Logan Lucky (PG-13 Aug. 18)
After a hiatus from feature films, director Steven Soderbergh is back with a fun, redneck Ocean's Eleven-style caper that is full of great performances and is just what is needed to buoy a lackluster summer film season.
Proud West Virginians, the Logan brothers, Jimmy (Channing Tatum) and Clyde (Adam Driver), have a cursed family history and just can't seem to get ahead. Jimmy has lost his mining job and his wife, while Clyde is missing an arm (or a hand, to be more precise) and runs a local bar. Their sister Mellie (Riley Keough) is a scantily clad hairdresser who thinks she's the voice of reason but turns out to be plenty game for her brothers' hijinks. When the Logans decide to change their fortune by robbing the Charlotte Motor Speedway on race day, they enlist the help of the Bang brothers, led by in-car-cer-a-ted explosives artist Joe (Daniel Craig), along with other town (and prison) acquaintances. Jimmy needs the money to be closer to his young daughter, who is moving to another city, and if the Logans can pull off their scheme, they just might be able to save the family name.
The machinations of how the heist goes down are way too complicated to discuss here, but just know that there's a prison fire, a stolen Ford Mustang, a tetanus shot, a children's beauty pageant, some prosthetic appendages, a few bags of gummy bears, and Dwight Yoakam are all involved. Just as in Soderbergh's Ocean's franchise, we ultimately don't really care about how complicated the plot gets or how exactly each step precisely falls into place. We care about the characters, and we want to hang out with them for two hours, no matter what they might be doing. The film does seem to lose momentum toward the end, as it's difficult to tell if the last twenty minutes are the third act or an extended denouement. And there is some doubt about what may happen to this crew after the credits roll. The ambiguity of the final minutes could be very smart or very lazy, but it's fun nonetheless.
There isn't a single misstep in casting, as each star gets a chance to shine. It's fun seeing James Bond in a striped jump suit with a southern accent. And when he begins writing chemistry equations on an underground wall, I nearly lost it. Adam Driver continues to grow as an actor and is perhaps my favorite person in the film. His deliberate drawl and sincere face provide an instant sympathetic connection, even though you know there's probably just a hint of crazy behind those eyes. And Seth MacFarlane and Hillary Swank have cameos that wink at the audience just the right amount.
I'm always a little uncomfortable when watching a film that explores stereotypes of the South. After all, the characters in the film must simultaneously be the most intelligent and most moronic people one can imagine. We must laugh at their stupidity, while also believing their ingenuity. That's a high-wire act Soderbergh and his cast are able to pull off because the ride is so enjoyable. In lesser hands, the film could've been an uncreative gag poking fun at people who don't usually have a voice to defend themselves.
All in all, Logan Lucky is an enjoyable romp with enough twists to keep you on the edge of your seat, enough clever dialogue to keep you laughing, and enough heart to keep you caring about these characters. It's a great way to bring the summer to a close.
Grade: B+
Dunkirk (PG-13 July 21)
Writer/Director Christopher Nolan's newest film, the WWII epic Dunkirk, is a masterwork and by far the best film to hit theaters in the last three years. It will win countless awards in the coming months and may go down as the best war film of all time. Dunkirk is actually so good that I saw it twice over the weekend just to make sure my first reaction was accurate. In fact, it's even better upon repeat viewing.
It is the late spring of 1940, and British and French forces have been pushed to the ocean by Nazi invasion from the east. Unable to halt the German conquest of mainland Europe, the Allies are perilously waiting on the beach for evacuation across the English Channel back to Britain. England needs its soldiers to return in order to make a final stand to protect their homeland, but with German fighter planes obliterating rescue ships and bombing the exposed beach, the soldiers' escape grows more desperate by the hour.
Unlike traditional war films, such as Saving Private Ryan for example, the story of Dunkirk is not of soldiers attempting to complete a mission, ever moving forward. Rather, this is a film about waiting and retreating. It is not the valiant venture into battle; it is the ominous dread of what could be on the way. The Dunkirk beach is a Purgatory, and we are unsure who will achieve salvation. Nolan's choice in showing this side of war, in which scared boys are just trying to get home, is an important perspective for helping us understand that for every act of heroism, there is also the reality of fear and helplessness.
In true Nolan style, he chooses to show us the conflict with non-linear narrative and multiple subjective points of view. We are able to watch these men from the land, the sea, and the air, as well as over the course of several days, one full day, and one hour of battle time. (This isn't a spoiler, but for those who may be confused when watching, just keep in mind that the British fighter pilots have the only perspective in the present. Everything they see has already taken place hours or even days earlier.) This disjointed technique reminds us that everyone has their own interpretation of traumatic events, and some go through them at various intervals or for various durations. No one's participation in war is identical to another's.
Nolan employs limited dialogue and minimal character background. We never fully know who these men are, which emphasizes how they could represent thousands of others, their anonymity indicative of just one point in time in a war that involved millions and spanned much of the globe. While we follow several main characters--a Navy commander (Kenneth Branagh), a pilot (Tom Hardy), a civilian boat captain (Mark Rylance), and a young Army private (Fionn Whitehead)--the story is the event itself. And how it is visualized is our real connection. Nolan uses brilliant cinematography and production design to capture both the enormous scope of the outside locations along with the claustrophobia of cockpits and boat hulls. His reliance upon actual effects, instead of CGI, perfectly heightens the realism of what we see and intensity of what we feel. This is a film that deserves to be seen on the largest and loudest screen possible.
Nolan is often accused of focusing on spectacle and trickery more than worthwhile storytelling, and some criticism is valid. I was mostly disinterested by Inception, overwhelmed by implausibility with parts of the Batman trilogy, and mostly bored and annoyed at Interstellar. But Nolan's choices are just right here. And while some may find his methods obtrusive or pretentious, choosing cool over coherence, Dunkirk benefits from his singular style. And I definitely applaud his ability here to, uncharacteristically, keep a big film under the two-hour mark.
The lesson of Dunkirk is that "survival isn't fair." There are innocent people that perish and dishonorable people that make it out alive. But also that anyone can be a hero. We all can and should answer the call to be useful, and the image of civilian sailors forging into danger is one of the most moving scenes one will see on film.
Like the Battle of Bunker Hill or the Battle of Maldon, we speak of what happened on the beaches of Dunkirk, France, not in remembrance of victory. Rather, such conflicts are historical reminders of what value can be gleaned from defeat, how honor and bravery can shine through the darkest of times. As one soldier, feeling a failure upon returning to England, says, "All we did was survive." A grateful civilian replies, "That's enough." In war, as in life, sometimes victory comes not just from winning, but in the fighting itself. And living to inspire others is often the ultimate feat of humanity.
Grade: A+
(P.S. This is the first film on English Champion to receive an A+ rating.)
Baby Driver (R June 30)
Due to the awful slate of movies playing in theaters the last six months, I have been desperate to see something fun and well made. When I saw the ads for a new heist flick opening over the weekend, I figured I would roll the dice. Though it has one of the worst titles I've ever heard, Baby Driver looked promising. It has some big stars, a hip soundtrack, and fast cars--all the ingredients for a good time. However, a pointless plot, terrible dialogue, an incoherent ending, and a clumsy attempt at postmodern pastiche had me driving away from the theater as fast as I could.
Baby (Ansel Elgort) is young getaway driver with a tragic past who gets in too deep with Doc, a criminal mastermind (Kevin Spacey). Along with a motley crew of volatile thieves (including Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx), they plan bank robberies and armored truck heists. But when Baby wants out, the crew won't let his talents go. And when he meets a nice waitress named Debora (Lily James), his desperation to escape his life of crime and take his sweetheart into the sunset leads to a deadly battle of wills with the rest of his team.
The film dangerously attempts to portray every cliche from the history of heist movies in what seems to be commentary on the genre, but it's unclear what exactly that commentary is. Of course, there's the mysterious leader, the angry and suspicious wildcards, the sexy vixen, the demure and innocent love interest, the "one more and I'm out" device, the industrial warehouse hangout, the bad guy who won't die, and the cooler than thou competition among nearly every character. And while even the best directors (Tarantino and Soderbergh come to mind here) do plenty of borrowing, both on purpose and subconsciously, director Edgar Wright's incessant winking at the audience just doesn't work here. The film is so self-referential, it almost becomes a mockery of itself by the end. Wright's attempt at pastiche could have been clever and valuable, but instead it comes off as a labored attempt to look cool rather than focusing on story, dialogue, and character.
The film also suffers from an inconsistency of tone. The first two scenes, a brilliantly executed car chase and then a whimsical long-take walk/dance through the city streets, sets up the audience for something exciting, yet lighthearted, something with a feel of the Ocean's Eleven films. But with jarring switches to intense violence and morose character turns, the film doesn't quite know what it wants to be. It tries to be Heat, Reservoir Dogs, Drive, Gone in 60 Seconds, The Italian Job, and with a splash of La La Land. Yet, it's simultaneously none of them. It's like Wright and the actors got together and said, "People love pizza. And they love ice cream. Let's make a giant batch of pizza ice cream!" Yuck.
Perhaps the saddest part of this project is the emptiness of Debora's character. She is simply a lonely Cinderella waiting around to be saved by a bad-boy Prince Charming. I'm amazed anyone approved such a flat and uninteresting portrayal when she could have been so much more. But this is a film about Baby, in what is clearly intended to be a star-making turn for Elgort. Unfortunately, he is a composite of everything insufferable about people under 24. He borrows lines from television soundbites, throwing around quotes as if he's being insightful. He has ridiculous sunglasses stashed in every pocket. His earbuds (because of tinnitus) are a gimmick for giving the audience a fun soundtrack, but they epitomize the "look at me, but don't talk to me" mindset of countless college kids I see walking across campus every day. He lives in his own world where nothing is original to him. He is a blank slate in which culture is imposed upon him and nothing is original. Even the funky tapes he makes come from the dialogue of other people. And this is the essence of Baby Driver as a whole.
It's an unending exercise in trying so hard to be clever. But there's so little of substance. Perhaps Baby Driver is an attempt to show us what a 21st-century ipod/Netflix/On Demand/Numerous Sequel world has brought us, where everything is a personalized amalgamation of everything else. While that may be a valuable critique, I just wish such an insightful assessment were more interesting to watch.
Grade: C-
Patriots Day (R Jan. 13)
Whenever film depictions of real events are released, particularly ones about events that are quite recent, I get a bit skeptical. I usually ask myself three questions: Does this event need to be retold? Does it need to be retold right now? Does it need to be retold in this form? Patriots Day, the new film about the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, adequately answers those questions, yet it still leaves us wanting more.
True stories are often at an obvious narrative disadvantage since we already know the ending. Therefore, the task of creating suspense is all the more difficult. Director Peter Berg uses his standard shaky-cam techniques to keep us off balance, and they are assisted by an ominous score from Hollywood's emerging go-to musicians Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. The cast is strong, with Mark Wahlberg (as Sergeant Tommy Saunders), John Goodman (as Commissioner Ed Davis), J.K. Simmons (as Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese), and Kevin Bacon (as FBI special agent Richard DesLauriers). And there are a host of supporting players that do serviceable work in portraying the many layers of the Boston community. The film looks good on screen and demonstrates how real-life can suddenly become an action movie and a detective story of tragic consequences. Everything is...good.
But over the course of the film, we come to learn that there is no singular protagonist to root for; the hero of the film is Boston itself. And that's fine, but it doesn't quite resonate as strongly as it could. Saunders gets caught up in the chaos and disappears for chunks of the film; Pugliese is barely present; Davis doesn't really do much. And there are virtually no females to care about. My favorite performance may be from Jimmy O. Yang (currently on HBO's Silicon Valley) as the humble student whom the terrorists carjack as they attempt to escape the city.
This is a film about terrorism, but we never really learn much about the terrorists. They are cowardly and bratty college kids, which may be the truest thing we need to know about terrorists. But there is also evil here; these aren't just wayward boys who let their angst get the better of them. They are not fighting a real war, have no clear enemy, have no rational purpose. Their goal is to see innocent people suffer. And that is one thing the movie gets right. This is the chaos we are fighting against, and it won't go away. Saunders tries to address this eternal dilemma toward the end of the film, but even his hope doesn't seem adequate. The only thing we have is our protection of one another. And this message clearly comes through in the embodiment of the Boston Police Department. They are flawed and confused, but they put themselves in harm's way for the people of their city. At a time in our country in which the police are vilified at every turn, this is a film that uplifts our officers and respects their willingness to run into danger and face evil directly.
My third question above--Does this story need to be retold in this form?--is the most difficult one for me to consider. Back in November, HBO ran a documentary, Marathon: The Patriots Day Bombing, that was one of the most powerful films I've seen in a long time. It carried more eerie intensity and emotional force than this fictionalized version. And Berg seems aware of this on a certain level, as the conclusion of the film provides documentary footage and interviews from real Boston citizens reflecting on that harrowing day. If the film's director knows that reality can be more dramatic than fiction, do we really need the fiction?
Overall, the film is well made (particularly the action sequences), and it will remind you that both good and evil are never too far away. But check out the HBO documentary for an even deeper account of what happened on April 15, 2013.
Grade: B
Bleed for This (R Nov. 18)
Back in the late 1980s and early 90s, Vinny Pazienza was one of the best boxers in the world. The street-wise kid from Rhode Island became the lightweight and then junior middleweight champion. Then, at the height of his career, he was involved in a brutal car accident that left him with a broken neck and a fear that he may never walk again. In just 13 months, Pazienza (“The Pazmanian Devil”) was back in the ring and competing for yet another title. His remarkable story is portrayed in the convincing new film, Bleed For This, with the youthful Miles Teller as the hard-as-nails fighter.
Teller actually looks more comfortable in the ring than Mark Wahlberg, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Michael B. Jordan—all actors with more obvious athleticism—in each of their recent boxing films. Teller has the strut and the mouth, and he moves well on the canvas. Who would’ve thought that the star of a few moderately successful teen films and a movie about an elite conservatory musician would be a worthy tough guy? Teller’s partner in the ring, Aaron Eckhart (as trainer Kevin Rooney) is superb, as he disappears into the role in his first scene. As the world-weary drunk who bucks convention and suggests Pazienza move up to a more natural weight class, Eckhart proves his mettle as a corner man and shows us some acting chops that have been missing from his other roles.
And that is where the strength of the film lies: its actors. Because much of the film has Pazienza in a spine stabilizing halo, the action and intensity standard in so many boxing films is subdued, and characters are allowed to develop. The pace is a bit slow after the accident, but it’s well done. Director Ben Younger takes on the required boxing clichés as well as he can, but the film departs from those comforting tropes in a few important ways. I’m not saying they are quality choices, but they are choices nonetheless. The ubiquitous training montage receives quieter treatment as Pazienza delicately and secretly lifts weights in his basement. There is no real love interest to spur the fighter forward; Pazienza is his own motivator. The film’s ending is almost anti-climactic, as there is minimal musical presence, and an awkward denouement, though valuable in its message, removes much of the excitement we had been hoping to release. With many cutaway reaction shots during the fight scenes, we often lose the emotional impact of being in the ring, of taking those punches with our protagonist. Younger, who directed the excellently edgy Boiler Room back in 2000, may have missed some opportunities to tease out our suspense and enthusiasm, and one can only wonder how a different director may have tackled this biopic.
The theme of the film is clear and powerful. Pazienza tells Rooney, who pleads with him to rest and heal and think about a life other than boxing, “The thing that scares me about quitting? It’s so easy.” He’s right. Anyone can quit. It doesn’t take talent, or toughness, or intelligence, or ambition to quit. And Pazienza’s reason for living, rightly or wrongly, is fighting. There is nothing that will stop him, not even a frightening and tragic car crash. We may think he’s crazy, but he sure does prove a point.
Bleed For This is ultimately a better story than it is a movie. But like Pazienza himself, though it may not be the greatest ever, it’s certainly respectable.
Grade: B
Arrival (R Nov. 11)
There are people on Earth, right at this moment, who don’t have words for colors. They literally think blue and green are the same thing because they don’t have two separate words for them. Some don’t have words for numbers. Some don’t have words that indicate past or future verb tenses. Consequently, even after millennia of human advancement, some groups haven’t progressed because they haven’t created words that would allow them to progress. Imagine how difficult life would be if your brain couldn’t comprehend the difference between five berries and twenty berries. How do you trade or keep track of supplies? Imagine not having words for what may happen next month. How do you plan anything or work together as a group? Some cultures who don’t have past tenses are lucky to remember a single grandparent out of four, since age and history have no meaning. How do you develop long-term relationships or learn from previous mistakes? The human brain creates its world by giving it words. For many, life itself is only as good as the language available to explain it.
So is it language that defines civilization? Or is it science, the ability to discover such complexities of life, that defines us? This is the debate that is played out in the new science fiction film, Arrival. When 12 alien ships suddenly appear in various locations around the globe, each nation must figure out how to deal with its intruder individually and determine the intent of the collective. Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is a linguistics professor and translation consultant who is asked by the U.S. military to decipher communication from the visitors. Physicist Dr. Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) is brought in to provide scientific perspective. Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and CIA Agent Halpern (Michael Stuhlbarg) attempt to follow political protocol while uncovering the mystery of why the aliens have arrived and what they may want from us. As the world frantically awaits the potential destruction of life as we know it, Banks takes time to learn from the visitors, and in the process, learns something even more important about herself.
Many alien invasion stories throughout cinematic history have aimed for political parallels, and this one does as well. With questions so present in our minds of how America should respond to refugees, immigrants, terrorists, or anyone else that may come to our shores, Arrival offers a clear message for confronting Others. Communication first, rather than force, should be our modus operandi. The allegory in place here borders on heavy-handed, but it’s understandable.
It is in the way that Banks approaches her task of reaching out to the aliens that makes this film so unique, and so special. Banks shows her colleagues, and the audience, the value of language—how words and phrases change our perceptions of reality. So Banks works to speak to, and listen to, the aliens. She begins like a parent would with a child, with concrete words such as “human” and “walk,” and then moves to more complex elements like pronouns, prepositions, and words that have multiple meanings. The film’s tension is increased when the word “weapon” appears, and we have to consider that the word could imply a threat of violence, but it may also simply mean a tool. Recognizing the aliens’ meaning of the word, and this applies in our own lives, can be the difference between life and death. Taking the sci-fi genre out of the realm of deafening explosions and complex spaceships and into a lesson on grammar is daring, to say the least, but it is a brilliant deconstruction of not only the film genre, but of human interaction itself.
Director Denis Villenueve (Sicario, Prisoners, Enemy) is known for pushing audiences to explore moral and psychological questions, to reconcile their sense of reality with a world that doesn’t always match their perceptions. The film avoids the spectacle of the modern sci-fi genre—no intergalactic battles, no harrowing escapes or cartoonish CGI. The special effects employed are effective, yet subtle, and are not for visual amazement, but for advancing character. Even the aliens here (called heptapods), though we never see a face or anything resembling anthropomorphic qualities, seem to have personalities that pierce through the communication barrier and effectively display the “friend or foe” dilemma of the film.
Villenueve focuses on Adams’s face more than any other image, inviting us to witness her mental struggle, as well as participate with her in solving this existential mystery. Adams is our conduit to this other world and into our own. We are shown that Banks has lost a daughter to illness in recent years, and she continues to carry the pain with her. Her memories aid in her connection to the aliens, the passion for reaching out, learning, and understanding written across her face. And her present reality is shaped by events on the timeline of life. She must determine the meaning of free will and what consequences her choices hold. Banks’s struggle is our struggle, and Adams allows us to identify with her on a fundamentally human level. Adams continues to show herself as one of the best actresses in Hollywood today, and her quiet portrayal of a desperate mother/researcher raises our respect for Banks in ways that an overly expressive performance never could. She is able to say more with a longing look than with any tearful breakdown. Adams, surrounded by males in a traditionally male-dominated genre, carries the film on her shoulders effortlessly.
The film does fall into some unfortunate stereotypes, with some clear socio-political messages mixed in: there is a comment about a particular brand of news coverage, a caricature of talk-radio, and the persistent theme of military and political personnel only wanting to blow stuff up. That only intellectuals can save the world is an increasingly common vision in both Hollywood and beyond. The sad irony, of course, is that if the aliens of Arrival greeted us with laser cannons (as in Independence Day, War of the Worlds, etc.) instead of ink blots, those same intellectuals would scream at the failure of the military to protect us. Villenueve doesn’t dwell on these elements, but they are hard to ignore.
And there is the matter of whether the theory Banks presents fits with scientific reality. Saying there are some plot “holes” might be a little harsh, but there are certainly elements that are left unexplained. This linguistic equation is underdeveloped in some respects, and there is a glitch in the narrative that nearly ruins this story (for me, anyway), but much of the film’s flaws are forgivable due to the intent of the endeavor and the execution of the production. Renner feels underused here, but Whitaker and Stuhlbarg are solid, as they continue to be two of the best character actors working today.
I appreciate a film that tries hard to offer something new, especially in a well-worn genre. This film demands a fair amount of mental stamina from the audience—it is rather slow moving and the physics and linguistics implications will rattle brains long afterward—but it is well worth the journey. Arrival is a fraction away from being one of the best films I’ve seen in the last two years. It is smart, challenging, and brave enough to tell a science fiction story with character and nuance rather than showy visuals. And it gives us the ultimate reason for studying the Humanities: they transcend humanity.
Grade: B+
Hacksaw Ridge (PG-13 Nov. 4)
Mel Gibson's Hacksaw Ridge is based on the true story of soldier Desmond Doss and his conviction not to carry a weapon into war. The film's brutality is juxtaposed with Doss's respect for human life, showing us that there are always two sides to every conflict and how often our judgments of others can be wrong. While the goal of war is to win by killing and destroying, another victory can be obtained by preserving life.
Doss (Andrew Garfield) is a young southerner who decides to enlist in the army in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack and the increasing U.S. involvement in WWII. Doss wants to participate, as he feels it unfair that other boys are off to fight in his place, so he joins with the goal of becoming a medic on the battlefield. Doss is also newly married to nurse Dorothy (Teresa Palmer), and he knows that leaving for war carries a high probability that he won't return. Because his platoon doesn't trust him to fight valiantly and protect his fellow soldiers, Doss faces resistance before ever meeting a real enemy. His commanding officers, Sergeant Howell (Vince Vaughn) and Captain Glover (Sam Worthington), try to get Doss to quit and return home, but Doss stands his ground, always refusing to pick up a rifle. While serving on the front lines in Okinawa, at a point of insurgence called Hacksaw Ridge, Doss and his unit face an unrelenting Japanese force. This is where his morality is put to the ultimate test, as he remains defenseless throughout the entire bloody battle. But when he single-handedly saves the lives of 75 fellow soldiers during the fight, by treating their wounds and dragging them to safety and toward a return home, Doss becomes the hero of his unit and symbol for all who believe in peaceful service.
Doss's religious faith, which has guided him to a belief in non-violence, is challenged throughout the film, and we are able to see how such a strict code must be enacted in a world that rarely offers or allows for moral certitude. We see him struggle to develop relationships and convince others that his belief is not craziness or cowardice, but a true commitment to a life-affirming principle. Garfield shines most in his performance during Doss's court martial for refusing to follow orders. His reasoning is heartfelt and logical, and even if we have doubts about his ability to fulfill his faith, we are convinced he will gladly live and die to try.
The film's high point is when the unit is mowed down by the Japanese who have secured an elevated and hidden position. Many of Doss's mates are killed instantly, but those wounded are left behind. As the unit retreats down the cliff, Doss stays to rescue the fallen. And he does so in a clever fashion that shows not only his bravery, but his intelligence as well. He maintains the prayer throughout the night, "Please Lord, just help me save one more." This is certainly the most incredible and inspiring part of the film, and it makes up for most of the problems found along the rest of the way.
Like many war stories, there are quite a few cliches here. There's the obligatory "We're gonna get you home" lines, the bully in the unit who is a bully for absolutely no reason, as well as the roll call of diverse infantrymen--with names like Tex and Hollywood and accents from New Jersey and the Old South--just to remind us that people from all over the country fought side by side. There's also some clunky dialogue, a few odd cuts where we wonder if there would have been a better take to use, and pacing that feels forced, as the first half of the film covers many years, while the last half covers mere days. Yes, background is important, but the film could trim twenty minutes off the front and wouldn't be worse for it.
Ultimately, besides Doss, the most important person in the creation of this film is Gibson. He's tackled violence and faith brilliantly in his other films, but this one is not quite up to that level of quality. Gibson has never been a subtle director, but his guidance here feels so intent on showing us violence that he seems to assume we wouldn't understand Doss's peaceful stance without it. The action is gruesome, and perhaps necessarily so. But one has to wonder how this film could've been handled by a director with more nuance. I don't know if it would be better, but I think it could be different in a good way.
The message of the film is what viewers should take away, rather than any ideas on acting or direction. There is an inherent conflict in the film that must be reconciled. This is a war film that emphasizes not fighting, while simultaneously showing us that defeating evil can only be done through violence (as the conclusion of the film clearly shows). Doss's respect for life is admirable, but as one character rightfully tells him early in the film, you don't win wars by not fighting. However, I think the valuable lesson from Hacksaw Ridge is how we view service. Doss shows us that everyone can serve, even if one doesn't believe in killing. His unshakable commitment to faith, and also to the country, is an important one that should inspire us all. It's understandable to disapprove of war, and we should all respect human life. But it's how we demonstrate those views that can shape the world. Fighting is sometimes necessary, but firm principles are always necessary.
Grade: B
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (PG-13 Oct. 21)
The newest installment in the Jack Reacher franchise, based on the successful book series by Lee Child, is an immense letdown after the success of the first film back in 2012, which grossed nearly $220 million. With a sluggish plot and a lackluster performance from star Tom Cruise, Never Go Back abandons the cleverness of the first film and ends up as humdrum as a basic drama on network television.
This time, Reacher pursues the wrongful imprisonment of a colleague, Major Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), who is accused of espionage. How exactly she could ever be proven to be part of a gun-running scheme is mostly unclear, but Reacher’s digging leads him to a high-powered officer and the henchman who does his dirty work. While this has echoes of the first film’s plot, unfortunately, it’s hard to care too much when the antagonist is left inadequately drawn. When we finally meet the bad guy, we are left wondering, is that it?
The film tries to include additional female characters, which the first noticeably lacked, but it does so awkwardly and fruitlessly. When Reacher begins to investigate Turner’s framing, we are led to believe there may be a romantic interest, but ultimately she’s not nearly interesting enough. And we are introduced to a potential long-lost daughter, who turns out to just be a huge brat throughout the film and serves no real plot function. There is an interesting dynamic that seems to attempt to portray women as capable military members who constantly struggle against the glass ceiling. Yet, at nearly every turn, Major Turner is not nearly as crafty, smart, or tough as Reacher. He even calls her out on it, after he gives her an order to stay behind and keep safe and then returns from almost getting killed by five guys, cleverly saying, “Are you upset that I treated you as a woman, or that I treated you as a man?” It seems the film’s creators are trying to make a point somewhere in here, but I have no idea what it is.
The film also looks terrible on screen, particularly the final 30 minutes, when the action is supposed to be its best. How this film cost $96 million to make is beyond me. The sets are cheap, and I’m absolutely stunned they actually shot in New Orleans, as Bourbon Street looks like something a few college kids could put together in a random alley in L.A.
Never Let Go is a disappointment in so many ways. It’s hard to make Tom Cruise uncharismatic. His natural charm and commitment to even the most implausible storylines usually salvage any project he’s a part of. After all, we are rarely watching a film starring Tom Cruise; rather, we are always quite aware we are watching a Tom Cruise film. However, director Edward Zwick has attempted to throw so many other characters into the mix that Cruise simply blends in, and not in a good way.
The appeal of Reacher is his mystery. We don’t quite know who he is, how he knows so much, and why he cares about particular cases. His sneakiness is practical, making him more relatable than Bond or Bourne, or even Cruise’s other alter-ego, Ethan Hunt. In Never Go Back, Reacher is known and identifiable. People are aware that he’s snooping around, that he’s ex-military, and he’s very good at his job. There is little of the understated panache of the first film and few opportunities for him to exhibit his unparalleled skills. Yes, he still kicks butt, but it’s rarely as impressive as in the first film. Perhaps we’ve come to expect too much from Reacher/Cruise.
Overall, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is an abysmal film, with uninteresting and underdeveloped characters, a clunky screenplay, and some of the worst production design I’ve seen in a long time. Reacher may have been trying to never go back to the Army, but viewers should never go to the theater in the first place for this stinker.
Grade: D
The Magnificent Seven (PG-13 Sept. 25)
It’s common for films that are remakes of originals to update material for an audience with 21st century sensibilities, with more timely themes, story additions or subtractions, and certainly stylistic camerawork or special effects. We’ve seen it in the science fiction and superhero genres most overtly in recent years, but it seems westerns have been able to largely avoid such overhauls, as remade films like True Grit (2010) and3:10 to Yuma (2007) have been quite successful in sticking to their forebears. But the new version of The Magnificent Seven couldn’t quite resist making some noticeable changes from the original 1960 film, and while some aspects of this release show a marked improvement, the film tends to stray from its conventions and often looks as clumsy as a whiskey-soaked wrangler.
The new version never quite pulls off the epic look of most westerns, as director Antoine Fuqua has crafted a visual layout that looks like a simple film set. While there is an attempt at some sweeping landscape shots, the desolate, rugged, and isolated quality that imbues most westerns is mostly lost here. This feels like a movie, and everything will be precisely staged for it. The cast reflects such staging. This film has joined the “one of everybody” approach to casting, so often found in today’s commercials (see most children's retail store ads) and large ensemble films (see the Ocean’s films, the recent Star Wars installment, or many others) in which the filmmakers are sure to include a healthy amount of diversity to keep everyone satisfied. The original was a fairly bland collection of cowboys, and though this revision has an air of pandering, it does work effectively here. Packed with stars and recognizable supporting actors, the film does a great job of allowing each character a chance to breathe, interact with the others, and develop a clear sense of personality and purpose.
Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington) is a bounty hunter who is asked by town locals (particularly widowed Emma, played by Haley Bennett) to help them ward off an evil miner, Bart Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), who intends to take over the land and evict citizens from the town, or kill them if they don’t cooperate. Chisolm rounds up a band of eccentric characters (played by Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, Byung-hun Lee, Martin Sensmeier, and Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) to help him defend the town and get rid of Bogue and his hired crew of corrupt law enforcement officials once and for all. The seven heroes train the citizens to shoot and help build booby-traps to prepare for the battle to come. Chisolm and his men, along with the members of the town, know they may lose their lives in the fight, but they believe protecting one’s home is always worth the cost.
While this premise, defending land, is a staple in the western genre, it is how this new version sets it up that borders on ridiculous in several instances. We are led to believe that the townsfolk don’t know anything about guns and have to be instructed on simply how to hold one. The original was based on protecting a Mexican village of mostly farmers. The updated film wants us to think that Americans living in the west in 1879 don’t know which end a bullet comes out. Even children of the time would’ve been experienced with guns, for hunting primarily and self-defense secondarily, just as young people living on ranches in western states today certainly do. And the reason for the town’s panic has been noticeably revised, seemingly to address today’s political and economic conflicts. The 1960 film’s antagonists were a simple thief and his bandits who stole from the town’s stock of food and materials. Bogue, however, is intended to be much more sinister than a common criminal—he’s a mean businessman, and that’s the w
After a hiatus from feature films, director Steven Soderbergh is back with a fun, redneck Ocean's Eleven-style caper that is full of great performances and is just what is needed to buoy a lackluster summer film season.
Proud West Virginians, the Logan brothers, Jimmy (Channing Tatum) and Clyde (Adam Driver), have a cursed family history and just can't seem to get ahead. Jimmy has lost his mining job and his wife, while Clyde is missing an arm (or a hand, to be more precise) and runs a local bar. Their sister Mellie (Riley Keough) is a scantily clad hairdresser who thinks she's the voice of reason but turns out to be plenty game for her brothers' hijinks. When the Logans decide to change their fortune by robbing the Charlotte Motor Speedway on race day, they enlist the help of the Bang brothers, led by in-car-cer-a-ted explosives artist Joe (Daniel Craig), along with other town (and prison) acquaintances. Jimmy needs the money to be closer to his young daughter, who is moving to another city, and if the Logans can pull off their scheme, they just might be able to save the family name.
The machinations of how the heist goes down are way too complicated to discuss here, but just know that there's a prison fire, a stolen Ford Mustang, a tetanus shot, a children's beauty pageant, some prosthetic appendages, a few bags of gummy bears, and Dwight Yoakam are all involved. Just as in Soderbergh's Ocean's franchise, we ultimately don't really care about how complicated the plot gets or how exactly each step precisely falls into place. We care about the characters, and we want to hang out with them for two hours, no matter what they might be doing. The film does seem to lose momentum toward the end, as it's difficult to tell if the last twenty minutes are the third act or an extended denouement. And there is some doubt about what may happen to this crew after the credits roll. The ambiguity of the final minutes could be very smart or very lazy, but it's fun nonetheless.
There isn't a single misstep in casting, as each star gets a chance to shine. It's fun seeing James Bond in a striped jump suit with a southern accent. And when he begins writing chemistry equations on an underground wall, I nearly lost it. Adam Driver continues to grow as an actor and is perhaps my favorite person in the film. His deliberate drawl and sincere face provide an instant sympathetic connection, even though you know there's probably just a hint of crazy behind those eyes. And Seth MacFarlane and Hillary Swank have cameos that wink at the audience just the right amount.
I'm always a little uncomfortable when watching a film that explores stereotypes of the South. After all, the characters in the film must simultaneously be the most intelligent and most moronic people one can imagine. We must laugh at their stupidity, while also believing their ingenuity. That's a high-wire act Soderbergh and his cast are able to pull off because the ride is so enjoyable. In lesser hands, the film could've been an uncreative gag poking fun at people who don't usually have a voice to defend themselves.
All in all, Logan Lucky is an enjoyable romp with enough twists to keep you on the edge of your seat, enough clever dialogue to keep you laughing, and enough heart to keep you caring about these characters. It's a great way to bring the summer to a close.
Grade: B+
Dunkirk (PG-13 July 21)
Writer/Director Christopher Nolan's newest film, the WWII epic Dunkirk, is a masterwork and by far the best film to hit theaters in the last three years. It will win countless awards in the coming months and may go down as the best war film of all time. Dunkirk is actually so good that I saw it twice over the weekend just to make sure my first reaction was accurate. In fact, it's even better upon repeat viewing.
It is the late spring of 1940, and British and French forces have been pushed to the ocean by Nazi invasion from the east. Unable to halt the German conquest of mainland Europe, the Allies are perilously waiting on the beach for evacuation across the English Channel back to Britain. England needs its soldiers to return in order to make a final stand to protect their homeland, but with German fighter planes obliterating rescue ships and bombing the exposed beach, the soldiers' escape grows more desperate by the hour.
Unlike traditional war films, such as Saving Private Ryan for example, the story of Dunkirk is not of soldiers attempting to complete a mission, ever moving forward. Rather, this is a film about waiting and retreating. It is not the valiant venture into battle; it is the ominous dread of what could be on the way. The Dunkirk beach is a Purgatory, and we are unsure who will achieve salvation. Nolan's choice in showing this side of war, in which scared boys are just trying to get home, is an important perspective for helping us understand that for every act of heroism, there is also the reality of fear and helplessness.
In true Nolan style, he chooses to show us the conflict with non-linear narrative and multiple subjective points of view. We are able to watch these men from the land, the sea, and the air, as well as over the course of several days, one full day, and one hour of battle time. (This isn't a spoiler, but for those who may be confused when watching, just keep in mind that the British fighter pilots have the only perspective in the present. Everything they see has already taken place hours or even days earlier.) This disjointed technique reminds us that everyone has their own interpretation of traumatic events, and some go through them at various intervals or for various durations. No one's participation in war is identical to another's.
Nolan employs limited dialogue and minimal character background. We never fully know who these men are, which emphasizes how they could represent thousands of others, their anonymity indicative of just one point in time in a war that involved millions and spanned much of the globe. While we follow several main characters--a Navy commander (Kenneth Branagh), a pilot (Tom Hardy), a civilian boat captain (Mark Rylance), and a young Army private (Fionn Whitehead)--the story is the event itself. And how it is visualized is our real connection. Nolan uses brilliant cinematography and production design to capture both the enormous scope of the outside locations along with the claustrophobia of cockpits and boat hulls. His reliance upon actual effects, instead of CGI, perfectly heightens the realism of what we see and intensity of what we feel. This is a film that deserves to be seen on the largest and loudest screen possible.
Nolan is often accused of focusing on spectacle and trickery more than worthwhile storytelling, and some criticism is valid. I was mostly disinterested by Inception, overwhelmed by implausibility with parts of the Batman trilogy, and mostly bored and annoyed at Interstellar. But Nolan's choices are just right here. And while some may find his methods obtrusive or pretentious, choosing cool over coherence, Dunkirk benefits from his singular style. And I definitely applaud his ability here to, uncharacteristically, keep a big film under the two-hour mark.
The lesson of Dunkirk is that "survival isn't fair." There are innocent people that perish and dishonorable people that make it out alive. But also that anyone can be a hero. We all can and should answer the call to be useful, and the image of civilian sailors forging into danger is one of the most moving scenes one will see on film.
Like the Battle of Bunker Hill or the Battle of Maldon, we speak of what happened on the beaches of Dunkirk, France, not in remembrance of victory. Rather, such conflicts are historical reminders of what value can be gleaned from defeat, how honor and bravery can shine through the darkest of times. As one soldier, feeling a failure upon returning to England, says, "All we did was survive." A grateful civilian replies, "That's enough." In war, as in life, sometimes victory comes not just from winning, but in the fighting itself. And living to inspire others is often the ultimate feat of humanity.
Grade: A+
(P.S. This is the first film on English Champion to receive an A+ rating.)
Baby Driver (R June 30)
Due to the awful slate of movies playing in theaters the last six months, I have been desperate to see something fun and well made. When I saw the ads for a new heist flick opening over the weekend, I figured I would roll the dice. Though it has one of the worst titles I've ever heard, Baby Driver looked promising. It has some big stars, a hip soundtrack, and fast cars--all the ingredients for a good time. However, a pointless plot, terrible dialogue, an incoherent ending, and a clumsy attempt at postmodern pastiche had me driving away from the theater as fast as I could.
Baby (Ansel Elgort) is young getaway driver with a tragic past who gets in too deep with Doc, a criminal mastermind (Kevin Spacey). Along with a motley crew of volatile thieves (including Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx), they plan bank robberies and armored truck heists. But when Baby wants out, the crew won't let his talents go. And when he meets a nice waitress named Debora (Lily James), his desperation to escape his life of crime and take his sweetheart into the sunset leads to a deadly battle of wills with the rest of his team.
The film dangerously attempts to portray every cliche from the history of heist movies in what seems to be commentary on the genre, but it's unclear what exactly that commentary is. Of course, there's the mysterious leader, the angry and suspicious wildcards, the sexy vixen, the demure and innocent love interest, the "one more and I'm out" device, the industrial warehouse hangout, the bad guy who won't die, and the cooler than thou competition among nearly every character. And while even the best directors (Tarantino and Soderbergh come to mind here) do plenty of borrowing, both on purpose and subconsciously, director Edgar Wright's incessant winking at the audience just doesn't work here. The film is so self-referential, it almost becomes a mockery of itself by the end. Wright's attempt at pastiche could have been clever and valuable, but instead it comes off as a labored attempt to look cool rather than focusing on story, dialogue, and character.
The film also suffers from an inconsistency of tone. The first two scenes, a brilliantly executed car chase and then a whimsical long-take walk/dance through the city streets, sets up the audience for something exciting, yet lighthearted, something with a feel of the Ocean's Eleven films. But with jarring switches to intense violence and morose character turns, the film doesn't quite know what it wants to be. It tries to be Heat, Reservoir Dogs, Drive, Gone in 60 Seconds, The Italian Job, and with a splash of La La Land. Yet, it's simultaneously none of them. It's like Wright and the actors got together and said, "People love pizza. And they love ice cream. Let's make a giant batch of pizza ice cream!" Yuck.
Perhaps the saddest part of this project is the emptiness of Debora's character. She is simply a lonely Cinderella waiting around to be saved by a bad-boy Prince Charming. I'm amazed anyone approved such a flat and uninteresting portrayal when she could have been so much more. But this is a film about Baby, in what is clearly intended to be a star-making turn for Elgort. Unfortunately, he is a composite of everything insufferable about people under 24. He borrows lines from television soundbites, throwing around quotes as if he's being insightful. He has ridiculous sunglasses stashed in every pocket. His earbuds (because of tinnitus) are a gimmick for giving the audience a fun soundtrack, but they epitomize the "look at me, but don't talk to me" mindset of countless college kids I see walking across campus every day. He lives in his own world where nothing is original to him. He is a blank slate in which culture is imposed upon him and nothing is original. Even the funky tapes he makes come from the dialogue of other people. And this is the essence of Baby Driver as a whole.
It's an unending exercise in trying so hard to be clever. But there's so little of substance. Perhaps Baby Driver is an attempt to show us what a 21st-century ipod/Netflix/On Demand/Numerous Sequel world has brought us, where everything is a personalized amalgamation of everything else. While that may be a valuable critique, I just wish such an insightful assessment were more interesting to watch.
Grade: C-
Patriots Day (R Jan. 13)
Whenever film depictions of real events are released, particularly ones about events that are quite recent, I get a bit skeptical. I usually ask myself three questions: Does this event need to be retold? Does it need to be retold right now? Does it need to be retold in this form? Patriots Day, the new film about the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, adequately answers those questions, yet it still leaves us wanting more.
True stories are often at an obvious narrative disadvantage since we already know the ending. Therefore, the task of creating suspense is all the more difficult. Director Peter Berg uses his standard shaky-cam techniques to keep us off balance, and they are assisted by an ominous score from Hollywood's emerging go-to musicians Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. The cast is strong, with Mark Wahlberg (as Sergeant Tommy Saunders), John Goodman (as Commissioner Ed Davis), J.K. Simmons (as Sergeant Jeffrey Pugliese), and Kevin Bacon (as FBI special agent Richard DesLauriers). And there are a host of supporting players that do serviceable work in portraying the many layers of the Boston community. The film looks good on screen and demonstrates how real-life can suddenly become an action movie and a detective story of tragic consequences. Everything is...good.
But over the course of the film, we come to learn that there is no singular protagonist to root for; the hero of the film is Boston itself. And that's fine, but it doesn't quite resonate as strongly as it could. Saunders gets caught up in the chaos and disappears for chunks of the film; Pugliese is barely present; Davis doesn't really do much. And there are virtually no females to care about. My favorite performance may be from Jimmy O. Yang (currently on HBO's Silicon Valley) as the humble student whom the terrorists carjack as they attempt to escape the city.
This is a film about terrorism, but we never really learn much about the terrorists. They are cowardly and bratty college kids, which may be the truest thing we need to know about terrorists. But there is also evil here; these aren't just wayward boys who let their angst get the better of them. They are not fighting a real war, have no clear enemy, have no rational purpose. Their goal is to see innocent people suffer. And that is one thing the movie gets right. This is the chaos we are fighting against, and it won't go away. Saunders tries to address this eternal dilemma toward the end of the film, but even his hope doesn't seem adequate. The only thing we have is our protection of one another. And this message clearly comes through in the embodiment of the Boston Police Department. They are flawed and confused, but they put themselves in harm's way for the people of their city. At a time in our country in which the police are vilified at every turn, this is a film that uplifts our officers and respects their willingness to run into danger and face evil directly.
My third question above--Does this story need to be retold in this form?--is the most difficult one for me to consider. Back in November, HBO ran a documentary, Marathon: The Patriots Day Bombing, that was one of the most powerful films I've seen in a long time. It carried more eerie intensity and emotional force than this fictionalized version. And Berg seems aware of this on a certain level, as the conclusion of the film provides documentary footage and interviews from real Boston citizens reflecting on that harrowing day. If the film's director knows that reality can be more dramatic than fiction, do we really need the fiction?
Overall, the film is well made (particularly the action sequences), and it will remind you that both good and evil are never too far away. But check out the HBO documentary for an even deeper account of what happened on April 15, 2013.
Grade: B
Bleed for This (R Nov. 18)
Back in the late 1980s and early 90s, Vinny Pazienza was one of the best boxers in the world. The street-wise kid from Rhode Island became the lightweight and then junior middleweight champion. Then, at the height of his career, he was involved in a brutal car accident that left him with a broken neck and a fear that he may never walk again. In just 13 months, Pazienza (“The Pazmanian Devil”) was back in the ring and competing for yet another title. His remarkable story is portrayed in the convincing new film, Bleed For This, with the youthful Miles Teller as the hard-as-nails fighter.
Teller actually looks more comfortable in the ring than Mark Wahlberg, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Michael B. Jordan—all actors with more obvious athleticism—in each of their recent boxing films. Teller has the strut and the mouth, and he moves well on the canvas. Who would’ve thought that the star of a few moderately successful teen films and a movie about an elite conservatory musician would be a worthy tough guy? Teller’s partner in the ring, Aaron Eckhart (as trainer Kevin Rooney) is superb, as he disappears into the role in his first scene. As the world-weary drunk who bucks convention and suggests Pazienza move up to a more natural weight class, Eckhart proves his mettle as a corner man and shows us some acting chops that have been missing from his other roles.
And that is where the strength of the film lies: its actors. Because much of the film has Pazienza in a spine stabilizing halo, the action and intensity standard in so many boxing films is subdued, and characters are allowed to develop. The pace is a bit slow after the accident, but it’s well done. Director Ben Younger takes on the required boxing clichés as well as he can, but the film departs from those comforting tropes in a few important ways. I’m not saying they are quality choices, but they are choices nonetheless. The ubiquitous training montage receives quieter treatment as Pazienza delicately and secretly lifts weights in his basement. There is no real love interest to spur the fighter forward; Pazienza is his own motivator. The film’s ending is almost anti-climactic, as there is minimal musical presence, and an awkward denouement, though valuable in its message, removes much of the excitement we had been hoping to release. With many cutaway reaction shots during the fight scenes, we often lose the emotional impact of being in the ring, of taking those punches with our protagonist. Younger, who directed the excellently edgy Boiler Room back in 2000, may have missed some opportunities to tease out our suspense and enthusiasm, and one can only wonder how a different director may have tackled this biopic.
The theme of the film is clear and powerful. Pazienza tells Rooney, who pleads with him to rest and heal and think about a life other than boxing, “The thing that scares me about quitting? It’s so easy.” He’s right. Anyone can quit. It doesn’t take talent, or toughness, or intelligence, or ambition to quit. And Pazienza’s reason for living, rightly or wrongly, is fighting. There is nothing that will stop him, not even a frightening and tragic car crash. We may think he’s crazy, but he sure does prove a point.
Bleed For This is ultimately a better story than it is a movie. But like Pazienza himself, though it may not be the greatest ever, it’s certainly respectable.
Grade: B
Arrival (R Nov. 11)
There are people on Earth, right at this moment, who don’t have words for colors. They literally think blue and green are the same thing because they don’t have two separate words for them. Some don’t have words for numbers. Some don’t have words that indicate past or future verb tenses. Consequently, even after millennia of human advancement, some groups haven’t progressed because they haven’t created words that would allow them to progress. Imagine how difficult life would be if your brain couldn’t comprehend the difference between five berries and twenty berries. How do you trade or keep track of supplies? Imagine not having words for what may happen next month. How do you plan anything or work together as a group? Some cultures who don’t have past tenses are lucky to remember a single grandparent out of four, since age and history have no meaning. How do you develop long-term relationships or learn from previous mistakes? The human brain creates its world by giving it words. For many, life itself is only as good as the language available to explain it.
So is it language that defines civilization? Or is it science, the ability to discover such complexities of life, that defines us? This is the debate that is played out in the new science fiction film, Arrival. When 12 alien ships suddenly appear in various locations around the globe, each nation must figure out how to deal with its intruder individually and determine the intent of the collective. Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is a linguistics professor and translation consultant who is asked by the U.S. military to decipher communication from the visitors. Physicist Dr. Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) is brought in to provide scientific perspective. Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and CIA Agent Halpern (Michael Stuhlbarg) attempt to follow political protocol while uncovering the mystery of why the aliens have arrived and what they may want from us. As the world frantically awaits the potential destruction of life as we know it, Banks takes time to learn from the visitors, and in the process, learns something even more important about herself.
Many alien invasion stories throughout cinematic history have aimed for political parallels, and this one does as well. With questions so present in our minds of how America should respond to refugees, immigrants, terrorists, or anyone else that may come to our shores, Arrival offers a clear message for confronting Others. Communication first, rather than force, should be our modus operandi. The allegory in place here borders on heavy-handed, but it’s understandable.
It is in the way that Banks approaches her task of reaching out to the aliens that makes this film so unique, and so special. Banks shows her colleagues, and the audience, the value of language—how words and phrases change our perceptions of reality. So Banks works to speak to, and listen to, the aliens. She begins like a parent would with a child, with concrete words such as “human” and “walk,” and then moves to more complex elements like pronouns, prepositions, and words that have multiple meanings. The film’s tension is increased when the word “weapon” appears, and we have to consider that the word could imply a threat of violence, but it may also simply mean a tool. Recognizing the aliens’ meaning of the word, and this applies in our own lives, can be the difference between life and death. Taking the sci-fi genre out of the realm of deafening explosions and complex spaceships and into a lesson on grammar is daring, to say the least, but it is a brilliant deconstruction of not only the film genre, but of human interaction itself.
Director Denis Villenueve (Sicario, Prisoners, Enemy) is known for pushing audiences to explore moral and psychological questions, to reconcile their sense of reality with a world that doesn’t always match their perceptions. The film avoids the spectacle of the modern sci-fi genre—no intergalactic battles, no harrowing escapes or cartoonish CGI. The special effects employed are effective, yet subtle, and are not for visual amazement, but for advancing character. Even the aliens here (called heptapods), though we never see a face or anything resembling anthropomorphic qualities, seem to have personalities that pierce through the communication barrier and effectively display the “friend or foe” dilemma of the film.
Villenueve focuses on Adams’s face more than any other image, inviting us to witness her mental struggle, as well as participate with her in solving this existential mystery. Adams is our conduit to this other world and into our own. We are shown that Banks has lost a daughter to illness in recent years, and she continues to carry the pain with her. Her memories aid in her connection to the aliens, the passion for reaching out, learning, and understanding written across her face. And her present reality is shaped by events on the timeline of life. She must determine the meaning of free will and what consequences her choices hold. Banks’s struggle is our struggle, and Adams allows us to identify with her on a fundamentally human level. Adams continues to show herself as one of the best actresses in Hollywood today, and her quiet portrayal of a desperate mother/researcher raises our respect for Banks in ways that an overly expressive performance never could. She is able to say more with a longing look than with any tearful breakdown. Adams, surrounded by males in a traditionally male-dominated genre, carries the film on her shoulders effortlessly.
The film does fall into some unfortunate stereotypes, with some clear socio-political messages mixed in: there is a comment about a particular brand of news coverage, a caricature of talk-radio, and the persistent theme of military and political personnel only wanting to blow stuff up. That only intellectuals can save the world is an increasingly common vision in both Hollywood and beyond. The sad irony, of course, is that if the aliens of Arrival greeted us with laser cannons (as in Independence Day, War of the Worlds, etc.) instead of ink blots, those same intellectuals would scream at the failure of the military to protect us. Villenueve doesn’t dwell on these elements, but they are hard to ignore.
And there is the matter of whether the theory Banks presents fits with scientific reality. Saying there are some plot “holes” might be a little harsh, but there are certainly elements that are left unexplained. This linguistic equation is underdeveloped in some respects, and there is a glitch in the narrative that nearly ruins this story (for me, anyway), but much of the film’s flaws are forgivable due to the intent of the endeavor and the execution of the production. Renner feels underused here, but Whitaker and Stuhlbarg are solid, as they continue to be two of the best character actors working today.
I appreciate a film that tries hard to offer something new, especially in a well-worn genre. This film demands a fair amount of mental stamina from the audience—it is rather slow moving and the physics and linguistics implications will rattle brains long afterward—but it is well worth the journey. Arrival is a fraction away from being one of the best films I’ve seen in the last two years. It is smart, challenging, and brave enough to tell a science fiction story with character and nuance rather than showy visuals. And it gives us the ultimate reason for studying the Humanities: they transcend humanity.
Grade: B+
Hacksaw Ridge (PG-13 Nov. 4)
Mel Gibson's Hacksaw Ridge is based on the true story of soldier Desmond Doss and his conviction not to carry a weapon into war. The film's brutality is juxtaposed with Doss's respect for human life, showing us that there are always two sides to every conflict and how often our judgments of others can be wrong. While the goal of war is to win by killing and destroying, another victory can be obtained by preserving life.
Doss (Andrew Garfield) is a young southerner who decides to enlist in the army in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack and the increasing U.S. involvement in WWII. Doss wants to participate, as he feels it unfair that other boys are off to fight in his place, so he joins with the goal of becoming a medic on the battlefield. Doss is also newly married to nurse Dorothy (Teresa Palmer), and he knows that leaving for war carries a high probability that he won't return. Because his platoon doesn't trust him to fight valiantly and protect his fellow soldiers, Doss faces resistance before ever meeting a real enemy. His commanding officers, Sergeant Howell (Vince Vaughn) and Captain Glover (Sam Worthington), try to get Doss to quit and return home, but Doss stands his ground, always refusing to pick up a rifle. While serving on the front lines in Okinawa, at a point of insurgence called Hacksaw Ridge, Doss and his unit face an unrelenting Japanese force. This is where his morality is put to the ultimate test, as he remains defenseless throughout the entire bloody battle. But when he single-handedly saves the lives of 75 fellow soldiers during the fight, by treating their wounds and dragging them to safety and toward a return home, Doss becomes the hero of his unit and symbol for all who believe in peaceful service.
Doss's religious faith, which has guided him to a belief in non-violence, is challenged throughout the film, and we are able to see how such a strict code must be enacted in a world that rarely offers or allows for moral certitude. We see him struggle to develop relationships and convince others that his belief is not craziness or cowardice, but a true commitment to a life-affirming principle. Garfield shines most in his performance during Doss's court martial for refusing to follow orders. His reasoning is heartfelt and logical, and even if we have doubts about his ability to fulfill his faith, we are convinced he will gladly live and die to try.
The film's high point is when the unit is mowed down by the Japanese who have secured an elevated and hidden position. Many of Doss's mates are killed instantly, but those wounded are left behind. As the unit retreats down the cliff, Doss stays to rescue the fallen. And he does so in a clever fashion that shows not only his bravery, but his intelligence as well. He maintains the prayer throughout the night, "Please Lord, just help me save one more." This is certainly the most incredible and inspiring part of the film, and it makes up for most of the problems found along the rest of the way.
Like many war stories, there are quite a few cliches here. There's the obligatory "We're gonna get you home" lines, the bully in the unit who is a bully for absolutely no reason, as well as the roll call of diverse infantrymen--with names like Tex and Hollywood and accents from New Jersey and the Old South--just to remind us that people from all over the country fought side by side. There's also some clunky dialogue, a few odd cuts where we wonder if there would have been a better take to use, and pacing that feels forced, as the first half of the film covers many years, while the last half covers mere days. Yes, background is important, but the film could trim twenty minutes off the front and wouldn't be worse for it.
Ultimately, besides Doss, the most important person in the creation of this film is Gibson. He's tackled violence and faith brilliantly in his other films, but this one is not quite up to that level of quality. Gibson has never been a subtle director, but his guidance here feels so intent on showing us violence that he seems to assume we wouldn't understand Doss's peaceful stance without it. The action is gruesome, and perhaps necessarily so. But one has to wonder how this film could've been handled by a director with more nuance. I don't know if it would be better, but I think it could be different in a good way.
The message of the film is what viewers should take away, rather than any ideas on acting or direction. There is an inherent conflict in the film that must be reconciled. This is a war film that emphasizes not fighting, while simultaneously showing us that defeating evil can only be done through violence (as the conclusion of the film clearly shows). Doss's respect for life is admirable, but as one character rightfully tells him early in the film, you don't win wars by not fighting. However, I think the valuable lesson from Hacksaw Ridge is how we view service. Doss shows us that everyone can serve, even if one doesn't believe in killing. His unshakable commitment to faith, and also to the country, is an important one that should inspire us all. It's understandable to disapprove of war, and we should all respect human life. But it's how we demonstrate those views that can shape the world. Fighting is sometimes necessary, but firm principles are always necessary.
Grade: B
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (PG-13 Oct. 21)
The newest installment in the Jack Reacher franchise, based on the successful book series by Lee Child, is an immense letdown after the success of the first film back in 2012, which grossed nearly $220 million. With a sluggish plot and a lackluster performance from star Tom Cruise, Never Go Back abandons the cleverness of the first film and ends up as humdrum as a basic drama on network television.
This time, Reacher pursues the wrongful imprisonment of a colleague, Major Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), who is accused of espionage. How exactly she could ever be proven to be part of a gun-running scheme is mostly unclear, but Reacher’s digging leads him to a high-powered officer and the henchman who does his dirty work. While this has echoes of the first film’s plot, unfortunately, it’s hard to care too much when the antagonist is left inadequately drawn. When we finally meet the bad guy, we are left wondering, is that it?
The film tries to include additional female characters, which the first noticeably lacked, but it does so awkwardly and fruitlessly. When Reacher begins to investigate Turner’s framing, we are led to believe there may be a romantic interest, but ultimately she’s not nearly interesting enough. And we are introduced to a potential long-lost daughter, who turns out to just be a huge brat throughout the film and serves no real plot function. There is an interesting dynamic that seems to attempt to portray women as capable military members who constantly struggle against the glass ceiling. Yet, at nearly every turn, Major Turner is not nearly as crafty, smart, or tough as Reacher. He even calls her out on it, after he gives her an order to stay behind and keep safe and then returns from almost getting killed by five guys, cleverly saying, “Are you upset that I treated you as a woman, or that I treated you as a man?” It seems the film’s creators are trying to make a point somewhere in here, but I have no idea what it is.
The film also looks terrible on screen, particularly the final 30 minutes, when the action is supposed to be its best. How this film cost $96 million to make is beyond me. The sets are cheap, and I’m absolutely stunned they actually shot in New Orleans, as Bourbon Street looks like something a few college kids could put together in a random alley in L.A.
Never Let Go is a disappointment in so many ways. It’s hard to make Tom Cruise uncharismatic. His natural charm and commitment to even the most implausible storylines usually salvage any project he’s a part of. After all, we are rarely watching a film starring Tom Cruise; rather, we are always quite aware we are watching a Tom Cruise film. However, director Edward Zwick has attempted to throw so many other characters into the mix that Cruise simply blends in, and not in a good way.
The appeal of Reacher is his mystery. We don’t quite know who he is, how he knows so much, and why he cares about particular cases. His sneakiness is practical, making him more relatable than Bond or Bourne, or even Cruise’s other alter-ego, Ethan Hunt. In Never Go Back, Reacher is known and identifiable. People are aware that he’s snooping around, that he’s ex-military, and he’s very good at his job. There is little of the understated panache of the first film and few opportunities for him to exhibit his unparalleled skills. Yes, he still kicks butt, but it’s rarely as impressive as in the first film. Perhaps we’ve come to expect too much from Reacher/Cruise.
Overall, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is an abysmal film, with uninteresting and underdeveloped characters, a clunky screenplay, and some of the worst production design I’ve seen in a long time. Reacher may have been trying to never go back to the Army, but viewers should never go to the theater in the first place for this stinker.
Grade: D
The Magnificent Seven (PG-13 Sept. 25)
It’s common for films that are remakes of originals to update material for an audience with 21st century sensibilities, with more timely themes, story additions or subtractions, and certainly stylistic camerawork or special effects. We’ve seen it in the science fiction and superhero genres most overtly in recent years, but it seems westerns have been able to largely avoid such overhauls, as remade films like True Grit (2010) and3:10 to Yuma (2007) have been quite successful in sticking to their forebears. But the new version of The Magnificent Seven couldn’t quite resist making some noticeable changes from the original 1960 film, and while some aspects of this release show a marked improvement, the film tends to stray from its conventions and often looks as clumsy as a whiskey-soaked wrangler.
The new version never quite pulls off the epic look of most westerns, as director Antoine Fuqua has crafted a visual layout that looks like a simple film set. While there is an attempt at some sweeping landscape shots, the desolate, rugged, and isolated quality that imbues most westerns is mostly lost here. This feels like a movie, and everything will be precisely staged for it. The cast reflects such staging. This film has joined the “one of everybody” approach to casting, so often found in today’s commercials (see most children's retail store ads) and large ensemble films (see the Ocean’s films, the recent Star Wars installment, or many others) in which the filmmakers are sure to include a healthy amount of diversity to keep everyone satisfied. The original was a fairly bland collection of cowboys, and though this revision has an air of pandering, it does work effectively here. Packed with stars and recognizable supporting actors, the film does a great job of allowing each character a chance to breathe, interact with the others, and develop a clear sense of personality and purpose.
Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington) is a bounty hunter who is asked by town locals (particularly widowed Emma, played by Haley Bennett) to help them ward off an evil miner, Bart Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), who intends to take over the land and evict citizens from the town, or kill them if they don’t cooperate. Chisolm rounds up a band of eccentric characters (played by Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, Byung-hun Lee, Martin Sensmeier, and Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) to help him defend the town and get rid of Bogue and his hired crew of corrupt law enforcement officials once and for all. The seven heroes train the citizens to shoot and help build booby-traps to prepare for the battle to come. Chisolm and his men, along with the members of the town, know they may lose their lives in the fight, but they believe protecting one’s home is always worth the cost.
While this premise, defending land, is a staple in the western genre, it is how this new version sets it up that borders on ridiculous in several instances. We are led to believe that the townsfolk don’t know anything about guns and have to be instructed on simply how to hold one. The original was based on protecting a Mexican village of mostly farmers. The updated film wants us to think that Americans living in the west in 1879 don’t know which end a bullet comes out. Even children of the time would’ve been experienced with guns, for hunting primarily and self-defense secondarily, just as young people living on ranches in western states today certainly do. And the reason for the town’s panic has been noticeably revised, seemingly to address today’s political and economic conflicts. The 1960 film’s antagonists were a simple thief and his bandits who stole from the town’s stock of food and materials. Bogue, however, is intended to be much more sinister than a common criminal—he’s a mean businessman, and that’s the w