Park” was a fun summer blockbuster. If you want to see dinosaurs fighting, or would like to see superb CGI and animatronic versions of said dinosaurs, this is quite definitely your movie. If you are looking for something more, well you know full well any movie about dinosaurs is not likely to feature strong writing and acting, and “Jurassic World” will not fail you in any such expectations. You know it’s a popcorn movie and nothing more; a well-made and well-directed one, I admit. So, get yourself a bag of popcorn and enjoy this movie for what it is.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Movie Review: "Life Itself"


Life Itself (2014)

R

5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Steve James
Martin Scorcese
Werner Herzog
Ava Duvernay
Ramin Bahrani
Roger and Chaz Ebert
Gene Siskel

 

What is truth? In a piece of fiction there can be some confusion between truth and artistic license when the writer chooses a historical person or event for his topic. But in a documentary that by definition chooses real people, real historical events as their topic, the truth becomes even more difficult to describe. If the documentarian simply “cherry picks” his facts and does so without deception or distortion, has he still actually told the truth? In Steve James’ thoughtful and seemingly complete review of Roger Ebert’s adult life as a movie critic, Roger Ebert’s adult life is laid out for all to see, warts and all. Though to continue the thought I started with, when the documentarian is as clearly enamored with his subject as James is with Ebert, I inevitably wonder what might have been left out of the movie.

James is brutally unstinting is his depiction of Ebert’s sad physical state near the end of his life in 2013 from cancer. Ebert had been undergoing treatment and multiple surgeries following a 2006 diagnosis of thyroid cancer. That initial surgery and presumed cure for this normally easily treated cancer led unfortunately to several subsequent surgeries; ultimately Ebert had his lower jaw removed. This prevented him from speaking, eating or drinking, and it certainly created a new, shocking physical state for him. Despite this latter fact though, Ebert steadfastly insisted that his actual situation be presented clearly to the public, without any attempt to mitigate it. Thus, in James’ film the viewer is shown in graphic detail Ebert’s final state, even as his nurse vacuumed out his trachea. His discomfort is there to be plainly seen. It is shown along with his emotional state, which is also quite definitely not the upbeat, life-loving person that Ebert evidently was most of the time.

At fifty Ebert married the love of his life, trial attorney Chaz (Charlie Hammelsmith). Into his previously single life came one of the most positive influences in Ebert’s life. Her affection and devotion to Ebert as he neared the end is heartbreaking to witness. Chaz joined Ebert’s mother and father as the undisputed anchors and major positive influences in Ebert’s life. Famously not so simply positive on Ebert was his long term professional relationship with fellow critic Gene Siskel. The sections of the movie that deal with the birth, maturation and end of this fruitful relationship are most definitely the most interesting part of the film. For Ebert as the confident and assertive single child grown to adulthood being forced to share the stage with an equally self-confident entity such as Siskel, was a tremendous challenge for both. James shows in unblushing detail the outtakes of the two quarrelling and struggling for control of the television series. And yet following Siskel’s own death to cancer (brain cancer in his case), Ebert came to the conclusion just how instrumental to Ebert’s development as a critic, TV personality and indeed as a man Siskel had been. The scenes immediately following Siskel’s death visibly haunted Ebert. One big lasting effect on Ebert was his decision to not follow Siskel’s decision to pass away privately; how much Siskel’s decision influenced Ebert’s choice to have the effects of his cancer play out in public seems pretty clear in this film.

Also of great interest is the close relationship Ebert had with many in the movie industry (e.g. Martin Scorcese, Werner Herzog, Ava Duvernay, Ramin Bahrani, and the director of this film, Steve James). It seems very reasonable to wonder how such close relationships could affect Ebert’s objectivity towards the work of each of these gifted directors (all comment extensively on Ebert during this movie). James points out though that such close relationships were the norm in previous times between composers and their music critics. That could be so, and James does display one movie of Scorcese’s (The Color of Money) where not only did Ebert savage the movie, but Scorcese went so far as to say that Ebert’s criticism was educational, more so than painful. Again, I re-raise the question of truth in such discussions. When the material and reviews are as subjective as movies and their criticisms, or when the interviewee is clearly a close and indebted friend such as Scorcese was to Ebert, the outside observer is justified in wondering where the line between truth and near-truth might lie. To help underscore the relationship between Ebert and Scorcese, James has Scorcese discuss how at a low point in Scorcese’s career, he had considered suicide. Ebert at that time with Siskel’s cooperation invited Scorcese to Toronto during a film festival to win an award. By Scorcese’s account, this would turn his career and life around. This is a beautiful and touching story and I would not want to demean it in anyway, but I really must wonder about the nature of the objectivity in their relationship when two such men were so emotionally connected.

There is emotion galore in James’ film. Each of the featured guest directors share at least one story about how they felt a tight bond to Ebert. Sometimes as in Duvernay’s case it was due to an article written by Ebert on one of her films, or as in the case of Bahrani the active role Ebert played in Bahrani’s career via Ebert’s positive focus on Bahrani’s films. A similar argument could be made for Herzog, though Ebert surely did not make Herzog’s career, he just as surely helped spread the word on the genius so often displayed by Herzog. With “witnesses” such as these, can “Life Itself” be said to be a depiction of the truth of Ebert’s life? Perhaps, but whether James is guilty of selectively choosing his commenters (all are positive throughout the film) or not, the viewer gets a sense they understand who Ebert was and how he came to be the man he was at the end. He had his warts (overdrinking early in his life, a take no prisoners point view when he wanted his way), but in the end, he was a gifted man that led in many ways a charmed life. I have read many, many Ebert reviews and I always try to learn from each experience. Watching “Life Itself”, I felt I have learned yet more, if not movie criticism, then quite definitely about humanity and life itself. This is a movie really worth seeing.