Tag Archives: indie

BlacKkKlansman

[5 stars]

Undoubtedly, this is Spike Lee’s (Chi-Raq) best film since Do The Right Thing. Not because he is back on political ground, he never left it, but because it flows, it is human, and it is a masterful piece of storytelling that takes you from Point A to a Point B in unexpected ways. It is an hypnotic film that draws you in with its humor and, while never subtle, slowly turns the screws to leave you with that same self-reflective feeling Do The Right Thing managed way back when.

Certainly Lee’s trademark camera work and shots are present, but he holds them back for better impact than he has in the past. And his direction for the actors is subtle as he orchestrates the off-beat and nearly unbelievable tale.

In the lead, John David Washington (Ballers) floats perfectly through Stallworth’s story. Adam Driver (Logan Lucky) supports him well by his side and navigating his own complex history. As difficult as these roles were to play, Topher Grace (The Calling), Ryan Eggold (Lucky Them), Jasper Pääkkönen (Vikings), and Paul Walter Hauser (I, Tonya) deserve special notice. They had to navigate some very dark places with conviction and without allowing them to become caricatures; no easy task.

This film is rather female poor, which was a surprise. However, Laura Harrier (Spider-Man: Homecoming) and Ashlie Atkinson (One Dollar) each create fascinating, true-believers who are very much part of the story. As a surprise short bit, Alec Baldwin (Mission: Impossible: Fallout) sets the tone nicely if not entirely fits in the movie. There are many other performances to notice, but this would get too long to list them all. Suffice to say that it is a well heeled and directed cast.

But, unlike the also true Shock and Awe, Lee managed to find the personal stories in the tale and to talk to us openly and honestly, bringing home the point of his film. In fact, he baldly lectures and nods to our present day. Because he does, but within the strictures of the story he’s telling, it becomes wry, sarcastic humor rather than pure chest-beating exposition. I don’t know how he managed that, but it worked.

The movie has its flaws, but not many. Most of the concerns I had fled as the movie wrapped up and the reasons for many choices became clear. It is certainly an odd structure, but it is also a beautiful piece of architecture and a movie not to be missed. Make time for this film in the theater. It isn’t necessarily a big-screen flick, though Lee certainly knows how to frame things, but it does deserve your support and time. It isn’t a pleasant subject, but you get plenty of sugar with the medicine. That BlacKkKlansman is a true story only adds to the weird and scary wonderfulness of it all.

BlacKkKlansman

Indignation

[3 stars]

Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters) is not the first actor I would have considered for the lead role as a Jewish intellectual outcast in the wilds of Ohio 1951, but he surprised me. While his sense of inner turmoil and contradiction is less obvious than I might have preferred, his delivery and control helped sell the complicated young man. With Sarah Gadon (The 9th Life of Louis Drax) beside him much of the way, the two cut a tumultuous rug overhung by desire and dread. In short, a Philip Roth novel.

Around the young lovers are the adults that help define the story and results, though not a one of them would ever accept that responsibility. Which is, to my mind, part of the point. Tracy Letts (The Post), in particular, is a quiet powerhouse of a character. Letts embodies a personality that was common then and, sadly, still too far common now. And, as his parents, Danny Burstein (The Family Fang) and Linda Emond (Song to Song) are heartbreakingly real in their love and selfishness that influence Lerman’s life.

Writer/director James Schamus (Eat Drink Man Woman, The Wedding Banquet, Lust, Caution) is no stranger to delicate and fraught relationships.  His adaptation of Roth’s tale captures the intellectual and lyrical nature of the author nicely. For as simple as Roth’s stories are, the underlying intent and the social and personal commentary are not. His characters are constantly challenged and often fail. They question their purpose and their morality. They often don’t fit into the world around them at all; outsiders in a crowd. Sometimes outsiders in their own bodies. And they are passionate to the point of their own demise.

Indignation is loaded with history and layers. It is a quiet film that will pull you along to its final moments. It nicely hits on a personal level while leaving you with plenty to consider, and consider changing. And it captures its era beautifully…only reminding us how little has changed in human nature and politics.

Indignation

2036: Origin Unknown

[2.5 stars]

Origin Unkown pitches and yaws its way from interesting idea and moment to god-awful dialogue and plot points. Uneven is a kind word, but it has enough going for it to get you through to the end if you’re so inclined.

What you think of that end on reflection and the trip that got you there, well, that will be up to you. The heavy and unavoidable echos of 2001: A Space Odyssey are tackled head on from the choices in production design to the title, special effects, and cinematography. However, Hasraf Dulull (The Beyond) isn’t Kubrik nor did he have Arthur C. Clarke’s template to provide the foundation. Coming primarily from a visual f/x background, his move to front-of-camera hasn’t been entirely successful. Admittedly, though, as only his second feature it isn’t without some sense of potential for his future.

It was fun to see Katee Sackoff (Oculus) in space-ish again. She tries valiantly to pull the movie along, but can only compensate so much. Ray Fearon (Beauty and the Beast) and Julie Cox (The Oxford Murders) both drag down the story. Their interactions are forced and their deliveries, shallow. Only Steven Cree (Outlander), as the AI, feels at all real. Some of these issues are by design and intended as commentary, but some are just, honestly, bad acting, writing, and directing.

As a tale of AI and automation in the workplace, this would probably be a great short story. As a movie with grander themes, it is a little too full of itself and its desire to play homage to the classics it mirrors. With the 50th anniversary release of 2001 this month and other broad-plotted stories like Missions in the air, this movie just doesn’t feel very new, but more like a Black Mirror or Electric Dreams episode. For all that, I appreciated its desire to go big and its attempts to be realistic where it could or did.

2036 Origin Unknown

Shock and Awe

[3 stars]

At a time when the free press is under attack from the very highest offices in the government; and at a time that these self-same leaders are inciting and encouraging literal attacks on those in the Fourth Estate, Shock and Awe is a reminder of the power of, the need for, and the fragility of the foundation of news organizations and their place in a democracy.

Rob Reiner really couldn’t have picked a more appropriate time to create and deliver this story. Like The Post, this is also an accurate tale of finding and reporting a truth that the public needed to know. Unlike The Post, the people standing in the way were not the government, but rather the newspaper editors themselves due to an extreme rise of nationalist fervor in the wake of 9/11.

As a reminder of truth and the value of a free press, this movie is invaluable. As a film, it is crafted with journeymen-like care but it isn’t necessarily a great movie. It tends to avoid deep dives and explanations, shifting the focus from an All The President’s Men effort to that of a more personal story. In some ways, that is fair and more impactful; the only mystery here was why no one would print the truth rather than what the truth was. To hold it together, Reiner frames it with a very personal story to remind us of the consequences of such situations.

Shock and Awe is competently delivered by the cast. In addition to Reiner, Wood Harrelson (Solo: A Star Wars Story) and James Marsden (Welcome to Me) make a great and competitive team. Tommy Lee Jones (Just Getting Started) brings in his trademark curmudgeon with a brain and heart. Most surprising was a nice turn by Milla Jovovich (Future World) who breaks type and works well with Harrelson. Jessica Biel (Hitchcock) gives us a nice character, but doesn’t really add to the main story. Even the introduction of Richard Schiff (Geostorm), whose character is directly related to the tale and whose performance is nicely balanced, doesn’t quite build up the story as it could. Combined, we get a taste of the world they were all a part of, including their personal lives, even if we don’t ever really understand the details or feel it as deeply as we should.

The result is a watered-down polemic about what nationalism can bring and why questioning, generally, is a good thing. It is also a solid reminder of why the press isn’t “the enemy of the people” as our current leadership has been heard to say, and often repeat.

What is a surprise in this story is that it also reminds us that, in majority, those with careers in government do care about the truth and the country. That may seem an odd thing to say, but more than one person I know has expressed the sense that those in elected office are craven and self-serving, unconcerned about anyone and anything other than their own comfort and finances. Or perhaps that doesn’t seem so odd to say these days when we’ve a leader who has hired his whole family and pushes government meetings and international guests to his own properties while still accepting deals in apparent trade for favors overseas?

What is made clear is that the only people who fear a free and honest press are those trying to hide the truth. But it is also important to hold the press to account, as this story does, because they do wield immense power. However, we do need them as an un-jaundiced eye on the world to understand it.

[Keep in mind that there is variant of reporting that is really just entertainment. Fox News (and its ilk) if you go for that kind of thing, is fine entertainment, but it isn’t news. In fact, it legally isn’t news. It is classified as entertainment, and they often lie and misreport to get ratings; they have no legal obligation to the truth (and no morals to speak of). This is factual statement, go look up the court cases and interviews with their leadership that prove it.]

News, on the other hand, has to be balanced and honest, and stick to the facts, editorializing only when necessary and always doing so openly. News organizations aren’t infallible, but they do have to make every attempt to be accurate. Shock and Awe puts up a mirror to the past and what can happen when the press doesn’t do their job… and how bad and long-lasting the consequences can be.

Shock and Awe

Ideal Home

[3 stars]

Yes, you’ve seen the base aspect of this story before: young child comes into the lives of adults without children who are already struggling with their own relationship. And, yes, this latest entry into this odd sub-genre is generally sweet and fluffy, but with a wonderful main difference and edge.

The unexpected parents are Steve Coogan (The Dinner) and Paul Rudd (Ant-Man and the Wasp) who play bickering lovers, a la Vicious. There is plenty expected, but one thing that isn’t… the story here is about family and how we love, not about the genitals of who loves whom. The relationship between Coogan and Rudd is utterly, wonderfully superfluous other than, at times, as a foil for some delightfully evil dialogue. At times, the choice borders on a cheap trick, but since the entire film dances on the surface of the subject, it is easy to roll with. At no time do Coogan or Rudd make fun of their characters or situation; they’re just a bit brash.

The final pieces of the puzzle are the errant parent, Jake McDorman (Limitless, Lady Bird) and his son, Jack Gore (Billions). McDorman has one of the hardest roles, having to play the stark realities against the brighter backdrop, but he does so well. Gore isn’t bad, but he isn’t brilliant. What is nice is that Gore isn’t playing for cute, he’s much more clearly a kid from a challenged home and life.

Writer/director Andrew Fleming (Hamlet 2, Younger) is unafraid of odd material and he knows how to control it well. He likes to challenge expectations and have fun with genres. Fleming is also somewhat obsessed with growing up…most typically about adults finally growing up when forced to by circumstance. While he tends to control the comedy of his work well, he also is often unwilling to dive too deep into the emotional truths, though he dips into it enough to make it work. Basically, he creates fun and unexpected entertainments that are a big edgy and a lot funny, and with just a touch of message. This movie is no exception and will leave you with a smile.

Ideal Home

Lear (2018)

[3.5 stars]

In the world of Shakespeare on film, there are many citizens, but only a few really stand out. Akira Kursawa’s Throne of Blood (nee Macbeth) and Ian MacKellen’s Richard III for their fascinating interpretations and performances come immediately to mind. And then there are Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V and Hamlet for their classic and down-to-earth depictions (not to mention full-text presentations). There are filmed stage performances as well, but those are a different discussion and, arguably, a different genre.

As Hamlet is a requirement for younger actors, Lear, like Prospero (or Prospera), is a right of passage for venerable actors. In fact, Glenda Jackson is joining that list soon as well. It would have been a great disappointment not to see Anthony Hopkins (Thor: Ragnarok) tackle Lear before he folded up his career…not that that seems to be coming any time soon. And Richard Eyre’s (The Dresser) adaptation and direction makes this an interesting Lear indeed.

One of the challenges of Lear is that it starts far into the story of this tragic family. We can intuit a lot, but it often starts with such a level of animosity from the children that it feels like a cheat. Eyre’s choices help us really see the fear and hatred build in Regan and Goneril, played by Emily Watson (Kingsman: The Golden Circle) and Emma Thompson (Bridget Jones’s Baby) . We also see Lear change and deteriorate wonderfully through the piece. And though not quite as topically impactful as Ian McKellen’s Richard III, the modern setting also works nicely allowing it to resonate with the growing concerns of eldercare.

There are some wonderful side performances in the various houses as well from Christopher Eccleston (Unfinished Song), Tobias Menzies (The Night Manager), Jim Carter (Downton Abbey), and Jim Broadbent (The Lady in the Van). However, you may have noticed that I haven’t mentioned the two integral roles of Cordelia and The Fool, respectively played by Florence Pugh (Lady Macbeth) and Karl Johnson. Both are serviceable in their roles, but neither really left an impact for me, which has something to do with the actors, but also with some burden on the directing choices in which Eyre’s approach has some intriguing shifts in focus beyond setting.

It is the Edmund/Edgar machinations which are made the center of the story for most of the movie. These mirrored relationships were always important, but wrenching the center of the play off the titular character was interesting. The bastard, played by John Macmillan, and the son, by Andrew Scott (Sherlock), are both powerful performers. However, despite the interesting effect on plot structure, their screen relationship is forced and never really gels…even at the end. Another interesting change is that the Fool is disposed of with scant comment (and probably without much import for most of the audience). It is done in set-up for the final scenes, which are always discussed dramaturgically as the substitution of Cordelia for the Fool (and after Lear and Mad Tom have each taken some ownership), but it has an incomplete impact and import the because it is executed so dismissively.

For all the solutions this production finds in bringing the motivations to life, the film exacerbates the problem of compressed time by virtue of its length. Despite good visual bridges, the plot is forced along far too quickly (115 minutes). Honestly, this tale could probably sustain a mini-series in length and thereby get places more believably. Shakespeare’s wonderful prose aside, the credibility of the choices has always been a challenge in this play. Huge leaps based on long-festering slights are necessary, but hard to digest for the audience given the scope of Lear’s travels and the evolution and impact of his story on an entire country.

I could keep dissecting this production, which is actually a good sign. There is much to chew on. Often you only get one or two interesting aspects to chew on…but Eyre and Hopkins provide a full meal, if not all the courses. If you enjoy Shakespeare, you must see this production. If you come to the Bard only on occasion, you may find this a bit different than what you expect, intriguing, and certainly shorter than your typical play. It is the magic of Shakespeare that his work continues to make sense and have impact in various conceptualizations, settings, and times, even when some of the specifics may be confusing as society changes.

Same Kind of Different as Me

[3 stars]

This is not a subtle film. In fact, first time feature director and co-writer Michael Carney was as delicate as a sledgehammer at times. This isn’t to say that the story (a true one) isn’t insightful or effective, it is. It is just generally much more provocative than evocative.

What saves this film from just being a Lifetime installment is the cast and the truthful earnestness of its tale. Djimon Hounsou (Seventh Son) captures the real-life Denver and his situation emotionally and with conviction. If anything, his performance made this worth its bloated, nearly two hour length. And, as the couple that comes into his life, Greg Kinnear (Brigsby Bear) and Renée Zellweger (Bridget Jones’s Baby) build a relationship fraught with reality and more than a little bit of idealism. In smaller, but important, roles Jon Voigt (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) and Geraldine Singer (Mudbound) add a different balance and storyline. The one truly odd bit in the cast is the son, played by Austin Filson. Filson is notable only for the fact that he doesn’t speak a single line the entire film even though his screen sister, Olivia Holt, has a plot thread of her own.

The message and insights of this story are important ones, particularly at this time in the country when we seem to have lost track of who people in need are and how they got there. I won’t go into the disturbing irony of that trend when we supposedly have such religious leadership. But an important message and good acting don’t always make a good movie. Not that this is a bad movie, but it’s just the wrong side of cloying for me, and is clearly aimed at a faith-based crowd. I stand by that description despite the fact that it takes one of the main characters literally to the threshold of a church and then keeps them entering. Faith is not a bad thing, but it brings a tone and level of unreality to it all, even if the base tale is true. And, certainly, it spurred an ongoing wave of good works (that somehow remain primarily in the background till the credits).

So, should you see this? Probably. It is a good check on your assumptions and a goose to your sense of possibility. In more practiced hands, this could have been a better movie, but as a message delivered with credible talent, it will hold you till the end. But know what you’re walking into and accept it for what it is and what it isn’t.

Same Kind of Different as Me

Spinning Man

[3 stars}

Mysteries are wonderful things and difficult to do right. This particular mystery is playing in some very high-brow territory; it is an academic’s nightmare, a philosopher’s quagmire, and an intellectual’s mind game. Simon Kaijser (Life in Squares, Don’t Ever Wipe Tears Without Gloves) directs us through a mutable landscape without ever once clarifying, but never cheating us either. And worth noting is one of the most beautiful mirror shots (at  little over an hour in) I’ve ever noticed; it is totally self-conscious and totally appropriate. Matthew Aldrich’s (Coco) script is also equal to the task, keeping the dialogue decidedly collegiate but understandable and not condescending.

The cast is solid, but unexpected. Many of them are not American, despite the very midwest, Minnesota setting and present an odd assortment of characters. In the main roles, Guy Pearce (Genius), Minnie Driver (Hunky Dory), and Pierce Brosnan (The Foreigner, Mama Mia!) bring the full force of their charisma and screen power. They all also struggle with their accents at one time or another, Brosnan more than most. In the supporting roles, Alexandra Shipp (Tragedy Girls) and Odeya Rush (Lady Bird) lend a disturbing frisson to it all. And, while not a ground-breaking role for him, the appearance of Clark Gregg (Labor Day) was a fun treat.

Yes, this is a cerebral movie, and not for the feint of heart if you don’t want to think. So you have to ask yourself if you’re interested in something a bit more interactive than your typical movie before you sit down with this one. It is worth your time, despite any weaknesses. It is full of subtleties and, if you’ve ever hung out with the academic set, some very recognizable characters, interactions, and moments.

Spinning Man

Future World

[1.5 stars]

Where to begin with how bad this is? How about with this as a guide: The most believable actor in the whole thing is Milla Jovovich (Resident EvilSurvivor). No offense to Milla, as engaging and entertaining as she can be she hasn’t shown herself to be Oscar winner material. When you figure that she dominated a cast that includes James Franco (The Disaster Artist), Lucy Liu (Kung Fu Panda 3), Suki Waterhouse (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies), and even a bit by Carmen Argenziano, it was certainly a disappointment. The only reason I made it to the end of this travesty was because of how short it was.

I can see why many of the folks involved did it. This insanely bad riff on Mad Max meets Blade Runner meets Cyborg (and many other unnamed classics) provides opportunities for fights, stunts, and dirt biking galore. However, the script is ill-thought-through, with ridiculous dialogue, and devoid of all emotion other than a healthy does of misogyny and  rampant male fantasy. But when you’ve got 3 directors and 4 writers, I suppose you should realize you have a problem.

If I haven’t been clear yet: run away and never look back. This isn’t worth the time you’d waste even making up the drinking game that could (possibly) make it survivable. It isn’t the worst post-apocalyptic mess I’ve ever seen (seriously, that is still The FP), but it ranks pretty far up there.

Future World

Woman Walks Ahead

[3 stars]

Woman Walks Ahead isn’t a great movie, but it dramatizes an interesting slice of history, especially given today’s politics. It also isn’t your typical Western, though it certainly retains a lot of the machismo overtones even with Jessica Chastain (Molly’s Game) as the main focus and star of the film. Working closely with Michael Greyeyes (Fear the Walking Dead), the two form the main spine of the story and hold it together well.

But, honestly, the most nuanced and interesting characters were really along the sidelines. Bill Camp (The Killing of a Sacred Deer) and Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) really steal this movie out from under the leads. Camp’s General is inscrutable and weirdly fascinating. And Rockwell seems to have found a niche for himself in Hollywood as a semi-redeemable asshole. He’s good at it, but I’m really hoping he isn’t going to get stuck in that persona. Also worth noting were Ciarán Hinds (Red Sparrow) and Rulan Tangen as a mixed-race couple a la Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln.

Steven Knight’s (November Criminals, Peaky Blinders) script is intriguing and full of nice subtleties and historical bits that aren’t afraid of the realities. Despite that, what I realized was that I found myself reacting emotionally more to the events rather than to the characters themselves. My reactions were logical rather than emotional because I wasn’t identifying with the main characters. To me, this means director Susanna White (Parade’s EndNanny McPhee Returns) somehow bungled the execution. Chastain and Greyeyes have an intense and intensely quiet relationship. It isn’t that there isn’t tension between them, but Chastain, in particular, is so closed off that we never really get inside her head. Greyeyes has a few more moments, but again is often walled off.

As I said, this isn’t a great film, but it is an interesting one. Whether you think it was worth your time will be a combination of what you think of the actors and how much of the history you already know or think you know. The 1890s weren’t a pretty period for women or native Americans. If you you do make the time for this movie and want to keep it a true learning experience, pop in Wind River afterwards and find where it all leads and how little has changed.

Woman Walks Ahead