 Director: Steve James Cinematographer: Tom Bergmann Producer: Mark Mitten and Julie Goldman by Jon Cvack Working my way through the 2017 Best Documentary Oscar nominees, I was excited to see Frontline get a nomination, which is by far the greatest docu-series and one of the most underrated television programs in existence. This story is about the one banker from the ‘08 crash that actually went to jail - an elderly Chinese man from a small community bank in New York City’s Chinatown. What Frontline does so well is shed fairly objective light onto complex topics; interviewing a range of legitimate participants and experts in order to best explain the story. While a few episodes are two-parters and others no longer than twenty minutes, most are around 55 minutes in length, which as HBO helped demonstrate, is the perfect length for a show. Abacus isn’t at all a bad movie, but its hour and a half runtime does make you appreciate the briefer format; making you wish that maybe other episodes were awarded the longer run time. The story focuses on the owner and main character of the story Thomas Sung who was so inspired by Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) that he decided to pursue banking. Sung was educated at an Ivy League school, received his law degree, and while able to choose whatever lucrative Wall Street career he wanted, decided to go back to Chinatown to open up a bank and help his community. The place is co-run by his two executive daughters Vera and Jill, while the third younger daughter Chanterelle Sung has been clerking at the District Attorney’s office, who would soon be the ones to press charges. What we see is that the family is like any other, with the sisters arguing over one another, drowning out the youngest while Thomas tries to moderate the discussion. His wife Hwei Lin is uninterested in any of the operations, often serving as the one rational voice (or two, if anyone listened to Chanterelle). The exact accusation is a bit confusing, but essentially, like the mega banks, there were employees at Abacus Federal Savings Bank that were approving loans for under qualified individuals. My dad was also a community banker (now retired) and so I’m confident in explaining the situation in which there were two versions of the stories. The Federal National Mortgage Association (aka Fannie Mae) is a government sponsored, publicly traded company that allows bank mortgages to be rolled up into securities, purchased by other larger banks and insurance companies and be traded on the market while providing profit and limited risk to the bank. During the Clinton era, the qualifications were lowered in order to stimulate housing purchases by the lower-middle to lower class citizens. Thus there are two arguments to be made 1) that these standards shouldn’t have been pushed by the government, and therefore indirectly forced banks to make bad loans (reason being, if banks didn’t extend loans to less qualified individuals they couldn’t remain competitive in the market), or 2) that the banks themselves shouldn’t have granted these loans to people they knew couldn’t pay them back. My view is that it’s a combination of two - the qualifications were lowered, but greed also played in a role in officers turning a blind eye toward grossly unqualified applicants. Of course, I recommend The Big Short (2015) for a far better breakdown. As an example, Thomas Sung mentions how many in the community (i.e., street vendors) might not have the income to qualify, but given the culture of Chinese People, per tradition others would help out - such as family and friends; entities that can’t be directly reflected on the paper. Thus, some of Thomas Sung’s employees might have been willing to overlooked members of the community who failed to qualify for loans, and therefore were granting federally backed loans to individuals they knew wouldn’t pay back the money, getting them the benefits of rolling these mortgages into securities even with poor financial health. It poses a great question as to why New York City government decided to pick on the Sungs rather than the megabanks down the street, but what I think the filmmakers also suggest is that it doesn’t necessarily mean that Thomas Sung is innocent. It’s here that the film gets lost in the details, as we hear the court transcripts while looking at the courtroom drawings. What I enjoy about the film is that the filmmakers (of Hoop Dreams (1994) fame) don’t necessarily let the Sungs off the hook. Personally, I think that much of the defense sounded suspicious (there are, after all, 180 criminal counts), especially when the defense showed silly diagrams about where the nefarious employees sat and why it would have precluded Thomas or any of his daughters from ever knowing about the loan approvals. I couldn’t help but think if I heard or saw a similar defense from JP Morgan or Chase. By the very nature of being in charge, especially in such a relatively small place, I find it hard to believe that they could not have known about it; as I would use the same logic extended at the large institutions would fail the smell test. Whoever’s in charge should be at fault and to simply blame the lower employees is wrong. It creates a fascinating dilemma - on the one hand it seems the government was going after some low hanging fruit with at least borderline racist intent, and on the other, if you believe that the bankers responsible for the 2008 financial crisis should have gone to jail, then this institution deserves to be investigated. Abacus granted loans to get the liquidity from Fannie Mae to remain competitive, essentially aiding in creating junk bonds. They should not have been who the government went after, but for the same reason I don’t think any bank should be too big to jail, I don’t think any other should be too small. To defend otherwise is to say there are exceptions and that it’s a bit more complicated, it’s this exact defense that allowed the big banks to walk away unscathed. Difference being that they could afford the lawyers and the small banks couldn’t. Doesn’t necessarily mean any of them should go free. BELOW: Decent overview of the characters Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 It's cheap as hell, but one of Vincent Price's better horror flicks Director: William Castle Writer: William Castle Cinematographer: Wilfred M. Cline Producer: William Castle by Jon Cvack The Tingler opens up with a Hitchcockian-introduction from William Castle, warning everyone about the strange sensations they might feel while watching. Vincent Price stars as Dr. Warren Chapin while conducting autopsies on recently executed prisoners of the state who died by fear, he discovers the event was caused by a parasite that attaches itself to the victim’s spine. As the parasite feeds on the spine it forces the victim to writhe in pain before dying while the the tingling parasite then escapes - making it look like the individual had died from fear alone. Movie theater owners Oliver and Martha Higgins (Judith Evelyn ; Philip Coolidge) operate down the street from Dr. Chapin’s office. Oliver visits Chapin in order to get some help for his deaf and mute wife, who seems to be getting more fearful by the day. Not sure what to do, Oliver leaves, with Martha dying days later, to which Oliver offers Chapin the opportunity to complete the autopsy. Chapin finds The Tingler which has grown to the side of a Dachshund hound. He puts the creature into a cage and heads to Oliver’s where learned the man utilized his wife’s inability to speak to frighten her to death. The Tingler then escapes, making its way to the movie theater where we get the best taste of William Castle’s genius. As the creature makes it way through the crowd, the entire movie cuts to black, with Vincent Price’s voice coming on, telling everyone to remain calm. You can’t help but smile, wondering what it might have been like to have been in the theater back 1959 when the trick was played. While not necessarily as close as some of Hitchcock’s marketing tricks, it comes pretty close, especially for a creature that wants to attack those who fear the most, creating a strange hyperloop of what I imagine were some trying to contain their fears while scared out of their mind that the creature was going to crawl up their leg. The film continues on, eventually securing some justice in Martha’s tragic death, and while it doesn’t make complete sense, it’s a fun enough film to ignore all the illogic and appreciate the story for what it is. BELOW: Cheesy and delicious hi-def goodness Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  If only Burton kept rolling with a non-CGI style Director: Tim Burton Writer: John August; story by Tim Burton; based on Frankenweenie by Tim Burton and Lenny Ripps Cinematographer: Peter Sorg Producer: Tim Burton and Allison Abbate by Jon Cvack There are three facts that make Frankenweenie a fascinating film. First being that the film’s based on one of Tim Burton’s earliest shorts (linked below) which is a black and white film about a boy and his dog who gets hit by a car. The boy reanimates the dog and so follows a story largely inspired by the first two Frankenstein movies. The second bit is that this entire film is in black and white to begin with; a super bold move from Disney which must have cost this studios tens of millions of dollars in revenue per the strange disdain people have for monochromatic films. The third is that the entire film was created entirely with puppets - a description that completely fails to capture what these designers achieved. I advise watching the supplement on the disc before seeing the film (it contains zero spoilers). The puppets required such detailed mechanics that production eventually had to call in Swiss watchmakers to design tiny nuts and bolts. Even so, the scale of the set was one of the largest ever created, with the houses and school standing nearly as tall as a person. Each puppet had a near endless array of facial pieces, providing any expression imaginable, down to a myriad of eyebrows to make an eyeball blink. We open up on tweenager and filmmaker Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) who lives with his parents Edward (Martin Short) and Susan (Catherine O'Hara) and whose best friend is a dog named Sparky. Victor is an outcast with few friends that he avoids hanging out, uninterested in the sports pushed by his father and instead obsessed with making tiny short films. At school, his Vincent Price-inspired teacher Mr. Rzykruski's (Martin Landau) demonstrates the way electricity could be used to reanimate the dead, later announcing a science fair and subsequently creating a fierce competition amongst Victor and his friends. The contest even attracts the attention of the Igor of the film, named Edgar (Atticus Shaffer). While playing in a baseball game he couldn’t care any less about, Victor hits a homer which causes Sparky to run out and get the ball, getting hit by a car. Victor decides to use Mr. Rzykruski’s lesson to reanimate his dog on a rainy night, with a laboratory comprised of items found all around the house, providing one of the most extraordinary scenes from the film- as with any Frankenstein movie - made all the more impressive when considering the amount of time it would have taken to pull it off. Edgar then learns of Victor’s accomplishment, blackmailing him to teach the method. However, knowing that there was no way that Sparky would wreak the havoc of the original Frankenstein, the story then turns to Edgar telling their science fair competitors Bob (Robert Capron) and Toshiaki (James Hiroyuki Liao) about the method, who then reanimate a range of dead lab creatures, including a rat, bat, mummified hamster, and sea monkeys; thus shifting the structurer from Frankenstein to a Universal Horror throwback, most comparable to House of Frankenstein (1944; which I watched a couple weeks later). So begins a thrilling final act as the Victor and Sparky are left to battle a fascinating series of terrifying Burton-esque monsters. The Bluray makes the craftsmanship pop off the screen, with the story just creepy and interesting enough to make you forget that you were watching what must have taken tens of thousands of hours to complete. If this movie was in color I think it might have taken a solid position in the pantheon of popular horror films; especially if it honored the color scheme and style of Edward Scissorhands (1990). While I can defend the black and white for how well it captures the essence of the original series, I assume mass audiences aren’t racing to put this film at the top of their lists when there’re so many other comparable films in color. To think that Burton was able to pull it off - and through Disney, nonetheless - goes to show his power; highlighting how incredible it once was that a director like Burton had enough leverage to make this type of film. BELOW: Burton's original short Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Started out as a hero, soon became a sociopath Director: Alex Gibney Writer: Alex Gibney Cinematographer: Maryse Alberti Producer: Alex Gibney, Marc Shmuger, and Alexis Bloom by Jon Cvack It was interesting to watch this documentary as the Trump Saga unravels and we further discover Wikileak’s role in hacking both the DNC and John Podesta’s emails. For a long while Julian Assange was a darling of the left and libertarian crowds, standing up to Big Business and Big Government, either individually, or the way they work together. In this case, Alex Gibney explores the release of Bradley Manning’s intel dump in which we learned of the gross abuses - arguably war crimes - by the American government throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; primarily the mass misrepresentation of civilian casualties and a disturbing video where a drone team takes out a group of terrorist suspects, celebrating their deaths which we later learn were civilians, with one man and his daughter killed who were simply trying to help the victims who were butchered without due process. Alex Gibney is one of the best documentarians working today, earning a berth next to any of the cinema’s all time greats - Agnes Varda, Werner Herzog, and Errol Morris - and like any great documentarian, is able to explore a broad spectrum, ranging from politics to music history to the Stephen Bartman/Chicago Cubs incident with Catching Hell (2011). We Steal Secrets follows the rise and close to the fall of Julian Assange. Wikileaks was founded with a group of rebellious hackers in 2008, serving as a destination for whistleblowers to dump their content anonymously. After Icelandic financial corruption and Swiss tax evasion joined the Manning dump, Julian Assange went into exile, wanted by numerous governments, eventually seeking asylum in Russia.Achieving international rock star-level recognition, he of course attracted some women, allegedly abusing their interest by demanding unprotected sex, with some saying it was based on his narcissistic and disturbing desire to spread his seed in as many countries as possible. Soon women come forward, accusing Assange of numerous forms of sexual assault, including rape. While Wikileaks initially lambasted the accusations as a character assassination by world governments, in the #MeToo movement it seems important to give the accusers the benefit of the doubt (my general rule of thumb is while due process should always be honored, when more than one woman who’re in no way connected come forward with similar accusations it makes their accusations all the more credible). In the end, a mixture of the scandal and Assange’s arrogance leads many of Wikileak’s original team to quit the organization. In the end, Assange is stuck in Russia with few friends, leaving you to wonder if perhaps his limited alternatives might have played a role in dumping the DNC and Podesta emails. To speculate, it seems possible that what began as a noble cause was derailed when hubris entered the picture. Of course, parallel to much of this story is the story of Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning and the path which led to her stealing the top secret information. Prior to Manning professing her gender fluidity, Manning expresses a profound sense of alienation to one of Wikileak’s co-founders who would eventually rat her out. What we see is typical of any teenage angst, in which an extraordinary mind combined with the military’s rigidity and lax computer security all adds to Manning carrying out the rebellious act. In the end, Obama would pardon her 35 year sentence, and - as of writing this - she’s running for Senate in Maryland (and failing to win). It’s rare to see a documentary in which its content progresses and evolves long after its release, in which the ideas explored lead to consequences years later. I’m not sure it could use a sequel, but as a historical document - capturing a moment that would lead to extraordinary events later on - this one of the most prescient documentaries I’ve ever seen. BELOW: Great interview with Alex Gibney Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  One day I'll learn where they found this guy Director: Ruben Östlund Writer: Ruben Östlund Cinematographer: Fredrik Wenzel Producer: Erik Hemmendorff and Philippe Bober by Jon Cvack I nearly missed The Square in theater, only brought back to a local chain when the Oscars noms were announced and it returned for a week prior to the big show. I had loved Force Majeure (2014), best described by my buddy as Michael Haneke 2.0. The best art is that which is difficult to put into words and it was both Force Majeure and The Square that I struggle with the exact issue; from a macro perspective, both films seem so easy to categorize. One’s about an avalanche at a ski resort that traps everyone inside and a family struggles with the situation. The Square takes place at a contemporary art museum, and while I was nervous it’d offer a simple satire of the destination, instead discovered a profound insight into the nature of art while keeping each character grounded in reality rather than serving as caricatures. The Square involves an art curator at the contemporary X-Royal art museum named Christian (Claes Bang) who wakes up hungover in his office, about to be interviewed for a new exhibition by the American journalist Anne (Elisabeth Moss). After, Christian is walking the city streets when a frantic woman sprints up to him and a neighboring stranger, begging for help; in which a crazed boyfriend then comes running up to the men screaming, looking like he’s about to attack when he slows down and the girl thanks them and moments later Christian realizes that his wallet, phone, and watch have all been taken. The frantic act was a con. Thanks to “Where’s my iPhone?’, Christian is able to track the thief, discovering they live in one of the local projects. Christian recruits a low-level assistant Michael (Christopher Læssø) to help him, who suggests that Christian print out a bunch of letters explaining how badly he needs the phone, leaving the address to mail the package, and insert the fliers into all the mail slots at each apartment of the building. So carries out one of the movie’s most hilarious scenes as the pair head to the building in Christian’s fully loaded Tesla, listening to Justice on the way, where Christian hopes for his assistant (a black man) to head inside as Christian (a white man) just doesn’t fit in with the area. The assistant refuses and immediately the buddy-buddy ruse shifts into an awkward castigation from Christian who believes his authoritative position should exempt him from having to go inside. The plan works and the next day, a package is shipped to a nearby 7/11, including Christian’s phone and wallet. However, a young adolescent boy accosts Christian, saying his parents believe he is the thief, demanding Christian apologize to his family under threat of causing “chaos” to Christian’s life. Christian ignores the warning, and soon the boy begins stalking him. Amidst all this Christian is trying to manage the opening of a new exhibition, called The Square and represented by a 5x5 foot or so square shaped exhibit displayed both inside and outside the building with the slogan, “The Square is a sanctuary of trust and caring. Within it we all share equal rights and obligations.” This is in addition to sleeping with Anne, who lives with a Chimpanzee, and might have kept a condom with Christian’s semen, later saying she was hoping for something more from their relationship and hope to get herself pregnant. When writing this out, each individual fragment might sound far from original; an awkward sexual encounter between a man and woman, both wanting different things; a man trying to deal with the absurdities of his professional environment; or the buddy scene where two friends get involved with a situation that spirals out of control. However, it’s Ruben Östlund’s ability to add an extraordinary amount of depth to each of these more straightforward moments that allow the content to fully shine. Rather than having an awkward post-coital moment, Östlund adds a chimpanzee to the scene, never having any of the characters address it; rather than allowing the buddy scene operate at such a high velocity of feel-good fun and adrenaline, he has Christian reveal his true - and potentially bigoted - identity; rather than having Anne and Christian have an awkward conversation expressing what they each hoped to get from the relationship, there’s a fascinating art exhibit behind them which takes about half of the conversation to fully understand (there’re chairs stacked at about twenty-five feet in the air, swaying, and every so often we hear them crash to the floor), allowing the conversation to become all the more absurd. Each scene has a richness of depth that only numerous repeated viewings could possibly lead to discovering all of the details. However, this is all intercut with one of the film’s best subplots in having a couple of young Gen-Z/borderline millennial digital media consultants devise a marketing plan for the new exhibit. They’re aware of how competitive the endeavor actually is, knowing that the most effective piece of marketing is for them to create a viral piece of content. However, in the middle of pitching a video idea about a young blonde child standing outside the museum who \ gets blown up by a terrorist, Christian enters into the office frantic about his phone, agreeing to the absurd idea, which soon causes an international firestorm when the macabre video showing a child getting killed does, in fact, go viral across YouTube, causing the museum to have to take immediate action; leading to a fascinating question about the role of censorship in art. In the end, you’re left wondering what The Square means - if anything. In preparation, Östlund had actually built a low budget version of the same exhibit. The slogan is so simple and ambiguous, in which I’m unsure whether it translates poorly, or that the gross simplicity is the exact point. In one exhibit - created both in pre-pro and in the movie - a patron is meant to select between two options: trusting people and not trusting people, with the former leading them to a room where they’re to leave their phones on the ground while they explore the rest of the exhibit. In the best scene of the film (arguably the best scene of the year) a man who’s able to embody the volatile and violent temperament of an ape performs during a fundraiser with some of Stockholm’s wealthiest, in which the performer goes to the extreme, transcending any form of humanity and embodying the animal’s aggressive spirit; going so far as to attack others. In the end, we learn that although the place is calling The Square a place of “trust and caring” and allowing everyone to share “equal rights and obligations” it too has its limits which contradict that premise. What happens when an artist wants to create material that’ll offend people to the point of violence? What happens if a performer so embodies his role that he’s willing to scare or even hurt others? What is the line between respectable art and trash? The easy answer is that art should avoid harming others, but then you wonder about art such as Triumph of the Will and its long term propagandizing of Nazis and Uncle Tom’s Cabin and what it did to shed light on slavery, and the vast amount of violence which resulted from both; whether justifiable or horrendous. This isn’t to make a value judgment on these pieces so much as demonstrate that even seemingly innocuous pieces can produce harmful results. As frightening as the ape-man is, it also seems like negligence in failing to understand the extent of the act, and the same goes for the video that Christian greenlit without knowing the idea’s full extent. Then again, the phrase seems facile and empty; no different than the piles of shredded paper exhibit that the patrons avoid, failing to understand the point. With such an ambiguous phrase, it becomes essentially meaningless. Then again, maybe it’s only within The Square where such an idealistic philosophy could even exist. Such subtle ambiguity is the making of any great art and The Square is hands down one of the most fascinating films of the year. BELOW: 2017's best scene Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  A costume that shouldn't work, but some how does Directors: David Lowery Writers: David Lowery Cinematographer: Andrew Droz Palermo Producer: Toby Halbrooks, James M. Johnston, and Adam Donaghey by Jon Cvack I checked out David Lowery’s short film “Pioneer” before watching this film, where after making a micro budget feature, Lowery made the short, becoming an Official Selection in Sundance and winning the Grand Jury prize at SXSW. Like any great short, what’s most impressive is how simple of an idea it is, requiring only two characters - an older white man who’s putting a younger black child to sleep. It’s an eerie and beautiful film, as the old man tells a strange and fantastical story about how he met the child’s mom, going so far back as the American Civil War. The film would allow Lowery to go on to make his second feature Ain’t Them Bodies Saints (2013). After spending two years on the Pete’s Dragon remake (2016), his wife and him got into an argument about moving back to Texas, which combined with an article he read about a catastrophic earthquake and a desire for a more intimate story, eventually led him to imagine a film taking place in a single house, where after a husband dies in an accident, his ghost is forced to remain in the house for all eternity, initially watching his wife until she then moves away and another family comes in; later with the house being destroyed as the big city expands. Allegedly the film cost $100,000. For anyone that’s been in a relationship for awhile, this film hits hard; with Lowery capturing all of the tiny bits and quarks that comprise any couple who’re deeply in love. We see the cuddles and inside jokes, the disagreements and the passions, though mostly the simple satisfaction of living with someone you love, in which their company alone is enough to keep you content. I found myself considering the details of my own life and my fiancé, putting myself in the man’s position, being forced to watch as the person you love suffers, all while knowing that soon the suffering will ease and she might explore new partners, either intimately or lustfully, all while trying to move on, knowing that - as with anything - only time is what will heal; all while accepting that time is all the ghost has. Unfortunately, this first half was so strong - pulling harder at my heart stringers than anything I’ve seen in awhile - that when the woman finally moves out and a new family moves in, the emotions I had for the while following initial couple never returned. Will Oldham from the short film “Pioneer” makes a return, going on a drunken rant that most of us have had on our college days in which, due to the grand design of the universe, you eventually realize that one day, millions of years from now, the Earth will end and all of anything humans have ever created won’t matter. It’s a fun monologue, though I was still left wanting to see what happened to the girl. The world continues to move on, with the house getting knocked down and a skyscraper taking its place before the sun finally explodes and everything dies and the ghost is forced to go back in time to a moment before humans, still occupying the same plot of land, seeing a band of old western travelers slaughtered by Natives, until he returns to when him and the girl live in the house, watching their relationship's rise and fall yet again and its devastating conclusion, soon bringing back another ghost. Earlier in the film, the woman inserts a note into a crack in the door frame. The ghost is unable to grab it being invisible and all. The woman places it in again in the second universe and finally he gets to see it, then disappearing and headed to heaven, or so I assume. Nietzsche talks about the eternal state of recurrence, in which if the universe is infinite in age, then all possibilities stand to happen again. I’m not sure how long it’d take for our Sun and galaxy to get redesigned, and while I don’t think getting into a psychedelic montage would help much, it does leave you wondering. I went into my gal’s room after this was done and gave her an extra kiss, hug, and love you. None of us know when we’re going to go; a probability that becomes an increasingly likely chance as we age. It leaves you wondering what’s most important. I’d agree with Lowery - at the end of the day, it’s about occupying your time with things and people you love. Just wish he focused more on that than post-philosophy 101 late night weed talk. BELOW: Every humanity's major will meet someone like this in college Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The most excited I've been for an actor on a long while Director: Yorgos Lanthimos Writer: Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou Cinematographer: Thimios Bakatakis Producer: Ed Guiney and Yorgos Lanthimos by Jon Cvack The Greek myth Iphigenia in Aulis takes place while the United Greek armies are attacking Troy in order to get Helen back. Agamemnon is en route to attack with his crew, but with no wind at their back, they’re stuck in the middle of the ocean. The Gods tell Agamemnon that he could resolve the problem if he sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia. Agamemnon instructs his wife Clytemnestra to send their daughter to the battle front. She soon arrives with both her brother and her fiance Achilles. Soon the wife and Achilles discover the plot, attempt to avoid Iphigenia’s capture until Agamemnon’s army take them under capture to avoid skirting the plan. Nevertheless, Iphigenia agrees to the act, figuring the sacrifice a great honor to save the world. Agamemnon carries out the act, killing his daughter. In another story, Agamemnon kills a sacred deer. I’m not exactly sure how this translate to Yorgos Lanthimos's The Killing of a Sacred Deer, other than including a powerful and successful man who ends up killing one of his children to save the rest of his family. In the film, Agamemnon’s character is Dr. Steven Murphy (Colin Farrell) who’s a heart surgeon. Recently, during an operation gone wrong when Murphy was drunk, he killed the father of a teenage boy Martin (Barry Keoghan; who might be one of the most exciting young actors I’ve seen in awhile). Murphy then befriends Martin lavishing him with gifts, such as an expensive watch and visiting the boy’s widow mother ( Alicia Silverstone; in the first thing I think I’ve seen from her since Clueless (1995)) who hopes to seduce the doctor. Back at home, Murphy lives a seemingly perfect life. Married to the gorgeous and smart Anna ( Nicole Kidman) along with their two children Kim ( Raffey Cassidy) and Bob (Sunny Suljic). Murphy invites Martin over for dinner where Kim takes a strong liking to Martin and the two begin dating. Soon Murphy’s son says he can’t use his legs, paralyzed from the waist down. Murphy takes him to the hospital, where after a series of tests, they fail to discover or cure the problem. Martin fesses up to being responsible, saying that on account of Murphy killing his father, Murphy's entire family will experience the same disease. Soon Murphy’s daughter succumbs to the symptoms and Bob’s evolves, curbing his appetite and slowly he begins starving to death. Murphy soon kidnaps Martin, taking him back to their house and tying him up to the chair in his basement, torturing him into releasing the curse. Martin refuses and so Murphy keeps him there. Things with Anna and Murphy begin to disintegrate, as Anna exchanges sexual favors with Murphy’s colleague in order to learn whether Murphy was drunk while operating on Martin’s father. She soon decides that it’s best they slaughter one of the children, as they could always have another one. In the end, Murphy ties all three members of his family, grabs a shotgun, and spins around in a human roulette game, firing when he stops and killing his son. It’s easy to see the loose parallels behind the classic story and this one; though I don’t know exactly how the two compare. I’ve yet to see any of director Yorgus Lanthimos’ other work (I saw and wrote this before seeing The Favorite (2018)), though I have a feeling that he’s the type of filmmaker where you know you’re watching his work. Each character in The Killing of a Sacred Deer delivers their lines completely deadpan, failing to show a single bit of emotion or performance and creating a deeply unnerving vibe throughout the story. Barry Keoghan plays a fantastic villain, feeling as though he’s the only native to Lantimo’s grim and dry world; as though Murphy and his family are in purgatory, rather than real life. How this all translates is where the challenge lies. While wealthy and successful, Murphy and Anna don’t seem to have any specific joy in life. Even while making love, Anna lies motionless on a bed, pretending to be on anaesthetic as Murphy has sex with her. In such a world, Murphy’s alienation causes him to drink; risking his perfect upper class existence and family in order to cope with a complete lack of meaning. In the end, he’s willing to kill his family because it’s the easiest solution, and the only thing which could return the sense of normalcy to his life, however unfulfilling that normalcy is. The Killing of a Sacred Deer is a cynical and disturbing film, evolving into the fading trend of home invasion films that extend across the late 00s and early 10s with stories like The Strangers (2008), The Purge (2013), and most similarly, Funny Games (2007) ; though in regards to the latter, some way, some how this feels far darker and hopeless. BELOW: I've seen one movie from the Yorgos at the time of this writing, but I bet I'd know any of his other films by performance alone Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Very excited to see more from Aaron-Taylor Johnson Director: Tom Ford Writer: Tom Ford; based on Austin and Susan by Austin Right Cinematographer: Seamus McGarvey Producer: Tom Ford and Robert Salerno by Jon Cvack I had loved A Single Man with Colin Firth’s devastating performance as a college professor who lost his lover in a car accident, now planning to commit suicide. To discover that Tom Ford was a fashion icon was all the more impressive, as aside from the talent is a distinct visual voice. I had missed Nocturnal Animals during the awards season last year, putting off watching it as from the few bits and pieces I saw, it focused at least partially on the Los Angeles art scene, which I find often unbearable to watch in how serious it’s often portrayed. While I knew the film cut back to a novel, I didn’t anticipate that it’d literally be half of the film. The story involves middle aged LA art gallery owner Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) who has just opened her latest show, which includes morbidly obese women dressed up as Uncle Sam-inspired cheerleaders dancing in the full nude. Susan has grown distant of hiding from her current husband, businessman Hutton Morrow (Armie Hammer ) who’s doing a hiding his dalliances with younger women. After the show, Hutton receives a manuscript called “Nocturnal Animals” from her ex-husband who was once an aspiring novelist. She begins to read the book, cutting to Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal) as a 30-something man who’s moving to West Texas with his wife and daughter, when in the middle of nowhere, they’re harassed by a trio of drivers, forced off the road, where the leader Ray Marcus (Aaron Taylor-Johnson; as the film’s greatest character) eventually kidnaps both the wife and daughter. Edward is taken by the other two in a different car, dropped off in the middle of nowhere where he wakes and finds the police, led by Detective Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon); soon discovering his wife and daughter raped and murdered. The film then cuts in between the two narratives, as Susan reflects on her past relationship with Edward. The two had just begun graduate school. Susan had ambitions of escaping her mother’s conservative and upper class expectations of a mate, falling in love and getting engaged to Edward before finally breaking it off as it was clear his ambitions to live the impecunious life of a struggling writer would fail to provide Susan what she needed; especially after she met the wealthy and well connected Hutton Morrow. Returning to the novel, Detective Andes eventually tracks down the gang responsible, arresting Ray Marcus on insufficient evidence which soons forces him to release the guy. We then learn that Detective Andes has terminal cancer, convincing Edward to go rogue and take the law into their own hands, as with his own experience, Andes has no sympathy for murder/rapists; enraged by how often the cases are dismissed. They grab Ray Marcus and one of his cronies from the bar and take them back to Andes’ house where they shoot one of the friends, and Marcus falls victim to A coughing paroxysm, allowing Ray Marcus to escape. Edward eventually tracks him down, though before killing Ray, gets hit in the head with a crowbar, quickly dying from a brain hemorrhage. Susan was told by Edward that they’d meet after finishing the book. She gets dressed up and heads to the restaurant, waiting for hours for Edward who never shows. IN Jonathan Franzen’s essay collection Father Away, the author mentions the struggle he had with incorporating biography into his narratives; eventually leaning into the idea, knowing it was the only way to capture the voice required. In one recent interview I read about an author’s experience in the prestigious Iowa MFA program, he discussed how his instructor at the Iowa Workshop was able to highlight the portions where were biographical versus those which were fiction; the point being that a great author can melt these worlds with ease. In Nocturnal Animals, there’s a scene between Edward and Susan as she reads one of his chapters, criticizing that it’s far too much about him, though it wasn’t all that interesting anyway. In the novel portion of the film, we immediately understand what we’re watching - it’s the life he hoped to have with Susan with murders that allowed him to express the heartache he had in losing Susan. When Edward doesn’t show up in the end, the cynic in me wanted to think he committed suicide, as simply failing to show up seemed a mediocre mode of vindication. A slight problem is that while the movie is solid and the ideas of memory, biography, and ambition are fascinating, the “Nocturnal Animals” story just doesn’t seem like it could play as an entire 300 page or so novel; leaving me to wonder if it too was yet another failure, or if it could have worked better as a short. Additionally, on account of three separate timelines, the love between Edward and Susan never gets well established. We’re able to fill in the loose details and Gyllenhaal’s performance is commanding enough to allow us to feel his pain, but in terms of why they’re together and what they see her,in each ot it all seemed a bit superficial; compounded by introducing an uptight Susan and taking the time to show her more vulnerable side upon returning home. It’s an excellent movie, making me excited for where Tom Ford goes next. The performances are so good throughout that it helps to mask the film’s minor weaknesses. It’s a film where it’s more fun to watch for the people than any grand examination of art, time, or meaning. In the two worlds of art and literature, where it’s difficult to find success, it’s even more difficult to find a partner willing to put up with poverty and extending the idealism of youth. I was left wanting to see what Edward had to say about writing a book that was evidently pretty good and if it made him any happier, or feel anymore relieved after losing Susan. The tragedy of both characters was in believing that their respective pursuits were going to offer full satisfaction; Susan with a life in a lucrative art gallery and with a rich husband and Edward living poor and writing. I’m not sure if the film ever identifies an inability compromise as the primary villain, but it’s strikingly clear and almost pitifully tragic. BELOW: One of the most thrilling scenes from the year Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  I don't know much about police tactics, but something tells me you don't engage with bank robbers in the middle of bumper to bumper traffic Director: Christian Gudegast Writer: Christian Gudegast Cinematographer: Terry Stacey Producer: Gerard Butler, Mark Canton, and Tucker Tooley by Jon Cvack I can’t remember the last time I saw a bad movie, as in this age of hyper-ratings - where everything from the platform itself to IMDb to Rotten Tomatoes to individual critics offer enough filters to avoid wasting any viewing time on bad films - it’s just so easy to avoid them. Netflix once offered $1 million to improve its rating system, and with the exception of maybe 5% of the time, it’s often correct in predicting down to half a star. I don’t understand those who try and argue this in any way makes the experience less pure, as while it might be unfortunate that we can no longer judge a book by its cover, this has also been something we’ve been told to avoid since youth. However, in the age of MoviePass, where for ten bucks a month I could somehow see as many movies I’d like to, it has rejuvenated my passion for theaters. In a time where most theaters cost between twelve to fifteen dollars a ticket, it’s rare for me to want to take a gamble and see a film rather than looking up a few ratings and seeing how the film was received. Now I’m free to see any films with the only cost essentially being my time. A single person on Facebook told me Den of Thieves was worth checking out. My IMDb minimum IMDd score is 7.0 and this had a 7.1, so I figured while it wouldn't be the greatest film, I couldn’t remember the last time I saw a “good-bad” action movie in the theaters. I also can’t remember the last time I saw a film this bad, let alone in theaters, leaving me wondering whether there’s a podcast or not, how this could possibly ever get made. Den of Thieves is a two and a half hour heist film that’s trying to be as cool as Heat (1995), in which it’s easier to highlight the things that worked well than those that didn’t; those items being the opening scene which got me excited for some cheap action thrills (which would never come), and a closing scene which I’m not really sure was good so much as relieving my frustration in expecting an action movie that in fact had very little action, finally relieving the feeling. The problem is that so little of this movie makes sense, leading to that type of movie going experience where you’re hoping to remember all of the most absurd moments, but they’re so awful and uninspired and not even all that ridiculous so much as boring that you just end up forgetting them. The movie involves a group of SoCal-Bro bank robbers who try and seize an armored truck outside of a donut shop. One of the cops getting killed. The next day Detective Nick O’Brien (Gerard Butler) arrives on the scene with his band of Sheriffs, ranging from a clean cut officer to someone who looks like he’d be part of the gang of bank robbers, assumedly undercover, but who never actually is undercover. The robbers are led by ex-felon Ray Merrimen (Pablo Schreiber), joined by both Levi Enson (50 Cent), Bosco (Evan Jones) who killed the officer, and a driver they recently recruited Donnie (O'Shea Jackson Jr.) who is seen driving for about two minutes of the film, including his introduction where he commands a generic mustang around some warehouses, narrowly missing a truck that’s backing into a loading dock. So plays out an exceptionally boring cat and mouse game where it honestly seems as though the filmmakers deliberately avoided watching a single action movie made post-Cobra (1986). I won’t get into the details leading up to the film’s most absurd moments, so much as to say that Donnie becomes a recruit after being picked up by O’Brien and his fellow sheriffs who are in a hotel room surrounded with cocaine, prostitutes, and alcohol, making you wonder whether they’re actually good cops or not, though it’s never explained, except that O’Brien then comes home to his wife who finds a lascivious text message O’Brien sent to one of the prostitutes and decides to move out with the kids. This is the scene that plays most closely to Heat and Pacino’s inability to leave his work at home and preserve a relationship, except for failing to provide any of the context or clarity that could possibly make it work. Later, the film takes a comedic relief pause, providing another weak throwback to Bad Boyz II (2003) when 50 Cent finally gets more than a single line of dialogue, as his daughter’s prom date arrives and he intimidates the man by bringing him into the garage where all his friends, including his fellow bank robbers, are standing with their bro glasses on and chests out and it’s meant to be funny, but has literally no purpose beyond getting 50 Cent a whole scene to himself. It tries its hardest to accomplish the camaraderie from the Fast and the Furious series, failing to achieve even an ounce of what’s created within thirty minutes of the first in the series. So O’Brien deals with balancing his job and ailing homelife while the robber’s keep talking about how they’re going to pull off a big job at the Los Angeles Federal Reserve, where through their system of exchanging old paper money for new money, then destroying that old money, they hope to steal tens of millions of dollars of the old money. The prep goes on for about an hour and forty five minutes, never taking the time to explain the plan with any bit of detail, other than characters telling us they have a really good driver. The heist begins with Merriman appearing to rob a seemingly random community bank, which then attracts the attention of O’Brien and his sheriffs, along with the LAPD and FBI. Merriman demands that no negotiators call under threat of killing a hostage, which of course leads to a negotiator calling, leading Merriman to seemingly kill a hostage offscreen, though given that this trick has been done in about half a dozen other films, I’m not sure anyone actually bought this. Turns out that the community bank had a vault that went down through a sewer pipe that leads to what I think is the Reserve Building or where they could go to steal a truck. I can’t remember because the whole time I was wondering why they thought it’d be easier to fake rob a bank and attack the police rather than just going through the sewers to begin with. It’s here that the film might have achieved the biggest plot hole in popular cinematic history, in that rather than O’Brien and his crew calling the Federal Reserve and warning them that there’s an exceptionally high risk of a robbery about to take place, the Sheriffs instead drive there, never telling the FBI or LAPD any of the details. And so with that glaringly obvious solution in mind, the rest of the heist is simply unbelievable; not to mention incredibly confusing. With Merriman and 50 Cent driving the armored truck and bringing in new money, Donnie hides inside one of the old money carts, relying on a strange series of perfectly time computer hacks where, although the Federal Reserve is crawling with armed guards, never leads any of them to believe something is awry. One by one, even with millions of dollars at hand, they exit the exchange point, leaving Donnie to sneak out of the cart a la Ocean’s 11 (2001) and steal millions of dollars by tossing them down the garbage shoot into a dumpster, where suddenly there’s another truck driver we never met who has been able to get past security to grab the cash at the exact right time. Of course, O’Brien and his crew get there too late, chasing Merriman and Co. through the streets before finally hitting a pile of random LA traffic (the one accurate part in the movie), where rather than the Sheriff’s calling the FBI or LAPD and keeping low - that is, waiting for the robbbers to reach a safe area to engage - O’Brien and his crew decide to lock and load their fully automatic rifles, and in a sea of cars with dozens of people, engage Merriman who returns fire and kills countless bystanders. It’s a scene that appears to exist solely as yet another homage to Heat, except while Mann’s movie created a sense of chaos and emergency in downtown LA streets, this movie abandons logic for a subpar shoot out. In the end, Merriman dies and we never learn what happened to O’Brien’s family. But wait - there’s more, as for the more absurd loose ends get tidied up when we learn that Donnie was actually a British huckster, who played both sides, and that most of the seemingly random people he interacted with through the film (i.e., a delivery man who brings food to a pair of women at the Federal Reserve) actually orchestrated this grand plot. It’s truly one of the most unsatisfying plot twists I’ve ever experienced, making you appreciate Soderbergh’s Ocean’s series which was able to achieve twists hundreds of times more interesting throughout three films. Basically, Donnie got a job at a bar where cops and the Federal Reserve employees go, somehow able to convince them to all help without a single leak or issue. If this was never revealed I think the movie would have played the exact same, making me wonder if they tacked it on because the rest was playing so poorly. I struggle to think of one part or scene in this movie that’s worth checking out, as every single moment plays like a film school student trying to imitate his favorite action and heist movies. There’s no action except in the beginning and end; there’s about three minutes of car chases even though they flirt with the idea incessantly; none of the characters have any personality whatsoever, speaking solely in tropey one liners and tough guy exchanges. I truly can’t understand how this movie got made and can only pray the Podcast gets to it soon enough. BELOW: Relegating one of the more interesting pieces of Tonya's story into a quick two minute outro Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  They need another film Director: Aaron Sorkin Writer: Aaron Sorkin Cinematographer: Charlotte Bruus Christensen Producer: Mark Gordon, Amy Pascal, and Matt Jackson by Jon Cvack I was in LA sharing a 300 square foot studio apartment when I watched the first episode of The West Wing. Not since The Sopranos have I been so immediately hooked by a show. It pioneered the walk and talk, making the lightning-quick Mamet Speak more accessible and setting a precedent in which characters sitting and talking are rarely more engaging than having them move; somehow using sentimentality to provide hope for what our government could do. It was while working my way through the series that The Social Network (Bill Camp) was released. Combined with Fincher’s gritty style, it provided the perfect duo; creating one of the greatest films from the 2000s, and even more importantly, documenting one of the most significant technological/coshifts in history. It’s clear from Molly’s Game that Sorkin learned a lot from Fincher, even admitting that he’d call to ask for suggestions. The film embodies the same pace and energy as their collaboration, yet while Fincher was willing to show the depths of selfishness and greed, Sorkin took the opposite approach, maintaining the mile a minute talks and montages, instead opting for the goodness in all of its characters; flirting with a sentimentality that just doesn’t work with the subject matter. The movie opens up with the year’s strongest introduction by far, as Molly Bloom’s (Jessica Chastain) voice over kicks in over the images of a Mogul Skiing competition in which a nineteen-year-old Molly Bloom could qualify for the Olympics. Bloom opens with a question polled to the world’s leading athletes and coaches - what is the worst sporting event to lose? The Super Bowl? Game Seven of the World Series? Or, in this case, accidentally hitting a tree branch during the Olympic qualifications that tore off her boot and caused her to crash onto the ground? During which Bloom explains how she’s one of the smartest and most talented people you would ever meet, and how the accident led her to a life organizing illegal poker games. She decides to take a year off before applying to law school, arriving in Los Angeles where she meets up with a young and ailing real estate developer Dean (Jeremy Strong) who arranges high buy-in poker games with some of LA’s biggest businessmen and celebrities. Bloom uses her quick wit to grow the game, upping the stakes and making more money for both herself and Dean, until Dean goes on a losing streak, blaming Molly and eventually firing her. Refusing to back down from such a lucrative endeavor - especially being only in her mid-twenties - Molly decides to steal the players and start her own poker games. The general rule of law is that it’s legal to host the game so long as you’re not taking a cut of the earnings. To get around the law, Molly worked in tips, in which obviously only the largest tippers would be invited back. She ends up getting involved with a whole host of characters, from true life celebrity referred to as Project X (played by Michael Cera; allegedly based on either Tobey McGuire, Ben Affleck, or Leonardo DiCaprio); a blue-collar player and addict Harlan Eustice (Bill Camp) who gets a million dollars in over his head, falling victim to his gambling addiction; and then the Russian Mafia, who are soon indicted by the FBI, bringing down both Molly and her business. Similar to The Social Network, the narrative cuts between past and present, where after the intro, Molly is now in her mid-30s and arrested in the middle of the night. Prior to her arrest, she wrote a book called “Molly’s Game” (of which the movie is only loosely based). All of her savings have now been seized, as per conspiracy charges, the government can lien her bank accounts. We learn the nefarious method is a way to force the defendant to reach a bargain, as unless they can find a lawyer willing to work for free, they would literally be unable to afford to go to trial. Molly is forced to go around town begging lawyers to represent her, eventually coming across successful New York attorney Charles Jaffe (Idris Elba), where the two proceed to discuss the case, trading intellectual jabs as a good Sorkin duo. Molly mentions that she’s owed over $2 million, promising to give the money to Jaffe in exchange for pro bono representation. While I was a little confused over where this arrangement goes, during an awkward exchange during the initial court proceeding where Molly needs to offer her plea, Jaffe continues to shift positions with another defendant (who’s for some reason sitting between Molly and himself), he agrees. The movie was close to great, but unfortunately, Sorkin’s directing skills just couldn’t match his writing; he’s just too good at characters, and while he did a solid job in creating an energetic story, there were just far too many sentimental moments that I imagine other directors would have flagged right away. The clumsy court scene offered the first taste, later expanding to a scene where Molly runs her hands across the legal books, imagining the life she could have had, which seemed all too obvious by this point. Another was the final reconciliation with her father, who offers a lightning-quick therapy session, offering three reasons they didn’t get along that made a respected academic into an armchair psychologist, all while the scene could have ended with a simple hug rather than another verbal sparring match. What Fincher brought to Sorkin was an ability to show rather than tell in moments when telling would be too maudlin to risk. Yet my biggest issue with the story is the overall message it contains; showing that a white rich woman from a good family can break the law with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Whether or not you like Molly, she started taking a rake from the game, knowingly got involved with criminals, all while participating in illegal gambling. I can’t imagine a person of color or an individual from lesser means being granted the same immunity. Molly is celebrated for her intelligence and charm; as though because she had a skiing accident and was ridiculously smart and motivated that it’s a reason to hold her up as a paragon of virtue rather than for the criminal she is. On account of her lending over a million dollars to Harlan, at least one family was destroyed. We don’t know how many others were affected. Molly could have gone on to do anything else with her life, and instead, she’s celebrated for surviving the immoral path. Something about it doesn’t sit right for me. As the father says, her whole family had reached tremendous success, with one son going to play for the Philadelphia Eagles and the other becoming a doctor. There’s a strong hint of elitism at play which has left a bad taste in my mouth since the credits rolled. BELOW: 2017's best intro Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2019. 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