 Director: Garth Davis Writer: Luke Davies; based on A Long Way Home by Saroo Brierley & Larry Buttrose Cinematographer: Greig Fraser Producer: Iain Canning, Angie Fielde, and Emile Sherman by Jon Cvack This was one of the earliest Oscar contending films I heard about. It actually played at a few of the film festivals Road to the Well screened at, but in one instance, the screening was during the awards show, and the other was an issue of the festival having two separate theaters a 20 minute drive from each other, learning we were at the wrong theater. I had heard some incredible things, specifically regarding Dev Patel’s performance, which is pretty good, but what starts off as one of the most beautiful films I’ve seen in years, reminiscent of Satyajit Ray's Aparajito or Jean Renoir’s The River, took a quick nose dive toward melodrama, often failing to keep logic at the forefront. The film starts with the impoverished siblings, Saroo (Sunny Pawar) and his brother Guddu (Abhisek Bharate), who scrounge around town in search of coal and other items they could sell for some money to buy additional food and treats. One night, Guddu is about to go off his journey and Saroo begging to come along. The pair end up at the train station where Guddu has Saroo stay put and sleep while Guddu goes off to do something. Saroo later wakes up with Guddu nowhere in sight. Saroo eventually ends up on a train that locks up and takes him to Calcutta. There he nearly fall victim to countless sex trade hunters who wish to steal him. Saroo ends up in an orphanage where he’s soon adopted by an Australian couple, Sue (Nicole Kidman) and John (David Wenham). It was up to this point that I was absolutely blown by all the elements. Although many are raving about Dev Patel, I think Sunny Pawar stole the entire show, providing such strong moments of depth and reflection, in which I no longer saw a little boy, but a man behind those eyes, having to maintain the courage to keep on going. This was all portrayed with Greg Fraiser’s beautiful photography and Garth Davis’ impeccable direction. Much of the story shows us information rather than telling us a thing. Like Truffaut’s great kid films, we were in the point of view of a child, discovering the world and information as a child would. With the Indian backdrop, we got to see a world that is both exotic and terrifying. However, once it moves to twenty years later, it was as though someone else took the helm. Saroo is now in his late twenties, determined to become a rich hotel owner. He meets a girl from his class Lucy (Rooney Mara), and in an awkward dance number along the street, the two end up at a party where Saroo has a breakdown when seeing some candies. He explains to everyone his story, and they tell him to use Google Earth, in which he can look up the train speeds, draw a radius, and try and find where his parents are. This all happens so quickly that it contradicts the first third’s realism. We don’t really know much about Saroo except for his professional aspirations and that his brother is a drug addict. There was also something particularly stupid about this entire Google Earth plan, in that I refuse to believe that Saroo never thought about attempting to use a map to find his parents. It was here that the movie went from masterpiece to melodrama, sacrificing logic for what they think was a much better direction in having Saroo obsess over maps, destroy his relationships, and keep clicking around Google Earth in search of a water tower. Looking at the logic, he finds a range that his train must have been in, and then finds all the towns within that range. If I’m being generous, the total number of towns is about a hundred. Considering all he has to do is look at the city, find it on Google Earth, locate the train station and then use Google Maps street view to look for a water tower, I imagine each city might take fifteen minutes to examine but to better prove my point imagine each city takes an hour. That’s about 100 hours, of course. Given that he’s clearly working on this all day and all night, with a few hours of sleep, let’s say he spends a conservative 12 hours a day doing this. It’d take him about eight days to find and examine all these cities, in which the apparent weeks and months of searching doesn’t make any sense at all. This was a similar issue I had with Truth (2015), where when the team is attempting to call about twenty names on a whiteboard, there’s a long montage extending to what looks like weeks, with each person refusing to talk when in fact, if no one’s willing to talk, you should discover the lack of progress within maybe a day or two. Of course, Saroo finds the town, done in a way that was even more upsetting, in that it was like an inch outside his search radius, meaning even though he’s using the most general trigonometric concepts, he never thought to think that maybe he should search within the margin of error. He ends up heading to his town, meeting his mother, and of course I get some tears building up, and the story ends. While some might think I’m nitpicking the search aspect, this took up what felt like over forty five minutes of the film. I kept wanting to return to India, and continue following Saroo along. Instead, we’d go back to Google Earth, some people would cry, and then an argument would start. The second half felt as though they forfeited any type of arc to get Saroo back to India as quickly as possible. I guess dealing with the fact that it’s a true a story you can’t really embellish much. It simply never returns to the strength of that first third. BELOW: Movie would never have existed without Google Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 Nice costumes, I don't know Director: Robert Zemeckis Writer: Steven Knight Cinematographer: Don Burgess Producer: Graham King, Steve Starkey, and Robert Zemeckis by Jon Cvack I’m not sure what happened after 2000, yet as though infected by the new millennium, Robert Zemeckis took a tremendous nosedive. From 1980 - 1997, he directed the longest streak of back to back great films, with the Back to the Future Trilogy being arguably the most popular modern classic film of the last thirty years. Scattered around and between we have the underrated comedy Used Cars, Romancing the Stone, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and Death Becomes Her. Forrest Gump followed soon after that. I’ve grown more comfortable saying that Contact is my favorite sci-fi film of all time. Keep in mind I’m not listing out the great films he directed during the period. These are all of the films he directed from 1980 - 1997; that’s nine home run films in a row; nine films that were not just blockbusters, but embraced by the world, becoming classic stories; an accomplishment that few of history’s greatest filmmakers achieved. Three years later after Contact there was a strange split. Zemeckis directed two films - Cast Away, where to this day Wilson has remained a cultural icon and What Lies Beneath, with Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer in a Hitchcockian thriller, which while starting strong, bombs by the last third, serving as Zemeckis’ first misstep in two decades. The Polar Express followed in 2004, Beowulf in 2007, and A Christmas Carol in 2009. The Polar Express was okay, falling victim to a book that’s just too good to be topped. I’ve never seen Beowulf, but haven’t heard anything good, and I don’t remember much from the A Christmas Carol. It would take three more years until his next live action film Flight, which I was kind of bored with, thinking it was about the whole Sully situation, which made me then think that Sully was going to be more action oriented like Flight. There is a great cut of the crash scene featuring the Interstellar soundtrack on YouTube. There are some great performances, but it just didn’t seem to be about anything, at least compared to the depth and impact of his other films. The Walk was good, and though I do wish I saw it in theaters, I actually thought that without the special effects, the documentary was much more intense. Again it didn’t leave me wanting to keep revisiting the world like his other films had. Tell you the truth, by the time I got to Allied, where I only saw it because the movie I thought was playing at a certain time was not playing, I wasn’t expecting much. I tried avoiding the preview, but walking into a packed theater late and hearing what was going on I figured this was just some throwback to a WWII romance. Seeing Zemeckis at the helm, I was hoping it’d maybe have that classic touch, pushing the genre to its limits and offer a refreshing take. Instead it all felt flat. I came across a review that was comparing Allied to Casablanca and Notorious, which is a pretty cool idea, though unfortunately not at all what’s on screen. For the most part it did have that classic style, punched up by big violence. It felt expensive and confining, leaving me unsure if the set pieces were computer generated, drawn to look like that classic 1940s style, or actual set pieces. There's not much beyond that. I didn’t want to go through the synopsis, because I didn’t really remember much of what happened; my mind was wandering so much throughout. There was a cool shootout and a sexy love making scene during a sandstorm. The ending is more surprising than I expected, but overall it just didn’t feel like anything new; as though trying to mimic the genre rather than pushing the cinematic boundaries as we've known him to do up until the new century. I'm still confident he's got another Great American Movie in him. BELOW: Whole thing's pretty much like this; giving about 60% effort Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Barry Jenkin and Terrence Winter working to subvert the stereotypes of "black masculinity" Director: Barry Jenkins Writer: Barry Jenkins Cinematographer: James Laxton Producer: Adele Romanski, Dede Gardner, and Jeremy Kleiner by Jon Cvack I had seen Berry Jenkin’s first micro budget feature Medicine for Melancholy back in college, with Wyatt Cenac either right before or just getting into his tenure at The Daily Show. It was an inspiring movie, a simple love story told well, made for around $15,000, going on to land a theatrical release. A few years ago, Steven Soderbergh gave a State of Cinema speech at San Francisco International Film Festival a few years later, disgraced with the filmmaking profit, accusing studios of being run by businessmen rather than storytellers, comparing the experience to the Board of Directors at Mercedes telling engineers how to build cars. If he was in charge, he would create a pool of low budget projects and recruit a bunch of exciting up and coming filmmakers. Berry Jenkins was one of the names he mentioned. Soderbergh wasn’t involved in Moonlight and yet its success is exactly what he was hoping for. Similar to Brokeback Mountain - which next to Goodfellas and Saving Private Ryan, experience one of the great Best Picture robberies in Oscar history - Moonlight explores masculinity. It’s told in three chapters, following a young boy Chiron Harris from the inner city who’s neglected by his drug addict mother Paul (Naomi Harris). We meet him running from some bullies and hiding out in an old apartment, when the local drug dealer Juan (Mahershala Ali) finds him, welcoming him home and providing some much needed fatherly guidance. Not knowing anyone’s sexuality, let alone the plot, what I loved most about this section was discovering the facts from Juan’s perspective; we're not exactly sure of Chiron's sexuality, only suspicious, and it's Ali's ability to both refrain from judgment while understanding the dangers that make the performance so worth of the award. The second chapter features Chiron in high school, meeting his first love Duan “Sandy” Sanderson (Jharrel Jerome). After a few bullies vow to beat Chiron up after school, Chiron meets up with Sandy who talks about getting detention for doing a girl from behind in the locker room. Sandy’s bisexuality acts as a bridge for Chiron, providing just enough fantasy to pull him over, but enough to act; perfectly capturing the passion of a first love and allowing us to forget any character’s sexuality. It all leads to the final chapter which was by far the most fascinating and beautiful of the entire film. Like Juan, Chiron is now a drug dealer, jacked to the bone with muscle, covered in platinum, with a set of teeth to match. His mother has now gotten help, as clean as she could be, still in the hospital. Chiron eventually gets in touch with Sandy, who’s been released from prison, now cooking at a diner an hour or so away. Terrence heads over, not knowing what to expect. Sandy's now living straight; a good looking man. And yet it’s Chiron, played by Trevante Rhodes in his first role ever, who provides one of the most insightful and fascinating performances of the entire film, and of the last few years of cinema overall. For all his muscles jewelry, and drug dealer look, he’s nervous. And the one person who he connects to most sees past all that. We see a mixture of timidity, nervousness, and anger, cycling throughout the scene, as the two share a bottle of wine. In the closing scene, as Terrence stands at the door, accepting that he can’t possibly have what he wants most, having the look of someone we’d never associate with these feelings, I was left with a powerful insight that has stuck with me ever since. Men too put on an appearance, whether through how they look or act, that can often cause us to become or feel categorized. There are easy labels for a variety of superficial aspects, and yet there is a long spectrum, filled with diversity and conflict. From sexuality to race, this movie challenges you to look a bit deeper at everyone you see, discovering that there’s no point in trying to place them into fine categories, as it may be one of saddest things you could ever do. BELOW: The greatest upset in Oscar history Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Very excited to see Lucas Hedges does next (minus Three Billboards) Director: Kenneth Lonergan Writer: Kenneth Lonergan Cinematographer: Producer: Matt Damon, Kimberly Steward, Chris Moore, Kevin J. Walsh, and Lauren Beck by Jon Cvack One of our leads from Road to the Well, Micah Parker, was in Kenneth Lonergan’s "This is Our Youth", which is an awesome play, all taking place in a grungy apartment as two 20-something dudes talk about all things life in the 80s, doing a bunch of drugs and drinking, with a bit of romance as well. The play was at one of those small 50 seat theaters, though Micah and the rest of the cast were so good, and the material was so great that I never thought twice about where I was. To be honest, when Micah told me it was a Kenneth Lonergan play, I didn’t recall the name. Later when I looked it up I saw that he wrote Margaret - an absolutely brilliant and beautiful film that was destroyed by petty legal battles over the material, scheduled for release in 2007, meaning it was probably done in 2006 at least, and wasn’t released until 2011. As it’s been five years, I can’t remember the details, but it was a perfect match for fans of In the Bedroom, The Ice Storm, The House of Sand and Fog, and other cerebral domestic dramas. The court case didn’t even conclude until 2007, tarnishing the film’s success. I had been hearing that Manchester by the Sea was the greatest movie of the year since it first came out at Sundance. It seemed like a return to those domestic drama days, taking place at a small eastern town. I then started hearing it was a downer, confirmed when one of the announcers at Landmark told the crowd it was a 2 hour and 20-something minute film that’s really sad. I really don’t mean to take issue, but this kind of ruined my experience with the film, as I then was expecting some deeply sad movie, far sadder than it actually was, that I kept expecting worse and worse things to happen, never really reaching the level of sadness I was anticipating. The story’s about Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck), a handyman who we eventually learn has lost his children in a fire, now separated from his wife Randi (Michelle Williams). Lee’s brother Joe has had a heart attack and died, leaving Joe’s son Patrick to Lee. I will say that looking this up, I might have misunderstood the various timelines, as memories and present day interweave throughout the story. Let’s just say I never thought about how Joe left Lee his son, entrusting him even after Lee had lost his two sons in the fire. There’s something very cool about that, and I’ll be the first to admit that I’ll need to rewatch that again, so maybe it’s that miracle film where, like I for instance (which I didn’t like upon first viewing and is now my favorite film), I’ll grow to love it. My main problem is that the characters aren’t all that interesting; as they essentially do just spend a lot of time sad. There are basically two extremes cutting together and that’s contentment and discontentment. Many moments felt flat and almost expected, like when Lee and Randi finally meet after years of not seeing each other. I’ve been trying to think of why this didn’t work for this scene, and can only chalk it up to that they were feeling exactly how I expected them to - Lee was stoic and stolid, Randi emotional and a bit desperate. I think Casey Affleck’s a great actor, but playing the Stoic Man just seems to have been done so many times by him that it felt boring to see it again within such a melancholic film. There are moments where it works well, such as the various fights with Patrick, or talking to his many girlfriends. It was all pretty good; it just wasn’t all that great. I struggle to say anymore about anybody. Everyone was presented as simple people with common melodrama problems, responding either or after these problems occurred in the ways you'd expect. When I go home for the holidays, and I meet old friends, or people I never talked to but know their faces from high school, or share holidays with my family, beginning to understand them as people, there are many who would never respond with such simple emotions. I think that goes for everywhere, with any tragedy, where you can peel back the layers and see the spectrum of emotions and responses. It’s anything but simple. Longergan never seems to peel back the layers far enough. So what does it mean that “Manchester” became “Manchester by the Sea”, where the two sides of town - middle class and upper middle class - seems to be the focus? It all felt so white and privileged; not as a deliberate message, but as a response; as though this was the most Lonergan could find for a setting when looking at the country. Combine this with flat character and it all left me wondering what the point even was. Why should I care to talk about this sad movie? Of all the amazing things to explore in the world of an imagination and all the fascinating people in this world, this is what was portrayed. It seems like such a waste of possibility - the talent, the location, the structure that could have been explored. It's not a bad film; it's even pretty good. It just didn't feel like anything new. BELOW: Their scenes are the best parts of the film Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Director: Jeremy Saulnier Writer: Jeremy Saulnier Cinematographer: Sean Porter Producer: Neil Kopp, Victor Moyers, and Anish Savjani by Jon Cvack Green Room involves a Oregonian punk band The Ain’t Rights whose gig falls through, leaving them desperate for an alternative. They’re directed to a isolated Neo-Nazi compound in the middle of the woods; as though adding a bit of fan fiction to American History X’s Nazi warehouse and the various punk shows operating in the background. Torn between the money and their personal politics, the band decides to play the show, opening with The Dead Kennedys “Nazi Punks Fuck Off”, which doesn’t go all that well in the room full of skinheads. The band is ready to head off when lead guitarist Pat (Anton Yelchnin) forgets his cell phone, leading him back to the green room where he sees a girl stabbed to death on the floor. Ready to rush out and call the police, the bouncers keep him inside, forcing the band to return, leaving them all trapped inside...the Green Room. The punk band was well constructed, appearing believable even with the familiar faces, complete with all the desperation and determination any aspiring band possesses. I was surprised to discover that Anton Yelchnin actually died in a freak accident shortly after filming, when his car’s emergency brake slipped on a hill, pinning him against a wall, crushing his lungs in the process. He puts on such a great performance, never drifting too far from his core essence seen in Alpha Dog or Charlie Bennett, appearing as the dorky dude who discovered punk music in college, now unrecognizable by his former high school classmates. As Yelchnin often accomplished in his few roles, his character speaks volumes without saying a word, deliberating each move before its made, allowing us to believe that whatever the choice it was carefully decided. I also enjoyed seeing Alia Shawkat from Arrested Development playing the lead guitarist, forgetting her phone and setting off the entire story. Shawkat is exactly what Hollywood needs more of, playing a real and accessible female lead; a character that could take on the role of any man without distraction. I don’t think there simply needs to be more roles for women, but more roles for women that aren’t the most attractive figures in the world. Shawkat serves a great example of how powerful a role could be with limited material provided. I haven’t seen much of Arrested Development, though enough to know that Shawkat diverges from her normal character. I was sad to see her get killed off, of course replaced by the far more beautiful Imogen Poots, though I think this could have been flipped and more effective. A large selling point of this film was the fact that Patrick Stewart played the compound’s owner and head Nazi, Darcy Banker, and I have to say this was fairly disappointing. I’m not sure if it’s Stewart’s association with charm and Star Trek, or that the character didn’t have much meat to chew into, but I was left confused. It seemed like the only shock was that Patrick Stewart was playing a Neo-Nazi, rather than anything he actually did or said. And that leads to the larger problem I had with the story, in that I was simply left wanting more. I appreciated the thrills and chills, with well designed and unique characters. I just wanted more from the story. It was so plot heavy, as though the film was greenlit from logline alone - a punk band gets trapped at a Neo-Nazi compound, comes across a dead body, and has to fight their way out. That’s pretty much it. There were so many avenues never explored, failing to tap into the who, what, why, where, when. I assume the easy refute is that none of that mattered, and if I wanted a simple story I guess I could agree. Except seeing a lot of untapped talent from Saulnier, who seems to rely more on action and thrills than ensuring that the moments in between - when offered - are filled with interesting exchanges that can help you understand the story and learn more about the characters. As mentioned, the entire compound reminded me of American History X that I couldn’t help feeling deprived of info; namely, about Darcy Banker, and how/why/when a British man made it out to the Pacific Northwest in order to operate a Nazi Bar and Music Venue. It leaves far too much to the imagination. BELOW: Nazi Punks Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The Tony Soprano of politics Director: Josh Kriegman and Elyse Steinberg Cinematographer: Josh Kriegman Producer: Christopher Clements, Elizabeth Delaune Warren, Julie Goldman, Carolyn Hepburn, and Sean McGing by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... Discussing the documentary on Slate Political Gabfest, Emily Bazelon was abhorred at the little concern Weiner had for his wife Huma Abedin, who comes across as perhaps the most authentic character in the entire film. The story takes place long after the initial sexting scandal broke out, with Weiner evidently recruiting a documentary crew to capture his return to politics, in which he’s running for Mayor. Abiding by the public’s ability to forget past scandals with lightning speed, Weiner is in a competitive position, and all is looking up for him. He’s out there declaring his commitment to fight for all New Yorkers with all of the passion and charisma that we remembered him for. That is, until news breaks that for the entire first quarter of the film he’s been sexting with a 23 year old stripper. The news goes national and Weiner begins damage control, requesting that Huma give a humiliating speech during a press conference, explaining how she forgives Anthony, regardless of a repeated offense. Of course, given Weiner’s complete lack of self-control, the press directs their attacks toward her, wondering why and how she could stay with someone who continues lying to everyone. I believe Bazelon mentioned how awful it was to see Huma in the background in most of these scenes, always attempting to be the great wife, in which Weiner repeatedly guilts her into appearing in campaign commercial videos, sticking to the script, and standing beside him. The entire situation is unbelievable and difficult to watch, especially as a third and even more disgusting scandal broke shortly after the film’s release. During one particularly revealing scene, when after the accusations break, Weiner goes on "The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell", immediately exploding at the host, trying to downplay his actions. The next day, we see him in his New York condo, watching the interview with a grin on his face, reveling in how smart and sharp he is. It becomes all the more disgusting when Huma enters the room, and he attempts to show her his performance. And there she stands once again, disappointed and sad, trying to be a good wife, never asking for anything, as her husband tries to show off his heated debate with Lawrence O’Donnell. I was left wondering how, for a man who seemed to have everything he wanted seemed hellbent on self-destruction. It’s clear that he’s an exceptionally smart guy, and yet he seems willfully ignorant over what his actions could do and who they could hurt. I had trouble believing that he ever could think that his actions would remain hidden. And knowing that fact, he did it anyway, demonstrating a complete lack of self control, oblivious to the pain he’s causing. And it’s this obliviousness that is so alarming. Whether to the voters who question his honesty, reporters who keep asking if the sexting has concluded, or his wife who’s constantly on the verge of breaking down in tears, trying to hold herself together in front of everyone - that I really began to feel hate toward the man, thinking how I once saw this man as the future of progressive politics and the Democratic Party. He ignored his family and friends and all those believed in him for reasons we’ll never understand. Anthony Weiner embodies what people hate about politics; the varying personas, leaving us to wonder if perhaps the sexting-Weiner is the one genuine person there is in all this mess - addicted to the thrill of finding young, attractive and fanatical women. He is a person whose only worse addiction than sexting is his need for attention and praise. No matter how dark things get in the film, it seems he never fully grasps the extent of what he’s doing, leaving me to wonder if he even cares about the causes he triumphs. I get the sense that his liberal leanings were simply convenient; not that he’s conservative so much as adopting whatever beliefs are best suited for advancing his career. In the age of Trump, I don’t view this so much as insight into a tragic and disgusting situation as much as a forewarning; that some individuals in government and aspiring to get there do only care about themselves, embodying a selfishness that should alarm anyone. It left me wondering how many genuinely good people serve in office, and what got them there, when battling against candidates like Weiner. I’d like to think many, but the idea that someone like him could get this far; who I bet will again make a comeback for the public arena some time in the future, drowning out other good people by his connections and complete apathy. BELOW: That's one way to talk to someone Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  I kinda get the sense that he *wants* to crash and burn; knowing it'll get him far more attention Director: Josh Kriegman and Elyse Steinberg Cinematographer: Josh Kriegman Producer: Christopher Clements, Elizabeth Delaune Warren, Julie Goldman, Carolyn Hepburn, and Sean McGing by Jon Cvack Before the scandal, I recall seeing Anthony Weiner on an episode of The Daily Show. Him and Jon Stewart were old college buddies, and aside from friendly banter, like many I felt as though I was seeing the future of the Democratic Party. He was a guy who was willing to fight for what he believed in - a common weakness in Democrats, who often resort to placation and conciliation rather than battle. I wasn’t sure if the guy and his passion would ever be presidential material, but he reflected the future of progressive politics. Following Stewart, he attended Bill Maher’s Real Time panel, exhibiting all of the same charisma and passion. Then the scandal broke. I was anxious to see how Stewart handled the issue, which was making headlines all across the country. Americans love a lecherous politician, as it seems that it pulls down these pillars of perfection, showing them just as flawed as the common man. Given that Anthony Weiner has repeated his sexting antics, not just once, but three times after, and with increased creepiness, with the latest involving an underage girl while Weiner took pictures of himself next to his young child in bed. While I agreed with the early punditry in that Weiner was not the first to experiment with infidelity, and that it shouldn’t necessarily tarnish all the great things he has accomplished, Weiner shows the other side of the body politic, in how much narcissism it takes to run and hold the office. I can’t recall where I first heard the idea, but either through a podcast or editorial, I recall hearing how a narcissistic personality is almost necessity of the job. Having recently watched Street Fight, where a young 30-something Cory Booker pounds the pavement to dethrone the fifteen year incumbent mayor, battling against a corrupt Goliath-sized system, where Booker had to give into many of his previous reservations; offering free gifts, dinners, and run negative ads, knowing that in city politics, such things are a requirement. Watching someone marching around the streets, encountering endless doors getting shut in his face, repeating the same speech for the dozen or so individuals who showed up for the night’s festivities, mostly for the free stuff, was admirable. Nevertheless, I recall at the time thinking Booker coveted the position for personal reasons as much as for a sense of public service, and with hints of a 2020 run, as he picks up his deliberate and carefully crafted Political Speak, it seems all the more clear that when it comes to fighting for what’s right, he’ll always choose his words carefully. National politics are all this and more, requiring tremendous sacrifices in order to reach success. Do some people want to genuinely change things? Absolutely. But as David Axelrod on his podcast The Axe Files often mentions, many of these individuals have a deep need for accolades and attention. They love the fandom and relish in the power. To run for national office, one has to have the confidence that they could change things for the better. No different than a writer who needs to have faith that his words will read fresh and mean something, politicians possess the same core. Anthony Weiner embodies this narcissism, taking its effects to entirely new and unchartered territories in the age of social media. Stay tuned for Part 2... BELOW: Beneath the passion is a sociopath Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Could be the next Harrison Ford Director: Antoine Fuqua Writer: Nic Pizzolatto and Richard Wenk Cinematographer: Mauro Fiore Producer: Roger Birnbaum and Todd Black by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... Having been burnt out by the last few years dreadful action slate, I read a few reviews to make sure it was worth checking out, coming across Buzzfeed’s Alison Wilmore’s blurb about the film serving Hollywood’s “…urgent conversation about representation.” I haven’t seen the original, but from the cover makes it looks like it centers around a bunch of white guys. Let me preface this by saying I’m all for inclusion, and this film doesn’t really lose anything by having a more diverse cast, except that for however rugged and rebellious (conservative?) these men are, they really have no problem with each other; acting near colorblind. Understanding that this isn’t some grand historical epic documenting the Wild West with full accuracy, but it also doesn’t abide by the embellishment seen in more fantastical texts from the era such as The Wild Wild West or Cowboys vs. Aliens. My main concern was that this film was getting dangerously close to revisionism, as though a byproduct of what happens in when some want to have a serious conversation about cutting out the word "nigger" from Mark Twain’s work and therefore try to make history and its art less offensive. The story could’ve have benefited from addressing these issues, as the diverse casting decision was so obvious in today’s political climate, that ignoring the topic felt like cheating. Given how violent the film is, I was left wondering why that was okay for audiences to consume, but any conflict around the different ethnic groups went unaddressed - or very loosely, at best. It’s another victim of America’s cinema in that violence is always welcome on both sides of the political spectrum. Politics aside, this film has some of the best practical action sequences I’ve see, with the exception of a poorly rendered stunt piece, in which Chisolm hangs from a horse riding full speed as the camera dollies with the action, so clearly created by a computer that I’m surprised they left in. Moment aside, I never got the feeling that the film was attempting to progress action forward, therefore relying on cheap computer tricks. Instead it seems to have taken what’s worked best in all of western cinema’s history. It’s nothing fancy, it’s just simple and effective. The concluding battle alone, in which they lay TNT to blow up the fast approaching enemy reminded me of Braveheart’s epic battle sequences. I was captivated through it all, seeing even the more hackneyed conventions as fitting - such as Goodnight’s return just in knick of time. This film wasn’t trying to usher in a new era of modern western archetypes, so much as revisit what was once so effective. Finally we received a sequel that wasn’t trying to improve upon a proven formula. As the common criticism goes, why not remake movies that were made poorly, rather than attempt to fix what worked so well. When the film ended I was left optimistic. I hope more filmmakers take Fuqua’s lead and return to logical, practical action, as this was just what I’ve been waiting for. BELOW: A taste of what's missing in today's action movies Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Gives me hope for Action Director: Antoine Fuqua Writer: Nic Pizzolatto and Richard Wenk Cinematographer: Mauro Fiore Producer: Roger Birnbaum and Todd Black by Jon Cvack There have only been a handful of good American Action Movies from the last decade - Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, Edge of Tomorrow, Planet of the Apes, White House Down, and Mad Max - and so my expectations going into this were for yet another film overwrought with CGI, video game action sequences (that is, action sequences that could easily crossover to video games*), and grand plots of destruction found in most recent films from the genre. Instead I was surprised to find a practical effects heavy film that stuck true to Kurosawa’s original story with some great performances, creating a movie that gave me hope. Sticking to The Seven Samurai and its American predecessor, the story involves a big time and ruthless businessman Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard; in a brilliant and fitting role) who invades the small town of Rose Creek, leaving the locals under the auspices of this authoritarian regime. When Emma Cullen’s (Haley Bennett) husband is killed, the bandits burn the church down and the Rose Creek residents attempt to rise up, with Emma joining her husband’s friend Teddy Q (Luke Grimes) in recruiting some cowboys to help them take the town back. For a bit of context, I was sitting in the legendary couch room at The Landmark at Pico, which for anyone who can’t guess, is a movie theater comprised entirely of comfortable couches. Go there early enough and you can have one of the most comfortable moving going experiences of your life. Unfortunately, I got in late, and with few couches available, was forced to sit on the far left, which was far too much of an angle, to which I got up and went to the very front row which failed to recline just by a few inches, causing the top frame of my glasses to cut into the screen, forcing me to have to go back to the original seat. For anyone who can relate, you know the worst part is that your discomfort makes you unable to focus on anything that's taking place on screen and instead to a bubbling panic attack as you know all eyes are on you. Once I settled down, I learned Sam Chislom (Denzel Washington) is first approached as a type of bounty hunter, joined shortly after by card tricker and flawless gunmen Joshua Faraday (Chris Pratt). While not at all worried or even concerned Washington would play the role with anything other than greatness, I was excited to see what Pratt could do. I enjoyed him in Jurassic World, seeing his action star potential, and while at first his sarcasm kind of pulls you out, as we get to learn more about his character, witnessing his whiskey dependence and skeletons in the closet, I was blown away by how much depth came uncovered; and all in the second remake of a classic film. Not exactly the easiest shoes to fill. The two join up and recruit Chinese Megastar Byung-Hun Lee as Billy Rocks, demonstrating yet another foray from Hollywood toward creating internationally competitive films (with Matt Damon’s journey across seas doing the opposite in the same year's The Great Wall). He plays a knife-slinger that’s quicker to draw a throwing blade than his opponents are at pulling arms. Billy Rock's talents are managed by the film’s strongest performance from Ethan Hawke, Goodnight Robicheaux (gotta love these names), whose penchant for the bottle and all things debauchery seems reminiscent of Hawke’s earlier performance in Linklater’s The Newton Boys, except things have gone far grimmer for the character. Shortly after they then grab Mexican outlaw Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) and are approached by Comanche Warrior Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier), who drops whatever journey he’s on to join the men for some breakfast and help them take back the town. *See The Hobbit and the latter Pirates of the Caribbean sequels Stay tuned for Part 2... BELOW: Chris Pratt's looking to be the next Harrison Ford Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  I hate dream sequences, but American Fable has one of the best I've ever seen Director: Anne Hamilton Writer: Anne Hamilton Cinematographer: Wyatt Garfield Producer: Anne Hamilton and Kishori Rajan by Jon Cvack I saw American Fable at San Diego Film Festival where our film Road to the Well joined it in competition. Aside from the sense of honor I felt in having our micro budget feature contend with a film of this stature, I was pleased to see the female voice behind it. When I hear that more women need to be at the director’s helm, it’s a voice like Anne Hamilton’s which shows the grand potential. For the first time, perhaps since Kelly Reichart or Lynne Ramsy stepped into the game, there is a fresh female voice that I imagine all filmmakers - men and women alike - could look to for inspiration. The film has been aptly described as a fairytale thriller, focusing on a farmer and his family, taking place in 1982, as America’s agriculture was undergoing a massive and fast big business consolidation. Looking back, the film seems to pull from Louis Malles God’s Country, which highlighted the struggles of Midwestern Farmers in the early 80s as they struggled with Reagan’s deregulatory policies that were smothering small farmers who couldn’t compete with their corporate competitor’s deep pockets; having much of their relief stunted as the agro-subsidies were cut off. This is some heavy stuff, and Hamilton makes the magnificent choice to include it all within an Aesop setting, focusing on the classic tale of the Lion and the Mouse where - for those forgetting - a mouse comes across a trapped lion who convinces the mouse to save him, then killing the mouse once free. Reading a bit about Hamilton’s bio and hearing her Q&A at the fest, she interned for Terrence Malick on The Tree of Life, admitting at SDFF that the experience had a significant impact. The influence is clear from the get go, with an opening shot gazing into the setting sun reflecting upon the corn stalks, moving up and tilting down as a little girl Gitty (Peyton Kennedy) chases an imaginary mouse through the stalks. An old grain silo hangs at the back of the farm and Gitty discovers a man Jonatan (Richard Schiff) trapped inside. Given the dreamy vibe, we’re not who Jonathan is; whether a figment of Gitty’s imagination, a friend or foe; whether he’s hiding out or captured. At his request, she admonishes Gitty to keep his presence secret. She returns home, where we get to meet her father Abe (Kip Pardue) who does a fantastic job of balancing between remaining the positive role model Gitty deserves, while struggling with the harsh reality that they’re very close to losing the farm. Her mother (Marci Miller ) is a delicate and beautiful figure, trying to preserve a stable home life to the best of her abilities. Across the sibling aisle is Gitty’s brother Martin (Gavin MacIntosh) whose sense of competition and maniacal desire to resolve problems in the most gruesome ways possible seems to mirror the political environment the farm is battling. I think most filmmakers who read Aesop's Fables share the thrill of adapting its contents. I’m not sure of many who have succeeded all that well, and for what could have easily drifted into heavy-handed moralizing, was thoughtful and progressive. Although the Lion and Mouse fable was clear from the beginning, the point made me wonder how it would all connect. Hamilton didn’t appear to have any expectations that we wouldn’t immediately grasp its meaning or direction, and instead provided us the fable in order to make her own insights as accessible as possible. The film brilliantly floats a fine line between believability and fantasy. The wide and floating camera seems to hover in and out of action, making us feel a barrage of emotions, ranging from dark and hopeless to bright and limitless. In the end, as we see the family descending into darkness, learning that they kidnapped Jonathan all along in order to retrieve a ransom for his return, Gitty is torn between honoring their trust and doing what is right. From Gitty’s perspective, and what made me nostalgic for youth, was her inability to see the politics. She didn’t know what was at stake or grasp the farm’s future; all she saw was a man held against his will, harboring no ill-will toward her. And it’s here that story really makes you think. Thought out, Gitty’s actions might have cost her family the farm. The ending, in which Jonathan returns in a stretch limo, definitely left me wondering what his return meant, as it didn’t feel exactly aboveboard. Whether purchasing the farm or entering some litigious matter, I think Gitty was about to grasp what those actions meant. And by cutting at that exact moment, ending the film, we were left to fill in the blanks. Given the cynicism extending through the film, I have to believe that like the Lion and Mouse, the Lion was coming to eat them at a latter time. Does this mean Gitty would regret the decision? Like any great fable, we are able to take from it what we wish, connecting to whatever character we desire. Aesop doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong, he just tells us how the things can be. It’s such a wonderful and breathtaking film, and I can’t wait to see what Hamilton does next. BELOW: I was certain that this film would make fires once released, but it too had only a modest release; serving as yet another sign of the abysmal indie film landscape. Not much on YouTube so here's the trailer Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page |
Yellow BarrelThoughts on films, old and new Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed
