Movies Spotlight – 2016 Movies, Part 2 – August 2016

Overall, 2016 has felt disappointing at the movies. Yes, we have a few great movies like Everybody Wants Some!!, Green Room and The Witch, but the year seems to have produced one disappointment after another (especially this Summer). Captain America: Civil War, The Jungle Book, Zootopia, Finding Dory, and Deadpool lived up to our expectations (and surpassed them), but Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, X-Men: Apocalypse, The BFG, The Legend of Tarzan, Jason Bourne, and now Suicide Squad have all come up short (seemingly pulling down our opinions of the whole year and our enthusiasm for what is to come). And yet, there are a number of films to still be excited for:

Pete’s Dragon

At face value, it is surprising that Disney would remake Pete’s Dragon, a back-catalog 1970s musical that I imagine anyone under 35 does not even know ever existed. But Disney has done something interesting with this remake, they have only taken the very basics from the original and let indie auteur David Lowery run with it, resulting in a family film that actually feels substantial. Lowery also has a great cast with Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford and Karl Urban. In theaters August 12^th. Check out the trailer.

The Light Between Oceans

Derek Cianfrance makes brooding dramas, steeped in deep, dark emotions. This all makes him the perfect filmmaker to take on an adaptation of The Light Between Oceans, a drama about a man and wife who decide to raise a baby they find adrift only to discover years later that the child’s mother is still searching for it. The cast is among the year’s absolute best with Alicia Vikander, Michael Fassbender and Rachel Weisz. This could be 2016’s first serious Oscar contender. In theaters September 2^nd. Check out the trailer.

The Girl on the Train

Paula Hawkins’s novel was a huge success, making this adaptation one of the most anticipated films of the Fall. Emily Blunt leads a good cast and Tate Taylor has proven very adept in his ability to produce strong cinematic adaptations (like The Help). The mystery thriller is about Rachel Watson, a divorced woman who takes a train past her old house everyday on her way to work; only, one day something is different when she believes that she witnesses a murder, but that is not the whole story. In theaters October 7^th. Check out the trailer.

The Birth of a Nation

Writer/director/star Nate Parker won both the Audience Award and the Grand Jury Prize at this year’s Sundance Film Festival with his slavery drama The Birth of a Nation. The film feels vital, given the #OscarsSoWhite controversy and our current sociopolitical climate. Parker also represents a much needed fresh cinematic voice. The film is about Nat Turner, a literate slave and preacher who organizes a rebellion against the masters in the antebellum South. In theaters October 7^th. Check out the trailer.

Doctor Strange

Marvel Studios can do no wrong with their Cinematic Universe (aka the MCU), or so it seems. Doctor Strange, however, represents an interesting challenge. Marvel bottled lightening with Guardians of the Galaxy, a gaggle of heroes unknown to general movie-going audiences, but can they do it again with Dr. Stephen Strange? They certainly have the goodwill of their fans, a promising (and different) concept and a phenomenal cast, headlined by Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Eijiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Mads Mikkelsen, and Tilda Swinton. In theaters November 4^th. Check out the trailer.

Loving

Indie auteur Jeff Nichols is one of America’s brightest independent filmmaking stars. His new drama tackles the true story of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple struggling to live in 1958 Virginia. Like The Birth of a Nation, Loving feels tonally vital right now. The buzz out of the Cannes Film Festival, where it screened in May, was very strong with special notices for leads Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. In theaters November 4^th. Check out the trailer.

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk

Filmmakers have had limited success tackling the Iraq War, as it seems to be difficult to really capture the tone of such a twisted and problematic conflict and portray the struggles faced by the men and women in the middle of it (my personal favorite is the HBO miniseries Generation Kill). That said, auteur Ang Lee is a good fit to take it on. Lee also has a good eclectic cast with Kristen Stewart, Vin Diesel, Steve Martin, and Chris Tucker. The film adaptation is about Billy Lynn, a war hero who temporarily gets to come home. In theaters November 11^th. Check out the trailer.

Arrival

Auteur Denis Villeneuve made my favorite film of 2015 with Sicario; he is back in 2016 with the sci-fi drama Arrival. It is about an expert linguist who is recruited by the military to determine if an alien race that has landed crafts across the globe comes in peace or are a threat. Villeneuve again champions the need for more roles and better roles for female actors by casting Amy Adams in the lead (he famously gender switched the lead in Sicario, casting Emily Blunt). In theaters November 11^th.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Cynically speaking, we all knew Warner Bros. would find a way to keep the Wizarding World of Harry Potter going; however, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them has the pedigree to delight fans. J.K. Rowling is providing the script, David Yates (who directed films 5-8 of the Harry Potter series) is behind the camera, and Oscar-winner Eddie Redmayne stars. The film is about the adventures of Newt Scamander, a specialist in magical creatures, in 1920s New York City. Even after eight films, I am excited to return to the Wizarding World. In theaters November 18^th. Check out the trailer.

Manchester by the Sea

Auteur Kenneth Lonergan is finally back with a new film with Manchester by the Sea, a drama about an uncle who must take care of his teenage nephew after the boy’s father passes. The film has a ton of Oscar buzz coming out of its early festival screenings, many calling it the best film of 2016 so far. It boasts a solid cast, led by Casey Affleck, Kyle Chandler and Michelle Williams. In theaters November 18^th.

Moana

Disney’s latest ‘princess’ film aims to be something completely different. First, Moana, a young Hawaiian woman, is actually voiced by a young Hawaiian woman in Auli’I Cravalho and second Moana is her own hero without a love interest. This feels like a big step forward for Disney, who has made big recent strides forward in promoting its female characters. The film also features voice-work from Dwayne Johnson as Maui the demi-god. Ron Clements and John Musker lead the creative team (they have given us some of our most beloved Disney films like The Little Mermaid and Aladdin). In theaters November 23^rd. Check out the trailer.

Allied

Each new Robert Zemeckis film feels like a big deal, as he is a filmmaker known for pushing the visual envelope forward while telling big stories. His new film, Allied, is a WWII action romance about two spies working for the Allies who marry each other and work together, but what if one of them was really a double-agent working for the Nazis? The film also happens to have two of Hollywood’s most dynamic leading actors in Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard playing its spies. I think this is a sleeper for film of the year. In theaters November 23^rd.

La La Land

Bursting onto the scene with Whiplash, writer/director Damien Chazelle is back with a musical dramedy and he has J.K. Simmons with him again. We need more good musicals; this one looks magical and sublimely charming. It stars Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling (who has fantastic chemistry) and is about a jazz pianist who falls for an aspiring actress in Los Angeles. In theaters December 16^th. Check out the trailer.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Set right before the beginning of A New Hope, Rogue One is about the team of rebels who steal the plans for the Death Star. Director Gareth Edwards describes the film as a war movie, set in the Star Wars Universe. Writer Tony Gilroy is working with Edwards presently finishing up the final editing process, getting the tone just right. Everything we have seen so far is very promising. Plus, the cast, fronted by Felicity Jones, is very good. This is the film I am most looking forward to seeing. In theaters December 16^th. Check out the trailer.

Passengers

Sony’s most high profile film of 2016 is Passengers, a sci-fi adventure about a spacecraft shuttling thousands of people to a distant colony planet that experiences a malfunction in one of its sleep chambers awakening two passengers 60 years early. The story sounds intriguing alone and then you throw in the very charming leads Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt and Passengers suddenly jumps to the top of a lot of ‘Most Anticipated’ lists. If Lawrence and Pratt have chemistry, I cannot imagine this not being highly entertaining. Rising star Morten Tyldum is behind the camera. In theaters December 21^st.

A few others to look out for: Queen of Katwe, American Honey and Lion. 

Fury (2014) – Review

Review: Fury is a graphic, gritty WWII tank action/drama that cuts through the typical nostalgia of the era and goes straight for the moral ambiguity of what actual soldiers faced.

The film is about the five-man crew of the Sherman tank ‘Fury’ commanded by a battle-hardened sergeant named Wardaddy. April 1945, nearing the end of the war, the tank is assigned desperate mission to protect the advancing Allies’ supply lines in Germany. Fury along with three other Sherman tanks set off to face an unknown number of troops marching towards the Allies’ position. For all they know they are out-numbered and out-gunned.

World War II era films are generally black and white morally. Adolf Hitler is a symbol of supreme evil to this day, which makes the forces that oppose him the forces of good, if not by default. Thus, WWII is regarded now with such a high level of heroic nostalgia that many often forget about what it was like for the actual soldiers. Simply portraying the Allies as the good guys and the Axis (Germany, Japan and their allies) forces as the bad guys is too easy. Yet, that is how the war is often portrayed, even in very good narratives like Band of Brothers (probably the best made war film/series, yet it too has a strong nostalgia to it). Films of the 1940s and 1950s, too, featured a high level of patriotism, heroism and nostalgia for the heroes and heroics displayed by the Allied fighting forces – because they needed to (the 1940s was a time of propaganda filmmaking and the 1950s needed to show that the sacrifice was well worth it).

The cynicism of modern war does not creep into film until filmmakers begin tackling the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Films like The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now look directly at the darkness within man; however, that same cynicism has not bled over into WWII for American filmmakers (as it certainly has for German, as seen in Downfall or Stalingrad, among others). With Fury, writer-director David Ayer seems like he wants to remove the nostalgia and heroism that represents the era and present the soldiers in a much more gritty and realistic light, allowing some of that cynicism to sneak into this heralded era.

The film is incredibly violent and graphic. Ayer does not want to pull any punches visually, allowing the horrors of war to take a central place in his visual narrative. In fact, I would say that he even goes out of his way to detail just how visceral and grotesque war really is with his visuals and thematic elements. He wants his film to be intense and feel overwhelming.

Ayer wants his audience to see the soldiers as they really were; men forced to become animals in order to deal with the carnage that they must face and reap. Mentally, the average man must make himself less of a man in order to compartmentalize the horror – the soldiers who did come back were not the same (post-traumatic stress disorder was found in something like 99% of all G.I.s returning from WWII). Looking at the war from high above it is easy to see who was right and wrong, good and evil, but on the battlefield, man against man it becomes much grayer.

There is a sentiment among many men who have served that they themselves are not heroes, but they served with many heroes who never came home. It is hard to feel heroic when you have seen, suffered through, and done what is necessary in battle to survive. Often, and simply, it comes down to one man needing to kill another man before that man kills him – and, he must do this by any means necessary, which can lead to some very dark places. Especially given the fact that really these soldiers on opposing sides are not very different. They want the same things for their lives; but to survive, they must convince themselves that the soldiers that oppose them are evil – how else can they justify the killing?

Ayer’s ambitious with Fury is to more accurately display this hardship and darkness within fighting men, allied forces or axis forces. Fury is primarily focused on the five men that occupy the tank, never really giving much thought to other soldiers and especially not the enemy (because really, they do not matter; not to these men; their tank squad is their family; they will do anything to keep each other alive). Ayer’s characters are also much more ambiguous morally (as is his narrative in general) and presented as being much grittier and dirtier than most WWII dramas have shown their characters to be. These men are not likable in the classical sense, yet the audience is behind them because they are just average men who are asked to do more than any man should need to do. No man should be asked to kill another, yet that is the way of man.

The audience has an in to the dirty, grimy world that Ayer has created with Norman Ellison. He, like the audience, is new to the world Ayer sets in front of him. He is a good man with a set of morals. Yet, his morals have no place in battle, as he indirectly gets other soldiers killed because he is hesitant to fire upon enemy troops (because they are just kids). He soon realizes, as Ayer hopes the audience will, that to be an effective member of his squad he must lose his former self and develop a battle persona (he is dubbed ‘Machine’ by his mates), mentally allowing him to do what is necessary, compartmentalizing the horror.

Ayer has not completely lost sight of what makes war films great, however. At its core, Fury is a film about the brotherhood that forms among fighting men – something apparent in every film (non-fiction and fiction alike) – and the impossible thing that these ‘brothers’ are asked to undertake. Here, the tank squad is asked to stop the advancement of a few hundred German soldiers essentially alone. It is a suicide mission. Their will to take on the odds and fight their hardest makes them heroic (much in the same way we champion those who fought at the Alamo again the Mexican forces of General Santa Anna). Ayer plays this grand finale for action and emotion. It works very well, as the audience deeply invests in these men because Ayer has made is clear just what they are doing and what it means.

Fury is a much darker and grittier (and probably more realistic look, to some extent) than most past WWII dramas, but it is also a Hollywood film in many ways. Norman is completely incompetent when he first joins the crew of Fury. He is only trained as a typist. Yet, within a few days he becomes a more than adequate soldier. This feels a bit unrealistic, especially given the fact that often replacement soldiers were not as well trained and would usually be killed in droves because they just were not ready to fight. Norman is thrown into the fire, so to speak. It is not impossible to believe that his instincts took over and his will to survive carried him through. Fury is not based on a true story. The realism of the odds they face in the film conclude in certain death, and yet they give the Germans a heck of a fight. It feels a bit exaggerated (but that is often the case with film, as it needs to be bigger to engage the audience). The graphic and violent nature of the narrative and the darkness and moral ambiguity that the characters are presented with gives the film a somewhat uncomfortable tone in the sense that the film is very intense and serious. Some filmgoers broke into nervous laughter throughout as a coping mechanism, while others found themselves in tears.

While the film does play on a bit of a bigger stage than it probably would have given a more realistic approach to the plot details, it is ultimately a very effective drama and compelling action film (assuming you are not off-put by graphic violence and gore, as some are). The gritty, dirty and morally ambiguous character approach works quite well in establishing characters that feel much more real than the heralded heroes that we are often treated to in WWII films. In Fury, these are real men, flaws and all, put in impossible situations, asked to do impossible things.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: David Ayer is known for writing and directing very gritty L.A. police dramas, his best probably being End of Watch (he also wrote Training Day). Fury, however, sees him take a big step forward as a filmmaker. It is his best film visually and emotionally. It gets at the heart of what it was like in the dirt and muck for the average WWII grunt. It is also thrilling and engaging as an action film. I look forward to what he does next.

Composer Steven Price’s score is fantastic. He completely understands and embraces the darker tone that Ayer hopes to achieve with the film. The score is unnerving as it seems to get right at the fear within each man’s heart as he goes into battle. Cinematographer Roman Vasyanov’s work is also wonderful. His visuals are entrenched with bleakness and faded color. There is nothing bright or happy in this narrative. Andrew Menzies’s production design is excellent as well, capturing the look and feel of the era very well. He too contributes to the bleakness and darkness of the look and tone. The film just feels very dirty, completely erasing the gloss of heroic nostalgia usually associated with the era.

The cast is very good. Jim Parrack, Brad William Henke, Jason Isaacs, and Anamaria Marinca are all very good in small supporting roles. Alicia von Rittberg is excellent as Emma, a young German girl who Norman falls for after a brief encounter. Her scene is key to Norman’s transformation, and von Rittberg’s performance is fantastic as she entrances the audience. Jon Bernthal plays Grady Travis, maybe the most unlikable member of Fury’s crew. He is very rough, but completely committed to his fellow mates. Michael Pena plays Trini Garcia, the driver of the tank. He has some funny moments, but he too is rough around the edges. Shia LaBeouf (who is actually very good in the film) plays Boyd Swan, a man who like his compatriots has allowed himself to become very rough to deal with the war but is also deeply conflicted about what he must do (as he is a man of God). Logan Lerman is good as Norman Ellison. He feels very green when we first meet him, only to undergrown a transformation as he realizes what it actually means to be in war – his morals taking a back seat to survival. Brad Pitt is very good as Don Collier (Wardaddy). With Pitt, the audience is allowed to see a bit more behind the scenes character wise. He puts on a front as a very hard man, but behind that façade the war is taking a great emotional toll. He knows, however, that he must be hard to keep his men alive, and in turn he must make them hard so that they can keep themselves alive, regardless of what it is doing to him and them emotionally.

Summary & score: Fury is one of the best recent WWII films as it takes on the era with grit and grim, effectively telling the story of the men on the ground (what they actually went through and faced) and not just labeling them heroes fighting the forces of evil. 8/10

12 Years a Slave (2013) – Review

Review: 12 Years a Slave is harrowing and powerful character drama. The film is about Solomon Northup, a free black man living in 1841 Saratoga, NY, who is tricked into traveling south to Washington D.C. where he is drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery. This is a true story.

There first thing that stands out about director Steve McQueen’s film is that it is unflinching in its portrayal of the conditions these unfortunate souls faced. McQueen does not exaggerate the violence or the evil for dramatic effect, rather the film is very much grounded in reality, which is probably what makes it all the more affecting.

Structurally, 12 Years a Slave feels like a grand story (similar to films such as Lawrence of Arabia or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), as it is sweeping narrative following Northup over the course of many years, in multiple locations, and engaging with a myriad of characters. And like many grand stories, this is a film about the perseverance of human spirit in the face of the shameful, vile abomination of man’s capacity to commit evil against his fellow man.

Northup has two primary owners. The first is seemingly a good man (Ford), while the second is filled with malice intent (Epps). However, what is striking about McQueen’s look at slavery is that Ford might just be the bigger villain. Epps is a crazed maniac whose own shortcomings bleed out in the form of violence towards his slaves. Ford on the other hand genuinely seems to know that slavery is wrong (on some level), and yet is complicit in it as a tool to forward his own business interests and livelihood. Epps is merely just a bad, troubled man, but Ford knows better. This is the terrifying truth that McQueen gets at: yes, there were/are evil men in this world but it is the indifference of the good that truly allows atrocity to occur.

Northup meets many characters – some good, some bad, each with a different view of life. And yet, all are to some extent apathetic towards what holding humans in bondage really means. The white slave owners to varying degrees buy into the idea that these men are of a lessor human value and thus viewing them as property is not such a reach, and the slaves themselves are for the most part subservient to their unfortunate plight. What happened to moral good, above all of man’s laws? Northup is constantly out of step, as he will just not accept his fate. Through Northup, McQueen showcases reprehensible brutality as nothing more than a social and economic system in play – each party merely enacting their part. This is what is frightening. Northup is disgusted by the abhorrence of his situation, and that perspective is translated to the audience who is completely invested in him (due to very strong character work), but to those more familiar with the situation (i.e. whites and blacks that have grown up in the system) it is just normal daily life. The whites stand supreme over their plantations, inflated by their social, political, and economic status while their slaves cower, their will long broken.

Northup is the guiding light through the fog of forgotten morals. McQueen’s film feels so realistic that the audience too seems to lose hope and simply comply with the order of this awful world, too exhausted and beaten down to fight. Only Northup stands tall. He is different. He just will not fully summit. There are a number of moments in which his situation seems lost, as he comes to fully understand just what humanity is capable of in this warped society. But, he never does give up. The film, as bleak as it may feel, is ultimately uplifting. He survives, one of the few.

Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, while a revenge fantasy, does go out of its way to explicitly detail the horrors of slavery – the cruelty, the abject character, and plain hateful nature of slave owners. It is effective in its intended conveyance. With 12 Years a Slave, McQueen is to some extent making the same film as Tarantino. He wants to comment on the capability of man to commit evil using slavery as his foil. However, as good as Django Unchained is, 12 Years a Slave is much more successful at engaging the audience on an emotional level. The film does not go for guilt (that is unreasonable at this point). It does not go for sympathy, at least from a perspective of a third party commenting on how awful it must have been. No, McQueen wants his audience to viscerally feel the anguish, the humiliation. What it is to be meaningless and truly without hope. His film is unflinching because he wants his film to not just tell a story but to be an experience (maybe to shake humanity out of its apathy). McQueen has made a film that regardless of the viewer’s background makes them feel like they are the ones in bondage (if only for a moment). It is deeply disturbing and utterly sad, but in the end hopeful that humanity can find a way back.

12 Years a Slave excels aesthetically and in all aspects of its filmmaking and performances. It is a character drama that fully pulls the audience in, infests their souls, and opens them up to the heartbreaking reality that so many faced (and continue to face in some parts of the world). Solomon Northup was amazingly lucky and also devastatingly unlucky.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Auteur Steve McQueen is among today’s most brilliant filmmakers. His films just seem to have an innate power to them, a volatile emotional connection that grabs their viewers bringing them to an impassioned climax (be it sadness, joy, anger). Hunger and Shame are fantastic works, but both exist more in the fringe of independent film (mostly unseen by average moviegoers). 12 Years a Slave is his most accessible work (in some ways it is a Hollywood prestige film), and yet it does not feel diminished in any way dramatically. McQueen keeps his edge, which is wonderfully refreshing.

Hans Zimmer’s score for the film is fully immersive. More than any other piece of film-music this year, his score interacts with the viewer on a deeply affecting emotional level. It incites a fevered erupting of emotion. While 12 Years a Slave is impressive in all aspects, Zimmer’s score seems to aspire to something more. Even without its accompanying images, it is a powerfully dynamic composition.  Sean Bobbitt’s cinematography is excellent. The film is lit mostly with natural light, Bobbitt employing candlelight in many scenes to great effect (giving the film a similar look, though darker tonally, to Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon). McQueen and Bobbitt (in their third collaboration) also use some very aggressively combative images (like the trashing wheel of the riverboat) to actively agitate the viewer in the early scenes, but later in the film they use much more peaceful transition shots (mostly of a blazing sky over the Louisiana swamp). Even in the film’s transitions and place-markers, McQueen is engaged in an emotional dialog with the audience. Adam Stockhausen’s production design is wonderful as well. The look of the film creates an overall feeling or realism, paramount to the success of the narrative. An interesting thing I noticed is that, the viewer never leaves Northup, and thus the design is focused to the areas that he inhabits. The audience almost never sees the inside of any of the great mansions that overlook the plantations (aside from a couple dance scenes, featuring cramped conditions). Northup’s world as a slave is dark, damp, and seemingly void of hope juxtaposed to the more flamboyant colors that free men often favor. Zimmer, Bobbitt, and Stockhausen each produce work that is among the year’s best in their disciplines.

As exceptional as the directing, writing, music, design, photography, and overall aesthetic composition of the film is, 12 Years a Slave is still a film built on its performances. However, it mostly features small bit parts (many great actors having only but a moment of screen time). While all the performances in the film are strong, a few of these small performances stand out. Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam play Brown and Hamilton, Northup’s initial kidnappers. They have such a joyful exuberance that it is shocking when they turn out to be bad men. They do a wonderful job of ripping the audience out of their comfort zone (which the subsequent scenes only build on). Chris Chalk and Michael K. Williams are the next to serve the role of introducing the audience and Northup to the sheer reality of his situation from very different perspectives. Adepero Oduye plays her character’s sadness with such a heartbreaking hopelessness, weighing on Northup. Paul Giamatti plays a slave salesman. His frank delivery is unnerving as he sells humans as if they were beasts. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Ford, a man who appears noble and good, but is really just a coward. Paul Dano (seemingly recapturing a little of his There Will Be Blood character’s uneasy energy) becomes Northup’s first obstacle, as he plays a man of deficiency who cannot bear to be upstaged by a slave. Sarah Paulson plays Epps’s wife. She is just as awful and hateful (again conveying the total disregard that slave owners had for their slaves). And finally, Brad Pitt plays a white man in the South unafraid to speak out against the inhumanity and moral wrongs of slavery. Lupita Nyong’o and Michael Fassbender feature in true supporting roles. Nyong’o plays Patsey, a slave who has the unwanted affection of Epps and the scorn of his wife. She is brilliant in the role. She suffers to such an extent that she only wishes for death. Fassbender plays Epps. He has such an intense energy that his mere presence is intimidating. He inflicts mental and physical fury as to keep his slaves in a constant state of dread. They wilt before him (all but Northup). He is malevolent bitterness personified, but what is great about Fassbender’s performance is that just calling him evil is too easy. There is something much deeper corrupting his soul. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a beacon of strength as Solomon Northup. To some extent, he cannot get out of his own way. He just cannot keep his head down and conform to the shadows. While the film tries its very best to emotionally break each viewer, Northup seems as though he can bear any load. He will persevere and by doing so the audience is able to emerge from the film hopeful. Ejiofor has so many wow moments in the film (form a performance standpoint), but the one that stands out for me is his finally engaging in song at the burial of a slave who collapsed while picking cotton. Everything just seems hopeless. Watching this man die from exhaustion to the complete disregard of everyone else seems like it might finally be the final straw for Northup. He looks defeated, but during the song he again finds his will, his strength.

Summary & score: 12 Years a Slave is a profound cinematic experience, piercing into the viewer’s soul. 9/10

The Counselor (2013) – Review

Review: The Counselor is a crime drama that explores the good and evil (mostly evil) of man. The film is about a successful Texas lawyer who is enchanted by greed and wants more. To get it, he commits to a deal with a South American drug cartel. When their drug shipment is hijacked, the cartel blames the lawyer and his associates (a club-owner named Reiner and a go-between Westray). Now, the lawyer finds his whole world collapsing, making him realize what is really important to him – his lovely fiancée Laura, not the money and power he was initially allured by.

Let me just start out by saying: no, The Counselor is not a crime thriller filled with suspenseful action sequences (which is what most going in seem to believe it is) – and it was never meant to be. Rather, it is a set of conversations (much like Richard Linkerlaker’s Before Sunrise series about the nature of relationships and love) between a variety of characters (primarily centered around the Texas lawyer, only referred to as Counselor) about good and evil, ranging from greed, sex, money to love, acceptance, and life’s meaning. Many of the conversations (which all contain weighty and well-written dialog from Cormac McCarthy) seem to take on a philosophical feel, as many double as lessons about life.  It is these conversations and wonderful performances from the cast that make the film something special.

Those expecting (and only wanting) action and thrilling suspense will likely be disappointed and find the film slow and probably convoluted – unwilling to settle in, pay attention, and absorb all that the film offers.

Director Ridley Scott, working with McCarthy, gives the film a beautiful aesthetic look and the gloss of high production quality. The world in which these devious characters inhabit has a sheen to it, which nicely juxtaposes to the grimy underworld in which they deal. El Paso is seemingly a perfect setting, as just across the border is Juarez one of Mexico’s most crime-ridden cities, plunged into poverty and despair by the cartel’s control and constant violence. El Paso must seem like a shining beacon by comparison. In this setting, the audience is treated to a parable of sorts.

In many ways, Ridley Scott has made what narratively feels like an independent drama with the budget, look, and style of a bigger Hollywood film. While Hollywood films have become driven by action set pieces, simple narratives, and happy endings, The Counselor offers none of these. The film is not void of action, as there are a few very violent moments, but they are not there to provide the audience with exciting moments, and none of them involve the film’s lead character (who the audience has an investment in). The violent moments serve the role of showcasing just how brutal this world of crime really is, as well as forwarding the plot. These are hard, morally neutral men who do horrid things in the name of money and power. Scott does not try to glamourize the violence at all. If anything, the brutality in the film is jarring, not celebrated (like many Hollywood films).

Scott and McCarthy do not give in to the idea of a simple narrative either. The audience is expected to pay attention here and work a few things out for themselves. The overarching themes and ripe, layered dialog set the mood and provide the audience with everything they need to understand what is happening. It is refreshing to watch a Hollywood film that does not placate its narrative. This could have easily just become yet another average-man action film. The lawyer’s world is dissolving around him. The cartel even goes as far as to start murdering his friends and associates and kidnaping his fiancée. He tries to dig himself out of the hole he is in, but there is nothing he can do. He can only accept his fate. If this were a typical Hollywood film, he would have somehow found a way to fight back against the cartel, rescuing his fiancée, and there would have been big action scenes filled with suspense. Again, this was never that film.

The Counselor plays a bit like a parable with the message warning about the trappings of green and instead to take stock of what is truly important in your life (love). The lawyer has a great life and a beautiful woman who loves him and who he loves, what else could he want? But there is always more. He is surrounded by men that have seemingly more, like his friend Reiner who lives in an exotic house, drives luxury sports cars, and dates glamorous women. Reiner seemingly has everything, and yet he spends most of his time with the lawyer talking about relationships and wanting love. Or Westray, the lawyer’s go-between with the cartel, when things go bad he can only say that he knew this day would come and that he should have left the game sooner but he stayed on too long anyway. The lawyer starts out in the luxury of a privileged life in El Paso (and seemingly jet setting across Europe) only to end up alone with nothing in a rundown dirty motel in Juarez. This is what greed does. It corrupts. The lawyer wants into this life, and yet those he engages to help him get a foothold seem to just want a simpler life but are stuck. They cannot stop. The lawyer learns this lesson through pain and loss.

The character of Malkina, Reiner’s girlfriend, seems like the epitome of evil. She has completely accepted who she is and what she wants (which is everything) never looking back. Unlike the lawyer, Reiner, and Westray who all have a foot in both worlds (so to speak) wanting the money and power but also wanting to maintain some sense of their own soul, Malkina has no soul, which gives her a edge in an ugly world. To her, nothing has meaning or worth except money and power, and thus she is willing to do anything to acquire them.

The lawyer’s fiancée Laura seems like the opposite. She genuinely seems good, but she too is corrupted by what money and power can give her. The opening scene of the film features just the lawyer and Laura in bed. They clearly love each other and are encased in light (in the form of well-lit white sheets). Even here, however, the lawyer is already starting to corrupt her. Then later, he pulls her in further with an extravagant diamond engagement ring (following a brilliant scene between the lawyer and the diamond’s seller).

Each of the principal characters showcases a different level of greed’s corruption. Scott and McCarthy have created a drama that ruminates on the ugly side of humanity, an evil that is within all of us (we only need give in). While flashy aesthetically, The Counselor is a film built on portentous conversations between well-drawn and played characters in an effort to get at the heart of evil in man (and the way back). Again, while flashy from a production standpoint, the film is not an action thriller taking place in the world of drug cartels. It is much more momentous and refreshing, and honestly demands multiple viewings to appreciate its high ambitions.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Ridley Scott has always been a master of visual filmmaking. And again with The Counselor he has delivered a film that is aesthetically very impressive. Working with a great script from Cormac McCarthy, he has made a film that feels like a narrative made in the same spirit as Before Sunrise and Pulp Fiction (though much darker) in that it is made up of a series of conversations that seem to take on a life of their own. One could even maybe call it a cross between these two films. Another comparison can be made by calling it a Hollywood version of No Country for Old Men, as it is in many ways very similar in style (which is no surprise as McCarthy wrote the novel for which the film is based). I think this is a brilliant film that has been greatly misunderstood by most people and hopefully will find its audience in the coming years.

Daniel Pemberton’s score plays an important role in The Counselor. Scott’s pacing is rather slow, as he gives the performances priority. Thus, Pemberton’s music takes on the role of supplying a sense of dread and dramatic tension to the film, accompanying the performances and tone, something it does well. Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography is top notch. The film is beautiful, even though it is partially set in very dirty and gritty places. The camera is smooth and mannered throughout, not a victim to the wave of hand-held work that has overrun all films trying to create a more realistic sense to their world and action. Wolski’s photography, and really the film as a whole, has a much more classic look and feel, prizing ambiance over stark realism. Arthur Max’s production design might even be better than Wolski’s work (which is saying a lot). His sets tell the audience who these characters are while also being incredibly aesthetically engaging. Max creates a world that is both fantastical and alluring while also ugly, dirty, and soulless.

If nothing else, The Counselor is filled with wonderful performances from both bit players and its leads. Goran Visnjic, Natalie Dormer, Ruben Blades (who is particularly good), Toby Kebbell, and Edgar Ramirez are each very good in very small roles. Rosie Perez and Bruno Ganz bring a lot to their small supporting roles, creating fantastic scenes. Brad Pitt is great as Westray, a man who is totally cool and confident (maybe even overly so). He presents himself as a sage, and yet seems to not listen to or take his own advice and falls victim to all the same vices he points out in others (though one could say: thus is human). Javier Bardem is electric as Reiner. He seems almost overwhelmed by the lifestyle he has acquired for himself, but by the same token cannot give it up. Of all the characters, there is a real honesty and frankness to him (even if it only an illusion). There is a sense, like with Westray, that he knows the music has stopped but he is still running around in circles just waiting to be expelled from the game. Cameron Diaz is good in the film as well. Malkina is the kind of character she does well with (similar to the high powered Christina Pagniacci in Any Given Sunday). Penelope Cruz does a good job playing off both the lawyer and Malkina, serving as a much more innocent character new to this life as Laura. Michael Fassbender is brilliant as the lawyer. He undergoes such a transformation from confident hot shot to a man completely broken and desperate as everything crumbles around him. What Fassbender does so well is translate each phase of the process dramatically and emotionally to the audience, each dire moment. The audience keeps hoping that maybe he will find a way to resolve everything, but it is already too late before the film even begins.

Summary & score: The Counselor is the rare Hollywood film that actually engages with its audience on a higher level, revealing truths about humanity, our world, and good & evil. It is ambitious, absorbing, grim, and (sadly) largely misunderstood. 8/10

World War Z (2013) – Review

Review: World War Z is, while predictable, an entertaining thriller with a message of hope. The film is about the chaos humanity faces when the Zombie Apocalypse overruns the Earth. U.N. investigator Gerry Lane is sent on desperate fact-finding mission to locate patient zero. The hope is: if Lane can find where this all began, maybe he can also uncover a cure or way to combat the infection.

Director Marc Forster combines two kinds of films with World War Z. First, the film feels like a horror thriller, as legions of the undead run rampant in the streets (and behind every corner and down every dark ally). While it is not overly scary, Forster does a great job managing suspense. Like most of these kinds of films, the audience more or less already knows what is going to ultimately happen, but suspense is still key in keeping them invested in the drama by maintaining some level of gripping excitement. Here, Forster keeps the thrills coming, while also avoiding the cheapness of impact cuts. He employs a much more effective and classic style of suspense (playing on the fears of the audience – like darkness, isolation, and fear itself).

Second, the film feels like an international spy or adventure drama – like a James Bond or Indiana Jones film – as Lane hops across the globe following his leads. This international flare brings a great scope to what is more of an intimate story. Basically, the narrative follows Lane only (and the drama of him both wanting to find a cure and get back to his family) with all the other characters being people he meets along the way. Most zombie films also revolve around one character or a small group and their attempt at survival. By including an international scope to the narrative, World War Z feels more epic and sets itself apart from those other films as something different (which is nice).

However, the film working both as a thriller and an action adventure film is contingent on the audience caring about the characters – specifically Lane (as really he is the only protagonist). Forster does a great job here too. The first act is almost entirely dedicated to creating character moments for Lane as he protects his family from the onset of the Zombie Apocalypse before being rescued by the U.N. and set forth on his mission to find a cure. This character work early pulls the audience in, giving them a stake both in Lane personally (which is paramount in the film working as something more than spectacle) and in the survival narrative. It also allows Forster to focus on the story for the remainder of the film.

This summer has been filled with massive action films filled with grander action set pieces than audiences have maybe ever seen before – and also more mindless destruction (with many of the films featuring larger portions of cities being destroyed with hundreds of thousands of faceless casualties – and Pacific Rim has not even come out yet). World War Z also has a huge amount of destruction and death (as humanity is practically on the brink of extinction – like any other apocalypse film), but it feels different. The film carries a message of solidarity and hope – something that our world seemingly needs more of, as at times humanity feels overly fragmented and hostile. It is refreshing to see an action film that while filled with big entertaining action approaches it from a grave perspective instead of gleeful joy and disregard for human life.

World War Z has a strong lead character that the audience cares about, compelling action and drama, and an easy to follow narrative, but it has a few issues as well that hold it back from being something great. Chiefly, the third act feels somewhat tacked on. Forster abandons the international dazzle retreating back into the zombie genre troupe of a small group of people isolated, trapped, and needing to come face-to-face with zombies to achieve potential survival. Essentially, the film just becomes like almost every other zombie movie – and thus extremely predictable, which extinguishes some of the great tension that Forster had cultivated throughout most of the narrative. But, by the same token, this is at its core a small, personal story (in terms of it following one protagonist and his journey) masquerading as a grand international adventure thriller, and thus it seems fitting that in the end the narrative would minimize its scope down to a small secluded group – to makes things feel more intimate.

The bigger problem lies in the narrative feeling incomplete, like it is merely the first chapter to something bigger – and yet, there is no indication that there is anymore to this story. The end is the end. The tacked on ending is somewhat abrupt and feels too easy, although this allows Forster to keep the film at a brisk sub-two hour runtime (while many blockbusters are bloated and overindulgent).

All in all, World War Z is one of the better summer movies to be released this year. It grips its viewer from the opening and holds their attention throughout with a strong lead in Lane and big zombie action moments. It just does not aspire to be anything greater than an entertaining zombie thriller (succumbing to genre troupes and clichés in the end – but there is nothing wrong with that).

Technical, aesthetic and acting achievements: Marc Forster has had an up and down career. He has made some good dramas (Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner), a good comedy (Stranger Than Fiction), but his previous thrillers have not worked (though, I would argue that as a direct companion piece to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace is solid, and probably provided a lot of useful experience going into this film). World War Z is by far his best action thriller, and maybe his best film to date (still, however, he has never been able to make something great despite his noticeable talent).

Marco Beltrami’s score does a fine job reinforcing the horror/thriller aspects of the tone while giving the action sequences an extra oomph. Ben Seresin’s cinematography is very good as well. Forster’s camera is often frantic matching the disarray that would come from zombies suddenly consuming the Earth’s populace. The look of the film is very desolate with mostly dimly lit interiors. Nigel Phelps’s production design also gives this feeling. Many of the scenes take place in claustrophobic confined spaces. However, despite the supernatural aspect of the narrative (i.e. the zombies), Phelps’s design along with the documentary-feeling camera grounds the film in reality, which helps amplify the suspense and tension.

World War Z does not really offer much to it cast as all the characters appear in small bit roles, save for Lane and two other characters. Plus, the film is much more plot driven than character driven. In these small roles Peter Capaldi, David Morse, and James Badge Dale (especially) are good. Daniella Kertesz is strong as an Israel soldier who accompanies Lane on his mission (it could serve as a mini-breakthrough for her). Mireille Enos is also very good in support as Lane’s wife. She gives a lot of weight to the early character moments. Brad Pitt (as usual) is great as Lane. He is believable in the role and brings a great emotional resonance to the character (the audience really gets behind and cares about him), which enables everything to play bigger.

Summary & score: For a summer film, World War Z is very good. For a zombie film, it is also very good, but not among the genre’s elite. 7/10