Category: Nominees – 2010s

The Favourite – 2018

This was a really strange movie, and I can say that for several specific reasons.  I’m not sure if I actually enjoyed it or not.  I liked the basic plot, which was easy enough to follow and entertaining, however, many of the directorial choices were so unusual that they didn’t seem to fit with the period piece nature of the film.  I think the director, Yorgos Lanthimos, was trying too hard to be artsy, and while he certainly wowed the critics, he may have lost the common audiences.  I’ll explain.

Here is a really quick, bare-bones synopsis of the plot.  The narrative focuses on three women, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marborough, played by Rachel Weisz, her cousin Abigail Hill, played by Emma Stone, and Queen Anne of Great Britain, played by Olivia Colman.  The Queen is often ill, so Sarah, her closest friend, confidant, advisor, and lover, often runs the affairs of state, or at least, she tells the Queen what to think and do.  Abigail was once a lady who has fallen on hard times.  She gains employment as a scullery maid in the Queen’s kitchens.  In a struggle to once again become a proper lady, Abigail befriends Sarah and the Queen.  She manipulates her way into the Queen’s favor, and then her bed.  Seeing her position as Anne’s favourite threatened, Sarah tries to get rid of Abigail.  The two women plot and scheme against each other until the Queen chooses one of them to remain in her close service.  The end.

It was the vicious plotting and backstabbing that made the narrative interesting.  It is what made it good.  But I didn’t really care for some of the details. For example, the movie went out of its way to display, and maybe glorify, some of the disgusting vulgarities of the rich and powerful aristocracy of the early 1700s.  There was a scene in which Anne was alone and gorging herself on some food.  Every so often she would need to casually vomit into an urn held by a waiting servant.  When someone would try to wipe her clean, she would wave them away and continue playing solitaire, green offal caking her chin.  There was another scene in which a group of young male courtiers were taking sport throwing rotten fruit at a naked man in front of a dressing screen.  The target seemed to be having just as much fun as the others throwing the fruit.  And nobody seemed concerned in the least to be seen wallowing in these activities.

And then there was the lesbian content of the plot.  Personally, I have no problem with it, but did the Queen really casually comment on how much she enjoyed receiving oral sex from a maid in front of the livery and anyone else who might overhear?  Of course, she was the Queen, so who would scold her for impropriety?  But I have to wonder if that was how those people really behaved.  Apparently, it wasn’t, and Lanthimos knew it.  He knew he was ignoring historical accuracy, and didn’t care.  But he was also unapologetic about it, which I can respect.  He was inventing things for dramatic effect, for shock value, and to explore his own creative whims.  Ok, if that’s the film you want to make, but I think it could have been just as good a story if reality was respected just a bit more. 

But more than that, there were directorial choices that I didn’t feel connected with the period.  I understand that Lanthimos was consciously doing these things to create effects, moods, and even subliminal perceptions, but a lot of it really took me out of the story, which I feel was strong enough to stand on its own.  For example, there were several shots, not scenes mind you, but shots in which he encouraged the camera man to use a fisheye lens, though this technique seemed to be randomly used.  For me, it was just disorienting and unnecessary.  There was also prolific use of wide angle shots which made the characters on the screen seem isolated and small compared to the large and opulent sets.  And for a lot of the movie, the camera was positioned on the floor, looking up at the actors, making them seem high and haughty, and subsequently making me feel like a bug beneath their feet.  Again, I see what Lanthimos was trying to do, but it also had the unfortunate effect of detaching me from the story, though just a bit.

The minimalist, soundscape noise used to underscore many of the movie’s more dramatic moments didn’t help at all.  It was disorienting and distracting from the drama taking place, and isn’t a film’s underscoring supposed to support the action?  And I also didn’t really care for the monochromatic color palate for nearly every costume in the movie.  The costumes were all individually beautiful, but ultimately boring because of their complete lack of color throughout the entire film.

But then there were the powerful performances.  There is no denying that all three women, Weisz, Stone, and Colman each turned in some fantastic dramatic performances, especially Colman.  In fact Olivia Colman took home the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for the role.  And I really liked a lot of the dramatic tension between Weisz and Stone.  Oh yeah, and there were a few men in the film like Nicholas Hoult as 1^st Earl of Oxford, Robert Harley, Joe Alwyn as 1^st Baron Samuel Masham, the man Abigail marries to secure a higher station, and Mark Gatiss as John Churchill, Sarah’s husband.  But their characters were nearly as incidental as their subplots about England suing for peace with defeated French forces.

Bohemian Rhapsody – 2018

This movie was a biography of the famous lead singer of the rock band Queen, Freddy Mercury, between the time when he joined the band and the time they performed at the Live Aid charity event in 1985.  On the one hand, it was a very good film, was very entertaining to watch, and easily worthy of its Best Picture nomination.  On the other hand, it had a few noteworthy historical inaccuracies that need to be recognized.  So I’ll cover those first.

First, there were little things like rearranged time lines.  For instance, in the film, the song We Will Rock You, was written in 1980 by Brian May.  In reality, the song had been written in 1977.  Or, in the film, Freddie told his bandmates about his sickness just before the climactic 1985 Live Aid concert.  In reality, he didn’t know he had AIDS until 1987, and did not tell the rest of the band until 1989.  But the screenwriter, Anthony McCarten defended his script, saying that the changes were made for dramatic effect, and that he was making a movie, not a documentary.  I agree with his assessment completely.

Second, there were a few things that were completely invented, again, for dramatic effect.  For example, in the film, Freddie breaks up the band by announcing that he had signed a contract to do a solo album.  Then when things go badly for him, he returns to the band as a penitent, begging them to take him back.  That was all completely false.  In reality, all the band members had been working on solo projects, so there was no begging for readmittance.  Also, Queen never broke a contract with EMI records.  That never happened.  I have a bigger problem with these changes since they are a misrepresentation of the real people’s motivations and personalities, but I have to admit that these fabrications did make the movie more dramatic.

However,  those things can be easily overlooked.  The things that they got right far outweighed the inaccuracies.  One of the greatest things about the movie, I think, was the casting.  The film was perfectly cast with Rami Malek playing the demanding role of Freddie Mercury, Gwilym Lee as lead guitarist Brian May, Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor, and Joe Mazzello as bassist John Deacon.  These actors looked very much like the real people, which tends to lend a thick layer of reality to the film.  And as a side note, I nearly missed the fact that the man playing John Deacon was the child actor who played the little boy in the original Jurassic Park.

Malek won the Oscar for Best Actor for his performance, and I think it was well deserved!  He really was incredible!  He had to take both singing and piano lessons, as well as having to work with an accent coach.  To embody Freddie accurately, he had to mimic his mannerisms, both on and off the stage.  That must have been hard to do, since the real Freddie was unique and had a powerful stage presence that was all his own.  I think that Malek, while maybe not as captivating as the real Mercury, did a pretty impressive job.  And I have to say, thank God that the man who was originally supposed to play the part, Sacha Baron Cohen, left the production.  I’m sorry, but I have never been a big fan of the comedian.

Other notable members of the cast include Lucy Boynton as Mercury’s long-time girlfriend, Mary Auston, Allen Leech as Paul Prenter, Mercury’s personal manager and lover, Aidan Gillan as John Reid, Queen’s manager, Mike Myers as EMI record producer Ray Foster, and Aaron McCusker as Jim Hutton, Freddie’s boyfriend.  And I have to take a moment to mention that I really loved the character of Hutton.  He was portrayed as a really nice guy who treated the superstar with kindness and compassion.  But really, everyone did a great job.

Next, the costumes and sets were great.  So not only did the filmmakers have to dress the cast in clothing from the sixties, seventies, and early eighties, but they had to recreate the glam-rock stage outfits that the band wore in their concerts.  That was pretty impressive since some of those pieces were pretty flamboyant and even iconic.  Also, the movie’s climax took place at Wembley Stadium, a place that no longer exists as it did in 1985.  So, they built an exact re-creation for the movie.  It was so perfectly constructed that the actual director of Live Aid, who was present during filming, was pleased with the accuracy of the set.  They even went so far as to have the Pepsi cups and beer on the piano as Queen performed.  Little details like those made the movie incredibly realistic, despite the narrative’s dramatic liberties.  It was a look into both the public and private lives of Mercury and Queen.

But still, I guess when it comes down to it, I have to admit that one of the real reasons I liked the movie as much as I did, was that I am a big fan of Queen’s music, and there was certainly a lot of it featured!  They were simply one of the greatest rock bands of all time.  Their music was awesome.  It was complex, varied, and always well-produced, but it was also singable, memorable, and just plain fun to listen to.  And Freddie was one of the best rock performers ever!  He knew how to give the audiences what they wanted, and he always delivered.

BlacKkKlansman – 2018

Before seeing this movie, I have to admit to having a preconceived notion that was not fair to the film or the filmmaker.  I thought that because it was a Spike Lee movie, that it was going to be about black this and black that, racism, racism, and evil white men.  I have never been a follower of Spike’s career or his films, but I have heard through word of mouth and read news articles about them.  I have also seen a little bit of how he behaves in public, like his acceptance speech which he gave for winning the Oscar for Best Director for this movie.  He is never inappropriate, but he seems very political-minded and passionate.  And as I tend to shy away from anything political, I’ve never had any interest in watching his films. 

But this movie was about more than blatant racism.  It dealt with antisemitism and homophobia.  In other words, it was about hate, plain and simple.  Now, I had the misconception that the Ku Klux Klan was exclusively against black people, but it makes sense that they hate Jews and homosexuals as well.  And I have no doubt that all other ethnic minorities can be included in their list, though those were the three groups that the film focused on.  They just hate anyone who is not straight, white, and follows their particular denomination of Christianity. 

The plot is based on a true story, and is about a black police officer infiltrating the Klan, with the help of a Jewish officer.  I’m surprised a gay officer wasn’t thrown into the mix as well.  It is interesting to note that The Jewish officer was an invented character.  John David Washington played officer Ron Stallworth, the first black policeman in Colorado Springs, CO.  Of course, he encounters prejudice among his fellow officers, though nothing that he can formally complain about.  He asks to be made an undercover detective, a request which is eventually granted.  His first assignment is to infiltrate a rally where national civil rights leader Kwame Ture, played by Corey Hawkins, is speaking.

After a successful assignment, he finds an advertisement for the local chapter of the KKK in the newspaper.  He calls and speaks to Walter Breachway, played by Ryan Eggold, but makes the rookie mistake of using his own name in the conversation.  In order to meet Breachway in person, he partners up with Jewish officer, Detective Philip “Flip” Zimmerman, played by Adam Driver.  Flip assumes Stallworth’s name and together, the two men apply for membership in the Klan.  While undercover, Flip meets other Klan members like the psychotic racist Felix Kendrickson played by Jasper Paakkonen, and the ridiculously retarded Ivanhoe, played by Paul Walter.  The real Ron also gets in touch with David Duke, the grand Wizard of the KKK national organization, played by Topher Grace.

The movie is called a biographical crime film, but I think I would categorize it as a black comedy.  It all had an almost light-hearted feel.  However, while there were funny moments, the entire movie was constantly teetering on the edge of being uncomfortable to watch, and I know why.  First, the blatant hatred in the film was so over-the-top that it bordered on farcical, but the sad truth is that there are really people in the world who think and act exactly like the characters in the movie.  Second, the heavy use of racial slurs, especially the constant repetition of the “N” word, was not easy to listen to.  It’s a word I’ve never liked and I cringe whenever I hear it.  But that was part of the point of the movie and its message.  It was never used gratuitously, but to help paint that picture of extreme hatred.  And if you think about it, who else but Spike Lee could have gotten away with it so easily?

But things start to get deadly serious when Flip is put into situations involving guns and crazy Klan members.  When Felix and his racist wife Connie, played by Ashlie Atkinson, decide to go beyond cross burning and assassinate the leader of the black student union, Patrice Dumas, played by Laura Harrier, the story starts to build to its explosive climax.  But therein lies another of the movie’s historical inaccuracies.  The bomb plot was actually part of a completely different case involving the KKK.

I thought all the acting was spot-on, especially Adam Driver, who had to handle some of the more intense scenes where he is put in danger of being discovered and killed.  Driver was actually nominated for Best supporting actor for his efforts, though he did not win.  I also really liked Washington’s performance.  He was very believable, and appeared very at ease on the screen.  And as much as I disliked the character, I thought Toper Grace did a pretty good job as David Duke.

And I really liked how Spike Lee chose to end his movie.  Yes, the over-the top racism in the movie was almost, though not quite, comical.  But whatever comedy the movie had was abruptly cut short when news footage from the 2017 Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia is displayed on the screen, reminding me that there is nothing funny about the real events still taking place in the world today.  The final images are of Heather Heyer, a young white counter-protester who was run down and killed in a car attack at the terrible event.  After doing some reading, I learned that Heather’s last Facebook post said “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”  And I think that may have been the point of Spike Lee’s film.

Black Panther – 2018

First off, I need to applaud the Academy for nominating a superhero movie for Best Picture.  I never actually though it had a chance of winning, but the recognition was significant.  This, along with other previous Best Picture nominees like Mad Max: Fury Road in 2015, shows that the academy is starting to recognize more than just war films and dramas.  At first, I questioned whether or not the film even deserved its nomination.  After all, as superhero movies go, I didn’t see anything that set it above its peers.  It was a special effects extravaganza with lots of bright and flashy colors that really popped on the screen.  There was lots of action and a bit of drama.  There was a cast of competent actors who were very athletic, perfectly appropriate for playing the parts of super-powered humans.  But nothing really made it stand out.

That is, until I did a little research and realized that I was wrong.  This movie absolutely deserved its nomination, and here’s why.  There are many reasons why films are nominated for the Best Picture category.  One of them is for their cultural significance, and this one is as relevant to our modern times as any film.  It is unfortunate that our society still has issues with racism.  Every time I think that we, as a society, are taking steps to move past our terrible treatment towards people of color, I see something new on the news, some new story of blatant prejudice, hatred, or extreme violence.

Superhero movies are currently very popular, and this movie has the distinction of being the first one with a black superhero.  First, Black Panther, or Prince / King T’Challa, played by Chadwick Boseman is a wonderful example of a role model.  He embodies everything that is good and virtuous in humanity.  He is strong, honest, compassionate, intelligent, and, of course, more than willing to fight for what is good and right.  But the film also gave him understandable human flaws to make him more realistic.  In other words, the character was very will-written.  And the fact that he was incredibly good-looking didn’t hurt either!

Second, Black Panther is a perfect example of a black man playing the lead in a genre that has been overwhelmingly white.  And not only was the story good, but the entire cast did a fantastic job.  And they were not cast in the stereotypical roles of thugs or criminals, nor were they sad blacksploitation characters.  They were the heroes, kicking butt with the best of them!  I especially liked Danai Gurira in her role of Okoye, the general of Black Panther’s royal guard.  She was awesome!

Anyway, on to the film.  The story followed the king of a fictional country called Wakanda as he takes the mantle of ruler following the death of his father.  He wants to be a good king and tries to follow the example of his sire, until he finds out the man’s shameful secret, the fact that he was once forced to kill his own brother and leave his nephew behind in Oakland, California, denying him his true heritage.  This injustice comes back to haunt T’Challa in the form of his now grown cousin, Erik “Killmonger” Stevens.

Killmonger murders Ulysses Klaue, played by Andy Serkis, the man who killed the former king, in order to manipulate his way back into Wakanda.  He then challenges T’Challa to ritual combat for the throne and deposes him, becoming king himself.  It is his goal to conquer the rest of the world in retribution for how black people are mistreated.  Of course, T’Challa does not actually die, but is healed by the efforts of his sister Shuri, played by Letitia Wright, his girlfriend Nakia, played by Lupita Nyong’o, his mother Ramonda, played by Angela Bassett, and American CIA agent, Everett Ross, played by Martin Freeman.  They enlist the aid of a rival tribal chief named M’Baku, played by Winston Duke.  To make a long story short, they all fight in a big battle to take back the Wakandan throne.  Black panther and Killmonger, both imbued with the mystical power of the Black Panther, and each wearing tech-laden super-suits, fight it out until T’Challa kills his cousin. 

The fast-paced action sequences were awesome and exciting to watch.  The color pallet and costumes used for the film were inspired by traditional African clothing and tribal patterns.  I really liked all the bright, glowing colors and beautiful imagery.  Whenever the Black Panther powers were bestowed on a character, via the ingestion of the juice of a glowing purple alien flower, the man’s soul was transported to a twilight world where he could briefly commune with his dead ancestors.  Those scenes had beautiful skies that looked like pink, purple, and blue versions of the Northern Lights.  In other words, the movie was visually gorgeous!

The casting was spot-on, the acting was good, the cinematography was perfection, and the directing by Ryan Coogler was excellent!  It’s just too bad that the Academy, while apparently ready to nominate a superhero movie for Best Picture, was not ready to give it the top prize.  I now think that Black Panther really stood out above other superhero movies in one of its overlying messages, which is that those who have, have a moral obligation and duty to help those who have not.  It is a good message and one that deserves to be recognized.  So, well-done everyone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri – 2017

This review might make it sound like I didn’t like the movie, but nothing could be further from the truth.  It was a highly enjoyable and exciting movie to watch.  It had an awesome cast who created great characters, each of whom turned in flawless performances.  It was an engaging story that drew me in and easily kept my attention.  It was memorable and thought-provoking.  But at the same time, there were a few glaring flaws that stuck in my craw as completely unrealistic, so much so that it seemed absurdly ridiculous.

Winning the Best Actress Oscar for her performance, Frances McDormand played Mildred Hayes, a mother whose daughter has been horribly raped and killed.  After a thorough investigation, the police are unable to find the killer.  In an effort to raise awareness that the police don’t seem to be doing their jobs, Mildred rents three billboards displaying, “RAPED WHILE DYING”, “AND STILL NO ARRESTS?”, and “HOW COME, CHIEF WILLOUGHBY?”  On the surface, it sounds like a lawful, and possibly even clever way to raise awareness of a tragic situation, a way for a grieving mother to express her anger at a justice system that has failed her expectations, and maybe even a challenge to the authorities to get off their butts and do their jobs.  The film portrays Mildred as a tough champion of justice who refuses to accept that the police have done everything they can.

The Officer in question, Chief Willoughby, is expertly played by Woody Harrelson.  He was my favorite character in the whole movie.  He was smart and compassionate.  But he was also dying of cancer.  While his professional integrity is the target of Mildred’s billboards, he sympathizes with her, and even secretly applauds her efforts by helping to pay the fees to keep the signs up.  I particularly loved the scene in which he is interrogating Mildred.  The two are verbally sparring when he unexpectedly coughs up blood all over her face.  The two of them immediately shift their emotional energies, he to fear and apology, and she to motherly sympathy and concern.  McDormand and Harrelson were really great in that moment.

The billboards, of course, are controversial, and the Police Department is offended.  The most vocal of this opposition is Officer Dixon, played by Sam Rockwell.  He is a racist alcoholic, and a complete moron.  Unfortunately, his character arch was flawed.  But  this was a problem with the script, not with the way Rockwell played the part.  In fact, he received a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance.

The challenge that started with Mildred and the billboards, was one that escalated into a dangerous war.  When Willoughby commits suicide, everyone thinks it is over the billboards, when in fact, it was his cancer that was his reason.  Dixon retaliates to his chief’s death by severely beating Red Welby, the owner of the company that owned the billboards, played by Caleb Landry, and throwing him out a second story window, for which he is fired from his job.  Mildred refuses to take the signs down.  The billboards are set on fire.  Then Mildred throws Molotov cocktails at the police station, not knowing that Dixon is inside.  He had been there reading a letter left to him by Chief Willoughby, telling him to let go of hate,  and embrace love.  With the building on fire, Dixon escapes, but suffers severe burns.  Peter Dinklage plays Mildred’s friend who provides her with an alibi for starting the fire.

Dixon has a change of heart, becoming a good person.  He puts himself in danger when he thinks he may have found the man who murdered Mildred’s daughter.  Here is my second biggest beef with the film.  In the end, Dixon is treated as a sympathetic character.  But when the man, played by Brendan Sexton III, is proved innocent of that crime, Mildred and Dixon believe he is still guilty of other murders.  They team up and go on a trip to kill him as a form of vigilante justice, though it is left unclear whether either of them have the conviction to go through with it.

OK, just because someone has a change of heart, doesn’t  mean he shouldn’t have to face the realistic consequences of his past actions.  When he proudly threw Welby out a second story window, losing his job wasn’t enough.  That is attempted murder.  With multiple witnesses, one of whom is the new police chief, he should have been immediately jailed and prosecuted.  End of story.  But after he sees the light, he is portrayed as a hero for trying to catch the killer?  Nope.  Not buying it.

But I think my biggest problem with the plot is something that undermines the entire premise of the film.  The billboards, while they may have been perfectly legal, were fundamentally inappropriate.  I think Mildred put them up to appease her own anger because the police couldn’t find the killer.  And it was all explained to my satisfaction in a scene in which Willoughby talks to Mildred about the unsolved investigation.  I’m sorry, but I’m on the Chief’s side.  Some crimes can’t be solved.  Sometimes the police do everything possible, and it isn’t enough, and it isn’t the police’s fault.  Mildred had no idea what had been done, or could have been done, and she had no right to blame the police in such a public way.  But all that being said, I still really liked the movie, even though it may sound like I didn’t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Post – 2017

This was one of those movies that had a formula for success.  You start with Steven Spielberg in the director’s chair, and you throw in two of Hollywood’s biggest names, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks.  Then you include a fantastic score by John Williams, and a story based on true events that was relevant in the time in which it took place, and today, both at the same time.  There was no question that this would be a really good film.  And darn if it didn’t all work like a charm.

The Post was entertaining and informative on a number of levels.  It was about the leak of the Pentagon Papers, and the scandal that followed.  It was told from the perspective of the newspaper, The Washington Post.  Streep played the character of Katharine Graham, the owner and publisher of the struggling newspaper.  After her father had died and left the paper to her husband, she had inherited it after his untimely death.  In other words, she was never meant to have the job. And on top of that, it was in the early 70s, so she was a woman trying to succeed in a male dominated profession. 

Hanks played Ben Bradlee, Graham’s editor-in-chief.  In order to help the newspaper turn a profit, Graham is going through the risky process of turning the business into a public entity.  The plot follows Bradlee as he becomes aware of a major story being pursued by the rival publication, the New York Times.  The Pentagon papers were a seven thousand page document which detailed the history of the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, including, among other things, the fact that LBJ and his administration lied to both the public and Congress.  According to the film, ten percent of the reason we stayed in Vietnam was to help the South Vietnamese, twenty percent was to stop Communism, and seventy percent was to avoid the humiliation of losing a war we knew we couldn’t win.  If that’s true, it hits pretty close to home.  My own father was a survivor of Vietnam.

But I digress… The Nixon Administration attempts tries to block the Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, using a court injunction.  Bradlee and his staff, including Bob Odenkirk playing Ben Bagdikien, work their investigative magic and eventually get ahold of the Papers.  From there, Graham must make the tough decision to publish or not publish, fully knowing that the injunction against the Times would surely apply to the Post as well.  She is not only risking the financial future of her family business against the impending stock opening, but she risks being arrested for treason and put in jail, herself.

The rest is history.  We know what happened.  To make a long story short, the Post published the papers and went to the Supreme Court along with the Times.  The court ruled in favor of the press, six to three.  The film ended on a brief scene that took place a year after that, as security guard Frank Wills discovers a break-in in progress at the Watergate Hotel.  This movie would actually dove-tail nicely with the 1976 film, All the President’s Men.

The film was perfectly cast.  Streep was marvelous, as always.  This was her 21^st nomination for Best Actress, and I really think she deserved it.  She always has a way of taking any character she plays, and making it perfectly believable and natural.  I sometimes like to joke about the conversation that must take place every year at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  “What was Streep in this year?”  “I don’t know.  Just put her name on the list.”  And Hanks is, likewise, a real acting powerhouse, able to become a role so completely, you’d swear he was born to play his role.  He’s turned in so many great performances, I’m surprised he has only been nominated for Best Actor five times, winning twice.  He has an every-man look along with a seriousness that is captivating.  The rest of the wonderful supporting cast included some pretty recognizable names like Sarah Paulson, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, and Michael Stuhlbarg.

While doing my research, I found that some critics didn’t like the fact that the role of the New York Times, its reporters, and their involvement in the release of the Pentagon Papers, was downplayed by the movie.  But I have to disagree with those critics.  Spielberg was telling the story from the perspective of the Washington Post, its reporters, and Katherine Graham, not the New York Times.  If both perspectives had been covered, it would have been a four hour movie.  The New York Times wasn’t neglected, it just wasn’t the focus of the story, and I see nothing wrong with that.  Aside from that issue of perspective, the film seems to have been pretty accurate in its portrayal of the historical events.

But historical accuracy alone does not make a movie good.  It was, of course, a combination of separate elements.  It was the smart script by Liz Hannah and John Singer.  It was the expert directing of Stephen Spielberg.  It was the wonderful acting by Streep, Hanks, and the rest of its seasoned cast.  It was the engaging score by the master, John Williams.  It was the costumes, the cinematography, the editing, the sound design, and more, all being of the highest quality.  Honestly, I would expect nothing less from all those big Hollywood names, and I have to say, this movie does not disappoint!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phantom Thread – 2017

Both critics and audiences alike seem to love this drama.  It earned six Oscar nominations at the Academy Awards, winning for Best Costume Design.  It has a ninety-one percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and a weighted average score of ninety out of one hundred on Metacritic, based on fifty-one critics.  The film was praised for its directing by Paul Thomas Anderson, its score by Jonny Greenwood, and its leading performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, which, he has said, is the final film performance of his career.  Apparently, he is retiring from acting.  Overall, the film has been hailed as one of the best movies of 2017 by multiple publications and reviews.

Why, then, did I find it to be a slow, humorless, drama, the ending of which defied logic and credibility?  What am I missing that everyone else seemed to love?  Granted, I believe it was deserving of the one Oscar it took home, but considering the movie was about a couture fashion designer in 1954, I’d have been surprised if it had not been awarded that honor.

Having seen Day-Lewis in other films like 2007’s There Will Be Blood, and 2012’s Lincoln, in which he blew my socks off, I found his performance in Phantom Thread to be a little low-key.  He wasn’t bad, by any means.  He never is.  But the roll itself just wasn’t terribly noteworthy.  I also didn’t see how Anderson’s directing was anything more than average.  Besides costume design, the only other part of the movie I’ll recognize as award-worthy was Greenwood’s score, which was beautiful, sophisticated, and dramatic, offering a perfect background for the stylistic feel of the narrative.

The movie is about the super high-class, elitist-level world of fictional fashion designer, Reynolds Woodcock, played by Day-Lewis.  Now, before I go any further, I’m going to say that I’m getting a little tired of movies like 2014’s Whiplash, and 2010’s Black Swan, whose characters are supposed to be such artistic geniuses, that people would give their souls to be part of their lives, even though the geniuses in question treat nearly everyone around them as dirt beneath their shoes.  Being the best musician, the best dancer, the best director, or the best fashion designer, does not give you the right to be an ass to anyone you please.  But invariably, these eccentrics are put up with, or worse, forgiven, for behavior that would have anyone else labeled as a jerk.  OK, I’ll get off my soapbox now.

Anyway, Reynolds is portrayed as a fashion god among men.  He is assisted by his sister, Cyril, played by Leslie Manville.  She has been managing his life long enough to know everything about him, his likes and dislikes, his routine, his quirks, his requirements, and his demands.  Part of her job is to make sure that nothing disrupts his delicate creative sensibilities.  But Reynolds’ life is thrown into disarray when he meets an average looking woman who has the perfect body measurements to become his next muse.  She is Alma Elson, a country girl with a foreign accent, played by Vicky Krieps.  When he finds her and dresses her, he makes her feel beautiful.  She quickly falls in love with him, despite the fact that he is impatient, verbally demeaning, dismissive, and generally rude to her.

The two become lovers for a while, and when Alma decides that she wants more than to simply sit and wait for him to either love her, or grow tired of her and dismiss her, she takes matters into her own hands.  Her solution is to deliberately sicken him with poisonous mushrooms.  He becomes so ill, he fears he will die, and she personally cares for him until he recovers.  When he is well, he has a renewed vigor for life and love.  He proposes marriage to her, but after their vows are taken, he continues to treat her as he did before.

The film ends as Alma, once again, finds that she wants him to love her.  She applies the same tactic as before, but this time he knows what she is doing.  Inexplicably, he eats the poison mushrooms anyway, and then thanks her for knowing how to get him away from the soul-consuming toxicity of his work.  Ah, being a god-like fashion genius is such a burden.  Thank you for reminding me that I am human.  More mushrooms, please!  I’ll love you again when I stop throwing up and my fever goes down…  And this is supposed to be a romantic drama!

Now, all that being said, I’ll fully admit that the gowns displayed in the movie were all pretty spectacular.  We have Costume Designer Mark Bridges to thank for that.  His designs were, in my uneducated opinion, absolutely gorgeous.  I particularly loved the Princess’s wedding dress.  And the first pink dress Reynolds made for Alma was lovely.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough for me.  The movie was too slow, too self-important, and it was trying too desperately to be deep.  Still, the performances, such as they were, were pretty good, and I especially liked the character of Cyril.  Manville played her as so wonderfully cold and aloof.  But on the whole, I just don’t understand what all the fuss was about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lady Bird – 2017

This was a simple and fairly predictable movie, that was nonetheless expertly  acted, and mildly interesting to watch.  It was directed by first time director, Greta Gerwig. It starred the young Irish actress, Saoirse (pronounced SERSHA) Ronan as the title character, Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson.  It is a name she has given herself as a kind of act of rebellion.  She is a teenager living in Sacramento, California with her mother, Marion, played by Laurie Metcalf, her father, Larry, played by Tracy Letts, and her brother Miguel, played by Jordan Rodriguez.

It is a coming of age film that centers around Lady Bird’s relationship with her mother.  When I did my reading on the film, it seems that most of the critics really focused on the wonderful performances by Ronan and Metcalf, and I really have to agree.  But between the two, I think Metcalf shined just a little bit brighter.  They were both amazing, and had a great on-screen chemistry, but Metcalf’s performance seemed a little more polished, a little more weighty.

Like most coming of age films, the narrative was really a collection of isolated episodes, strung together almost like beads on a necklace.  Lady Bird is a very typical teenager.  As such, the experiences she has are ones that any normal American teen might have, so there wasn’t anything very unusual or exciting.  In fact, that was part of the movie’s charm.  It was somehow amazing in its normalness.

But unfortunately, in my eyes, it was also the film’s biggest flaw.  The film, as a whole, was a little dull.  Not much really happened.  The drama never got too deep.  The characters never achieved any kind of greatness, nor did they ever fall too far from grace.  Now, I’ll be the first to admit, that wasn’t necessarily the fault of the movie.  I just might not have been the intended target audience. 

Based on my own limited experiences, I think that when it comes to familial relationships, the ones between mothers and daughters are often the most volatile.  I’ve seen evidence of it on more than one occasion.  Lady Bird and her mother clearly love each other, but they both have such strong personalities that all the little disagreements easily ramp up from zero to sixty without warning.  But that being said, I keep thinking that these scenes of conflict never got too intense.

A connecting thread that runs through the movie is Lady Bird’s desire to get out of Sacramento and experience more of the world.  She applies to colleges that are not in California.  The problem is that the family is struggling financially.  Like most teenagers, she is very self-centered, and has little concept of the struggles her parents endure to provide for the family.  She tends to take her life and her parent’s for granted.

For me, the real crux of the problem between the two characters was spelled out pretty clearly in a scene where Lady Bird tells her mother she wishes that she liked her.  Marion’s says that she loves her, but even when Lady Bird asks, “But do you like me?” she could not bring herself to tell her daughter that she liked her.  It was a subtle distinction, but an important one that was central to the overall plot.

The climax of the movie comes when Marion learns that Lady Bird has applied for, and been accepted to a college in New York behind her back, though with Larry’s help, she has also applied for financial aid.  A hurt Marion stops speaking to her daughter.  Lady Bird goes to New York, still on bad terms with her mother.  She begins using her given name of Christine again.  She goes to a party and gets so drunk that she is hospitalized.  When she wakes, she calls her mother and leaves a message, saying I love you and thank you.  I guess this supposed to be the indication that she has grown as a person. 

Other little episodes in Lady Bird’s senior year of High School included the ups and downs of her relationship with her best friend, Julie, played by Beanie Feldstein, her first boyfriend, Danny, played by Lucas Hedges, who turns out to be gay, and her second boyfriend, Kyle, played by Timoth?e Chalamet, who lies to her and takes her virginity.  The problem with these multiple sub-plots is that they weren’t much more deep or creative than a dramatic TV sit-com episode.  How many times and ways have we seen these scenarios played out?  You know what would have made it seriously impactful?  Maybe if there was a death or serious injury in the family, Lady Bird might have had some real drama to rattle her teen angst.  But I get it.  That wasn’t the movie they were trying to make.

I mean, what did I really get out of the film?  At best, I got that even mothers and daughters who love each other fight a lot, and it is usually because the teenager is blindly inconsiderate, as many teens tend to be.  Fortunately, they also tend to grow out of it.  Realistic?  Certainly.  Interesting to watch?  Not especially.  But I suppose this film was worth watching at least once, if only to see Metcalf’s inspired performance.  I’m not saying it was a bad movie, but I just don’t understand why it was considered good enough to be nominated for Best Picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get Out – 2017

I applaud the Academy for nominating a horror film for Best Picture.  The only other horror films, or even thrillers that might compare with this one, that received the same honor are 1991’s winner, Silence of the Lambs, 1987’s Fatal Attraction, 1973’s The Exorcist, and then the three Hitchcock films: 1945’s Spellbound, 1941’s Suspicion, and the 1940 winner, Rebecca. 

Get Out was written by comedian, Jordan Peele, who first came to my personal attention via the successful sketch comedy show, Key & Peele.  It is important to recognize that this is the directorial debut for Peele, and he also won the Oscar for Best Screenplay.  Pretty impressive for his first film, right?  The movie, while on the surface is simply a strange horror movie, which, according to Peele, was partially inspired by the 1975 film, The Stepford Wives.  But here, he tackles the important theme of racism.  Sadly, this is still a perfectly relevant issue that plagues humanity.

As is the case with most horror films, the plot is strange, with an element of macabre fantasy.  Chris, a black photographer, perfectly played by Daniel Kaluuya, is dating Rose Armitage, a white girl played by Allison Williams.  Rose is eager to introduce Chris to her parents, Dean and Missy, played by Bradly Whitford and Catherine Keener.  When the couple arrive, the charming parents seem to love the idea that their daughter is dating a black man.  They welcome him with hugs and smiles.  Rose’s brother Jeremy, played by Caleb Landry Jones, arrives, and plays the part of the spoiled rich kid.

You see, Dean is a successful neurosurgeon, and Missy is a hypnotherapist.  They live in a secluded, affluent, white neighborhood, in a large and beautiful house.  They have a black maid, Georgina, played by Betty Gabriel, and a black groundskeeper, Walter, played by Marcus Henderson, though they seem to be the most non-racist people in the world.  But Chris becomes uncomfortable when the help starts acting like happy slaves, and the parents seem to be trying too hard to convince him that they love black people.

But all that is just set-up.  It turns out that the only reason they like Chris so much is that they want to abduct him and auction off his body to one of their white friends, Jim Hudson, played by Stephen Root.  Using the sound of a spoon in a teacup, Missy hypnotizes him against his will, sending his mind to “the sunken place”, in which Chris can see what is happening in the world around him, but is powerless to affect it.  After that Dean plans to perform a kind of brain transplant, which will effectively give his body to Mr. Hudson.

Chris becomes suspicious of some kind of plot, spurred by the creepy behavior of Georgina and Walter, and phone conversations with his friend Rod, an animated TSA officer, played by Lil Rel Howery.   But when he tries to leave, the game is up, and the entire family, including Rose, turn against him.  Three clinks of a spoon against a teacup from Missy, and Chris is instantly incapacitated, returning to the sunken place.  OK, I know that isn’t really how hypnotism works, but… suspension of disbelief!

Despite that, the movie was good on a number of levels.  First, Daniel Kaluuya did a fantastic job, and he was honored with a Best Actor nomination.  I also really liked Keener, and I have had a special place in my heart for Whitford ever since his time on the hit TV show, The West Wing.  Incidentally, He looked so different in this film, I almost didn’t recognize him.  I also have to give special props to Betty Gabriel, who stood out to me as a really memorable actress.  She was effectively creepy and mysterious, perfect for a horror movie supporting character.

I would also like to make special mention of the film’s pacing, something which I attribute solely to the director, Jordan Peele.  The movie was an hour and forty-three minutes long, but I was so engrossed in the narrative, that it seemed to take no time at all, though at the same time, it didn’t feel at all rushed or manic.  Again, impressive for a first time director.  I am actually eager to see what he comes up with next!

In the end, Chris is able to cleverly escape from the evil family, killing Dean, Missy, Jeremy, Mr. Hudson, and the brainwashed Georgina, though Walter shoots Rose, and then himself.  Meanwhile, Rod, believing that Chris is in danger, uses his super TSA detective skills to find him and drive him to safety.  However, that was not the original ending.  Originally, Chris is arrested by the police when they see him trying to strangle the bleeding Rose in the driveway.  He goes to jail, but calmly accepts his incarceration because he knows he was able to stop the evil Armitage family from brainwashing any more black people.  So which ending was better?  Personally, I preferred the one they went with, the happy ending.  The original ending may have been more poignant from the racism angle, but I liked that the hero came out on top.  It just seemed more consistent with the horror movie genre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dunkirk – 2017

Director Christopher Nolan tried, in the making of this film, to create a work of art based on the historic evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk, France in 1940.  In this, I believe he succeeded more than other films, but in order to achieve that goal, drama, depth, and well-established characters were sacrificed to a certain extent.  The film was indeed artsy in its story structure, its cinematography, and its grand scale, but for me, it seemed to be cold and impersonal.  And I believe I know why.

You see, there wasn’t any time devoted to character development.  The movie starts out following that guy who makes it to the beach without getting shot.  He really is the main character in the movie and we never even learn his name, let alone who he is, what he has been through, or what his motivations are.  He is just that guy, and because the actor playing him was a virtual unknown in Hollywood, I couldn’t even connect with him in that superficial kind of way.

Now, I understand that Nolan did this on purpose because he wanted the character to be anybody who could represent everybody.  But the problem is I didn’t start caring about what happened to him until about half the way through the movie, and even then, only because I saw what had happened to him in the first half of the movie.  Even after the movie ended, I only learned that the character’s name was Tommy because I looked for the cast list during the credits.  In that same respect, when an actor who I recognized finally appeared on the screen, I found myself hoping he would survive, based only on the fact of my recognition.  But even then, I had no back story, no character development, no reason to become emotionally involved with the character.

The film tells the story of the evacuation of Dunkirk from three different perspectives: land, air, and sea.  Each point of view has its own time table, so jumping back and forth between the different narratives meant jumping backwards and forwards in time.  I don’t really have a problem with that, seeing as how all three stories culminated in a single climax at the end.  But I’m thinking the film might have benefited from story-telling that was a little more linear. 

In the first story, Tommy, played by Fionn Whitehead, teams up with Gibson, played by Aneurin Barnard, and then Alex, played by Harry Styles.  The three of them spend the film desperately trying to get onto any boat that might take them away from the beach, where German airplanes were killing British and French soldiers left and right.  They board three different vessels which are subsequently sunk.  Gibson does not survive the sinking of the last one.  Meanwhile, Commander Bolton and Colonel Winnant, played by Kenneth Branagh and James D’Arcy, respectively, wait on the beach for some kind of rescue. 

The second story is about the band of three British airplanes who try to defend the troops on the beach against the air strikes.  Their leader is shot down, and after that, we are at least given the names of the other two pilots, Collins and Farrier, played by Jack Lowden and Tom Hardy.  After more intense dog-fighting in the air, Collins is shot down, and lands his plane in the water without crashing.  Farrier stays in the air to defend the soldiers on the ground even though he is running out of fuel.  In the end, he is forced to land his plane on the beach and is taken prisoner by German troops.

The third story is that of an English man named Mr. Dawson, played by Mark Rylance, his son Peter, played by Tom Glynn-Carney, and his son’s friend George, played by Barry Keoghan.  They are part of the fleet of small, personally owned evacuation boats sent to Dunkirk to pick up as many soldiers as the are able, to ferry them to safety.  As they cross the English Channel, they pick up a few passengers.  One is a shell-shocked survivor from a downed vessel.  The other is Collins, the fighter pilot.

So by the end of the movie, there is a cohesiveness to the movie that ties the three stories together, but the lack of depth in the characters made it difficult to care what happened to them.  Even when Gibson drowned, I was only mildly affected.  But what the film lacked in character development, it made up for in the great use of practical effects versus CGI, and the good historical accuracy.  Critics of the film also praise the score by Hans Zimmer, but I’m on the fence about that one.  Zimmer did a fine job at building the tension over the course of the one hour and forty-six minute movie.  But at times his score seemed repetitive, with long drawn-out chords just getting louder and louder.  It seems to be his style, as I have seen the same thing in other films he has scored. 

I liked the movie enough to enjoy it once, but I didn’t think it was anything to stop the presses for.  From what I have read, many critics are calling this one of the best war movies ever made.  I think it was good enough, but I wouldn’t go that far.