Film Review: Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

2

“Blade Runner 2049” (2017)

Yes, the very, very long awaited “sequel” to the 1982 masterpiece, loosely taken from the Philip K. Dick short story: “Do androids dream of electric sheep”.

First, a housekeeping issue. You have a choice of seeing this very visual epic in 3D, XD and on a regular screen. I elected to see it in XD at the McCandless Cinema and it didn’t disappoint. The SD is a huge wall-to-wall screen and state-of-the-art surround audio. I think all that really enhanced the film and I recommend it. However, you’ll notice that the film does not cover ALL the screen available so it’s not shot in 70 mm wide angle. It’s shot in 35mm and so you’re not watching the full impact. But the sound system is better so it’s still a better deal for not too much more $$. If you’re too close the screen size can be daunting. I don’t think 3D on a normal screen would have been as good. Definitely don’t waste this film on a normal size screen.

Many have waited a long time for this film to possibly answer some lingering questions following the original film 35 years ago (said to take place in 2021). There have been books written about it and to this day there are continued arguments about whether Deckard was a replicant. Harrison Ford was on Charlie Rose the other night and, of course, Charley asked if Ford thought Deckard was a replicant. Ford howled in laughter and cackled: “Don’t go there” (and never has elucidated).

If you have not seen the original film, it is a must before you see the new 2017 version. It will be very difficult to understand the nuances without knowing the history. The actors and actresses in the original film were simply perfection. Like Van Gogh’s paintings in 1873, the film was not appreciated much in 1982. Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty) is said to have advocated boycotting the new film, as it would only diminish the impact of the 1982 version like adding a few notes to a Chopin sonata. Harrison Ford has opined in the past that it was not one of his best efforts, which is a lot like saying Van Gogh didn’t think much of his paintings at the time he painted them. The 1982 film is an absolute masterpiece, I truly believe at the table with the top five films ever made. Films you must see before you die.

Here is one of the very famous clips from the ending of the original film, one of the replicants running out of steam and philosophizing about his “life” such as it might have been. You’re watching genius:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU7Ga7qTLDU&t=28s

So I arrived with high expectations but, alas, after much thought, I must post a rather mixed review. The major thrust of the film is interesting but very diluted out by nonsense diversions that simply wasted time.

The cinematography and production details are magnificent. Ryan Gosling is a world-class actor, as are most of the others. They don’t disappoint. The CGI is good- watch for the scene where a female hologram “links” within a “real” woman’s body to produce a creature Gosling would recognize and have a very physical interaction. The hologram that hangs out in his apartment that he cannot touch or feel. Very interesting.

If you recall, the human Rick Deckerd falls in love with the beautiful and desirable high-end replicant Rachael (Sean Young) in 1982 and they steal away to an uncertain future, not knowing how long she will live, accepting what time they may have. They both simply vanish from sight.

Now in 2049, replicants have been refined to the point where there are very few replicant outlaws like Roy Batty, only docile servants from the new iteration of the Terrell Corporation (Wallace). A Blade Runner still roams around retiring the odd “skin job”. Gosling is one such and he is a replicant and he knows himself to be so. After retiring an older model hiding out as a farmer, he notices some odd things on the farm and begins an investigation that opens up a lot of things the Wallace Corporation (the next iteration of Tyrrell) is very interested in pursuing to their own ends.

It slowly comes out that replicants have reached the point in their evolution that they may be so close to human that it’s impossible to tell them apart, they may have real memories and they can perform other strictly human functions machines can never do no matter how sophisticated. And so it becomes unclear exactly what Gosling is. Ultimately, he seeks out a former blade runner, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford about halfway through the film) to answer some questions about his relationship with Rachael. He was told at some point that the Rachael/Deckard liaison was staged for experimental purposes. But how? Did they just put the human and the replicant together hoping they would bond or were both replicants and Ford was ordered by an internal chip to fall in love with her? Then a lot of things happen that you’ll have to watch closely.

The thrust of the film in the nature of “life” and how closely it can be built with super-technology under the direction of a super-genius. Can such a creature be constructed that can perform ALL the functions of a real human? If so, its creator would know the mind of God but how would such a creature feel within? If so, how much if anything would they know about their “life”? Would their life consist of real memories or memories that can be constructed in perfect detail. The Director works very hard to flesh these things out in somewhat diluted form.

Now for the not so strong news, and there is some. The plot of the film is interesting but underworked and made to be too complex and obscure- it doesn’t become clear till the last scenes (no spoilers here). It takes the audience a while to figure out where this is all going, muddied by non-sequiturs, dead ends, micro-plots that don’t go anywhere and actors that don’t really contribute much (Jared Leto). The thrust of the plot is spread over almost two and a half hours while the audience looks at their watches. Its TOO long and it dilutes things out dramatically. It’s hard to remember where the plot’s going when it meanders as it does.

The Deckard character was not fully fleshed out here. You get the impression that Harrison Ford is in the film for his commercial namesake and to provide an action figure. He doesn’t act like the old Deckard. Rachael is no longer with him and it’s unclear why at first but is slowly bleeds out. Little is known about her fate or his life since 1982. As the plot progresses, it becomes more clear but you have to watch closely for it. Otherwise, Harrison Ford doesn’t really contribute much other than fight scenes that don’t go anywhere.

Now, the appearance of the 1982 version of the high-end (Nexus 6+) replicant Rachael as she appeared then (hot babe) is a closely guarded secret. Sean Young is now 67 years of age and obviously doesn’t look as she did then. No one is saying how they did it, other than with her help and assistance but it was very effective. Her 1982 likeness is perfect. I think they used a body double and used CGI to superimpose Rachael’s face to it. They’re definitely good enough to do that. At any rate, it’s pretty surprising and realistic.

Director Denis Villeneuve works hard to slip away from the shadow of Ridley Scott who moved heaven and earth in 1982 to make this film in his image. He does, in fact create a separate plot, loosely attached to a portion of the old one that remained unexplained. Does the new version explain it? Maybe. I think it puts to bed the thought that Deckerd is (was) a replicant. Replicant’s don’t age and Harrison Ford ages plenty. And certain other bodily functions replicants cannot do because they contain life, which cannot not be created by any machine. Yes, I believe Deckard is human and that’s what they needed him to be chosen for. What happens next is a logical extension of where that premise might go, and Villeneuve did a good job, probably with some advice and consent from Ridley Scott.

I have tried hard not to slip in any spoilers. This is a very, very complex film and will require you to assimilate a very lot of things over 2 & 1/2 hours but it does eventually come together. There are a lot of diversions that go nowhere and then you have to figure out how to get back to the point, a point that moves around some and might be a little hard to follow.

This is a very interesting film, flawed in many places I think but worth the effort to sog through it. In the end, some questions are answered that are very interesting commentaries as to the state of the art of creating alternate forms of of life, a day that might come someday.

I give this film 4 of 5 Scuzzy Harrison Ford grimaces.

 

 

Film review: “Wind River” (2017)

0

Desolation angels. “Wind River” is an example of truly phenomenal components of a great film. Phenomenal, riveting performances by really excellent actors. Incredible cinematography on location in the Utah Mountains. A spellbinding story line that drags just a little. When put all together and stirred, the result is just a bit less than the sum of its parts, but much of that lack can be forgiven because of the quietly spectacular actors.

Although true in its essence, Director Taylor Sheridan (who wrote the excellent “Sicario” in 2016) uses the same nuts & bolts in Wind River but comes off just a bit politically charged about the abuses of native Americans that are all too apparent from history and in the present. Sheridan also tends to maybe overwork the hard-times-in-the-country theme; you’ll note an upside down American flag on the reservation.

If there are very minor philosophical deficits in the story line, there are none for the actors. Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker 2008) is absolutely riveting. Elizabeth Olson moves from tranquil to aggressive in a heartbeat. But deserving of special accolades is native American of Comanche ancestry Gil Birmingham. His performance is simply incredible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B7zhlGkJmQ

Even at 90 minutes, the story line drags just a little. This film could have been a very taut HBO hour-long drama. It starts out slow but progressively drags the viewer into a very shocking and violent end that a potential viewer should consider if they’re a little on the squeamish side. All things considered, the 87-94% rating from Rotten Tomatoes.com is definitely deserved.

BTW, there are emerging articles suggesting that a LOT of potential audiences check <rottentomatoes.com> before considering overpriced tickets and popcorn to see a dud. It’s changing the way studios make and market films.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/how-hollywood-came-to-fear-and-loathe-rotten-tomatoes

Here’s a trailer for “Wind River”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCuzMG3enK4

One of the top five films this year. I think a “must see”, especially for Gil Birmingham’s performance. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be a lot of Oscar talk about this film and it’s principal characters. Highly recommended by me for the performance artistry and cinematography. I give it four and a half of five bloody snow tracks.

David Crippen, MD, FCCM
Professor Emeritus
University of Pittsburgh (Ret)

Film review: “Detroit” (2017)

0

This new film by the director of Zero Dark Thirty and The Hurt Locker is generating a bit of buzz, including some from me. Katherine Bigelow is a world-class director and rave reviews and Oscars have greeted her previous films. This film requires a little more perspective. No spoilers here. Look up the story line on “rotten tomatoes.com” or IMDB.

The film brutally depicts some events embedded in a 1967 race-related riot in the city of Detroit. The use of a historical backdrop as a base for drama involving named individuals for whom a story is told as technically a “docu-drama”. Facts and factoids are depicted according to the recollections of some individuals involved that are still alive, which is a dangerous thing.

People involved in any “real-life” drama remember things differently depending on their perspectives and biases. The film is unclear which of these players are spinning the story line and where the biases lay. The “real” facts according to some completely objective observer are largely unknown but the aftermath was clear.

Also unclear how the story might be biased according to Katherine Bigelow and writer Mark Boal, both of whom are white and Bigelow known for biasing toward the utility of torturing to obtain information (in Zero Dark Thirty). Finally, unclear also as to what the necessity was for a whole lot of seemingly endless gratuitous brutality. A story that could equally be told with more subtlety.

As I have mentioned before, there’s a whole lot of difference between a documentary (read- Ken Burns) and a docu-drama that can and frequently does take a “creative” liberties to tell a story sellable to the ticking purchasing audience. Did Bigelow and Boal specifically intend to over-emphasize graphic, gratuitous violence to wag their fingers at society because these things happen or to be historically accurate? If so, how that that improve the aura of the film? Very unclear to me and I’m quite suspicious of it.

Failing all the above, the actors are outstanding, the camera work is riveting and the story line is interesting to say the least. I think it merits a very hesitant and skeptical recommendation. It’s too long and the brutality becomes overwrought quickly. We’ll never know the stark reality what happened that day, but we’ll see one viewpoint of it, and that should be kept in mind.

The actors, writer and director on Charlie Rose Friday night:

https://charlierose.com/videos/30851

With some hesitation, I give it four of five baby-faced cops. See with realistic expectations if you have an interest.

 

 

 

Film Review: “Dunkirk” (2017)

0

We live in an increasingly, for want of a more descriptive term, “technological” society that can be effortlessly depicted in soulless, technological terms. Witness the rise of “superhero” films with computer generated special effects (CGI- Computer Generated Interface) to make the impossible (even the ridiculous) amenable to the visual imagination. Comic books for the new Millennium.

One would think that the history of film has come to a real bifurcation. One road, reality in the personal experiences of real people on real film (Manchester by the Sea- 2016) and the other computer creations saving the world from other computer creations (The Avengers- 2012). The “artistic” value of one road seemingly balanced by the pyrotechnic value of the other. However, those roads are melding somewhat as filmmakers learn to judiciously use computer graphics to make very artistic films.

In “War for Planet of the Apes” (2017), one might consider the incredible facial ape morphing to human qualities, including a wide range of emotion, fear, anger and frustration. Combined with a fairly rational plot line and stunning cinematography, the Apes film is really very interesting and worth a look for this masterful use of CGI to mimic an alternate quasi-human reality.

 

 

“Dunkirk”- (2017) is one such film that couldn’t have been made without computer graphics, but it doesn’t let that fact interfere with the incredible visual and emotional effect of the film, given stellar ratings by virtually all the critics this week.

The film depicts a campaign that began in late May 1940 in the French port city of Dunkirk, where nearly 400,000 Allied soldiers were trapped on a vast beach by the Germans, whose aircraft picked at them like fish in a barrel. The British faced the capture or possible annihilation of their troops. Rescue seemed impossible as German artillery and torpedoes vanquished any approaching ship.

338,226 men escaped aboard 861 privately owned small vessels, of which 243 were sunk during the operation. British Fighter Command lost 106 aircraft dogfighting over Dunkirk, and the Luftwaffe lost about 135. It was a truly awesome feat.

Directed by Chris Nolan (The Dark Knight- 2008). A world-class cast including Sir Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance and especially Tom Hardy whose entire character as a Spitfire pilot is emoted from his eyes and gestures. One of the most incredible performances I’ve ever seen, worth the price of admission just for Tom Hardy’s incredible performance in which he had only ten lines.

“Dunkirk” is one of the most finely textured and nuanced films of this decade. It’s a film where the cinematography tells the story, allowing the audience to understand the goings on with minimal spoken dialogue. It falls into place because the images tell the tale. Yes, there is CGI in place mainly to show the vastness of the scenes that could not have been depicted any other way. But the CGI does not interfere with the artistry which is world-class masterful.

This is the most visually stunning film this year, as good as it gets. I enthusiastically give it five of five burning Spitfires. Absolutely a must see.

“The Mummy (2017): Anatomy of a truly bad movie.

0

Opened with scathing reviews (“Deserves a quick burial”) and a whopping 18% on the Tomatometer, maybe a new low. So I had to see it. Now that it’s mercifully over, I’m sitting back reflecting on the nature of bad movies.

Good movies are easy to dissect. Cinematography, directing, performances, plot all come together as in “Manchester by the Sea” (2016) and “The Revenant” (2016). Bad film is a little more difficult to understand the nuts and bolts, although in the immortal words of SCOTUS Justice Potter Stephens’ comment “I know it when I see it”.

There are really two different kinds of bad films. Bad production and bad writing.

“Cleopatra” (1963) wasn’t bad, just expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_(1963_film)

The gold standard of bad production is “”Plan 9 from outer space” by Edward D. Wood in 1959.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space

Bella Lugosi died halfway through the film and was replaced by Edward’s chiropractor in a hood and cape. The production was insanely amateurish using common household items as props.

But much can be forgiven in 1959 low budget productions. The new millennium produced bad writing and very bad screenplays, the gold standard of which is “Stayin’ Alive” (1977), said by critics to be a vision of the end of film as an art form. “Showgirls” (1995), feminine beauty molded into bad taste. “Patch Adams” (1998), did for doctors what Theodoric of York did for the Renaissance. “What Dreams May Come” (1998), a film so profoundly depressing half the patrons went straight home to stick their heads into an oven.

Then came the unchecked hubris of directors/actors. “Battlefield Earth” (2000), the most universally shellacked movie maybe of all time. “Heaven’s Gate” (1980), an incredibly bad film that failed on every possible level, brought down the studio that produced it and destroyed the director’s career. Books have been written about it.

The list goes on and on.

‘The Mummy” with an otherwise stellar cast of Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe and Courtney B. Vance (Law & Order back in the 90s) is in a class by itself.

 

 

Bad plot, bad script, bad screenplay, bad acting and gratuitous CGI special effects. A vacuous Full Monte. Possibly the most inane and absurd interpretation of plot particulars by experienced actors I’ve seen in many years.

(Warning: gentle spoiler ahead). Tom Cruise and his pal, “real” soldiers in Iraq said to be out on a “Long Range Patrol”, (presumably for information gathering) but actually sifting through ruins looking to grab artifacts for the black market? In civilian clothes? Then conferring with a colonel right off a helicopter who seems to know them and what they’re up to? An LRRP? A Field Grade officer that even knows what any low grade enlisted guy look like? Think it couldn’t get sillier? Oh, but it does, and never lets up.

One might think that the director is intentionally trying to make a campy film but I don’t think so. Tom Cruise acts like this is a “real” production. Russell Crowe can barely keep a straight face during his antics. I think this was meant to be a serious “horror thriller” film and it definitely succeeds but for all the wrong reasons.

The Mummy is truly a bad film on every level, a frenzied quest for the summit of Mount Bad. A plot so silly it defies rational explanation. Overwrought actors trying to look dignified in simply ridiculous plot lines. What criteria did experienced actors use to choose this script? It’s worse than “Springtime for Hitler” (“The Producers”, 1968). Career enders for all involved?

Probably not. Tom Cruise is a good actor and will go on to make better films. Unsure about Russell Crowe. Critic Glenn Kenny made an excellent point writing for Roger Ebert.com: “As Richard Harris and Richard Burton found out many years before Crowe came along, there comes a time in the career of every loose-cannon macho actor where the any-port-in-a-financial-year-storm approach to career management is all for the best”.

This is a truly terrible experience. Everyone connected with this film should be embarrassed and ashamed of this production, especially outstanding actor Russell Crowe whose contemptibly stupid performance should earn him every Razzie in the book.

I give it ZERO stars out of five creepy CGI manipulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Film review: “Jackie” (2016)

0

02-jackie-portman-w529-h529“Jackie” (2016), interestingly not yet released in wide distribution is playing at the Manor in Shadyside, one of my favorite theaters. The Manor gets everything first.

Unclear what the incentive is to re-explore this history, arguably the worst saga that the emerging modern United States ever endured. Some things should maybe be relegated to dry history books rather than Natalie Portman’s wrenching performance of a woman in the public eye’s unimaginable shock and grief. Maybe not many of you in this group were there on November 22, 1963. Like Zelig, I was and I remember the fine details to this day. The news break-in from a soap opera:

Followed by a profound shock that covered the country like a big wet blanket. Everything, EVERYTHING stopped dead in its tracks. No one went to work, businesses closed, no traffic. Every American that had one was glued to (then) ancient black & White televisions or radios. Schools closed. Crowds gathered to storefront picture windows to watch. There was an eerie silence everywhere. The radio stations played funeral dirge music continuously. Children were terrified as were their parents. No one really knew what was possible next.

Natalie Portman is an excellent, multi-decorated actress and she poured herself into the persona of a woman in the public eye who very intimately experienced the destruction of her life and the life of her country in a virtual heartbeat. Losing a husband on the world’s largest stage. In all seriousness, I can’t think of another contemporary actress that could have brought this to a screen. Her physical similarity to Jackie is striking as is her voice and manner.

But there was a lot more to this woman than her ability to stand and persist following this unqualified disaster. Jackie knew two things intuitively. That the American public, millions of them, were watching her during this aftermath and counting on her to show strength and resilience. No one in post-modern America had ever experienced anything like this and they clearly needed pillars of strength to point toward a better future. Mrs. Dead president was clearly that person.

Jackie also knew that the remembrance of history is the written word, written after facts, suggesting the initial scenes where a world-class writer is engaged to write the intimate history of the aftermath insuring her husband’s rightful place as Jackie saw it, not as a politician might. (That actor, Billy Crudup is based on presidential biographer Theodore H. White, who wrote “For President Kennedy: An Epilogue,” a Life Magazine article that ran one week after Kennedy’s assassination).

This Is the Real <i>Jackie</i> Interview With LIFE Magazine

Toward both of those ends, Jackie demanded a spectacle for the funeral and burial of JFK, and she very nearly didn’t get it, as there were concerns that there may be more shooters out there. In the end, the entire pageant played out to her specifications. Mother and children front & center at the Rotunda, followed by all marching to St. Mathews, a distance of 8 city blocks behind a rider-less horse with boots reversed in stirrups. Watched by millions along the route and on television. It was a spectacle no one believed could have ever happened.

Parenthetically, following the assassination of Jack Kennedy’s brother Bobby, a train carrying the body to it’s final resting place was met by literally standing room only people along the route for it’s entire length. I think would have been a radically different world had Robert F. Kennedy lived.

This is a “historical figure contemplates self” film that relies completely on Natalie Portman’s ability to morph into her subject. She becomes Jackie Kennedy is a very real and convincing way, warts and all.

Interestingly, watch for something I noticed. During the film, the director portrays some of Jackie’s 1962 tour of the White House, using ancient 16 mm cameras and film digitally doctored to appear as early ‘60s black & white viewing screens. These scenes are scattered throughout the film. Keep your eye out for one of these scenes near the end of the film. You’ll notice that in this one clip, the audio of Jackie (Natalie) speaking for the camera doesn’t match. Look closely at the woman in this clip. I’m VERY convinced they slipped a clip of the real Jackie in there and most of the audience didn’t notice. The resemblance is nearly perfect except the real Jackie as a bit larger mouth. The director, Pablo Larraín, later hinted that they played around a bit with some of these clips. Jackie had to stand for herself as an ordinary woman but also for Jackie the historical figure, the myth, especially for the myth of Camelot she embraced and promoted.

Predating the Kennedy assassination by three years, the “real” Camelot on Broadway starring Richard Burton and Julie Andrews played for 873 performances in 1960 and earned four Tony’s. It got mixed reviews at the time but spawned an eponymous movie in 1967 (Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave). The sound track album topped the charts for 60 weeks. The plot of Camelot involved a mythical kingdom of equal peers that functioned to political and social perfection, much like Sangri la. Then, inevitably, jealously, greed, covetousness and dishonor color the perfection, bringing it to ground, never to resurrect. Richard Burton’s speech reminding Arthur of the idealism and hope that he had as a young king haunts to this day. “For one brief shining moment…….there was Camelot”.

Jackie knew that the three years of her husband’s presidency resembled the myth of Camelot in many respects and she nurtured that image which persists to this day.

This is a very, very intense film interpreted to perfection by Natalie Porter and director Pablo Larraín, who gives her free reign. There are some issues. The extreme close ups become a bit irritating after a while. Jackie ignores or dismisses some of the more controversial facets of the Camelot myth, infidelity and having to fix disasters of his own making.

If you’re up for some serious melodrama, I recommend it. I give it 4 of 5 gloomy flag draped caskets.

David Crippen, MD, FCCM
Professor Emeritus
University of Pittsburgh (Ret)

Film Review: “Passengers” (2016)

0

neg9fdpg9qkckg_2_bA very interesting film. You’re a 30 year old guy, one of 5000 suspended animation passengers on a star ship bound for a new world; a 120 year trip. You are accidentally roused from your sleep only 30 years out (with 90 to go) due to a technical malfunction and you are the only animated person on the ship. There’s no way to re-hibernate. You will live and die on that ship before it reaches its destination. Solitary confinement even with the run of the ship’s resources.

How long would it be before you figured out you could defeat the hibernation on another passenger to keep you company on the duration of the lonely flight? A beautiful young female passenger, of course. But of course, she would die with you. How long would you last marooned alone before you’d commit what amounts to first-degree murder to get some company?

Such is the ethical quandary of Chris Pratt. He lasts a couple of years, and nearing insanity and suicide, he finally resolves to pull the trigger, awakening Jennifer Lawrence, who of course, eventually figures out her release from hibernation isn’t an accident.

The quandary and it’s progression is very imaginative in the first half of the film, following which it deteriorates a bit into melodrama that’s pretty far fetched. We’re asked to believe that something this huge (references to The Titanic) had no potential to fix a monumental technological problem that should have been anticipated. The couple’s ability to actually “Fix” the issue is even more far fetched.

However, one has to make allowances for dramatic intent. Even with its inadequacies, the story line is imaginative, the special effects are good (especially the zero-gravity swimming pool scene) and the actors do a good job, especially Jennifer Lawrence. It’s an interesting story and some convincing suspense at the end. I thought it was entertaining and interesting. Definitely worth a watch in 3-D.

I give it three and a half massive water balls (containing a human goldfish).

But wait, good stuff potentially coming.

Probably this summer, the “update” of “Blade Runner” (1982) is coming with some heavyweights involved. Directed by Denis Villeneuve who did “Sicario” (2015), and “Arrival” (2016). It will be called “Blade Runner 2049” and will star Ryan Gosling and, of course, Harrison Ford, the Original “Deckard” in 1982. Arguments still abound as to whether Deckard was a replicant. Perhaps we’ll find out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/

 

 

 

Film review: Manchester by the Sea (2016)

0

maxresdefaultManchester by the Sea (2016)

As I mentioned before, if you see a film go by that has 97% on the <rottentomato.com> “Tomatometer” and all the principals show up at Charley Rose’s oak table, you can pretty much bet it’s worth a look. Accordingly, “Manchester by the sea” is definitely worth a look, but with a bit of a caveat.

“Manchester…” is another film where the director simply sets the stage and lets the principal actor loose to show what he has without much if any restriction. Similar recent films are Robert Duvall in “Tender Mercies” (1983) and “Get Low” (2009), and Michael Keaton in “Birdman” (2015).   All the other cast members point toward the leading actor doing his tour de force.

Similarly, Casey Affleck really does do a magnificent job in a very textured, restrained performance as a man who has suffered an unspeakably terrible event in his past and doesn’t really want to continue living, much less be responsible for a precocious adolescent. You can literally watch his gears work it out as best he can and it’s a pretty tough mechanism.

And thereby goes the caveat. It’s a very slow and ponderous process that loses touch with the audience’s span of attention in parts. The film is too long and doesn’t really explore the plot in a consistent, steadfast manner. It plods and even the outstanding portrayal by Casey Affleck, not previously known as a heavyweight, can save it in places. That said, watch for a brief two-minute blast from Michelle Williams about having lunch. She blows the film away.

Like the guy on “What’s my car worth” who sadly reports that he must give the car a “3” (of 6) for “condition” because there are a few scratches, bumps and worn spots, but the car is still pretty collectable, I must give “Manchester” 3 (of 5) gloomy expressions because it’s just too interminably somber but it’s still pretty collectable.

 

Film review: “Loving” (2016)

0

If you want to see evidence of a good film, look for two things

* Over 90% on rottentomatoes.com

* The Director and a quorum of the actors showing at the oak table on Charlie Rose

mildred_jeter_and_richard_loving-xlarge_transahd6x3lw3lgv45ug3tlonfkd4w7tvk-zqpixarbayny“Loving” sports both, so you always know it’s worth a look.

In the 50s, there really was a law in the South prohibiting interracial marriage and it was enforced. The issue was that the politics of the day frowned on creating interracial children. This very loving couple were caught up in this and their true story has been chronicled elsewhere. The film centers on the emotions of the time, not so much the politics and does so very successfully.

Despite convincing Southern accents, neither principal actor hails from the South, or even the USA. One is Australian and the other is Irish. Both do incredible jobs of creating the persona of real Southerners. Richard Loving is a classic Southern working guy, a man of simple pleasures and few words. Mildred Loving is perpetually afraid and for very good reason. The sheriff ( Paul Csokas -born and raised in New Zealand) is totally chilling and will raise your hackles.

Of course you know what I notice.  Everything and I mean EVERYTHING in this film is totally period perfect, and this is the mark of a master director. The actors do their job and he does his.  The massive collection of 1950s cars.  All the dwellings in the rural South. The clothing. Richard Loving’s 1956 Ford Victoria V-8 hardtop with an aftermarket tachometer screwed to the top of the dash. You can’t afford that car today.

This is a deeply emotional film that takes its time in the progression of events, the actors given free reign by the director and it works exceptionally well. In the end, the SCOTUS ruled that who we love is no one’s business. A landmark civil rights decision.

I give it a solid four and a half patches of condensation on the inside of the lawyer’s watch crystal (look for that).  I do believe that both these actors will be in the hunt for an Oscar this Spring. I think must-see.

 

Film Review: “Arrival” (2016)

0

maxresdefaultA VERY intricate and interesting film that is commensurately difficult to understand. I brooded through the film and I “thought” I figured out what happened but my wife vehemently disagreed. So I tracked down and read the original short story the film by Ted Chiang and now I “think” I understand it and my wife (the mistress of non-verbal thought process) was mostly right. It was not an easy interpretation.

I cannot dissect any of the plot for you as to do so would necessarily expose spoilers. You must broaden your concept of time. You’ll have to sort it out for yourselves and, trust me; it will be a labor of alternative reasoning.

A minimalist abstract: 12 seeming spaceships drop into the globe in random locations for reasons unknown. Linguist Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is promptly pressed into service as an interplanetary translator, teamed with physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner). Together, these two venture into the void of one “pod”, attempting to converse with creatures seen through a clear barrier and who communicate via inky circles.

The film lightly explores the nature of language, including such complex concepts as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, a theory that language defines cognition. Through Louise’s linguistic looking glass, the world looks different. Louise finds her world reordered by alien semantics in a linguistic Stargate and at this point I cannot reveal any more. You have to be very observant and remember seemingly insignificant occurrences. If you can’t figure it out, post me off line and I’ll divulge.

Masterfully directed by Canadian Denis Villeneuve (Sicario). Outstanding acting roles and cinematography. It’s an alien landing film for those that hate alien landing films. BTW, director Denis Villeneuve is soon to present the sequel to 1982’s “Blade Runner”, titled “Blade Runner 2049”. Eagerly awaited.

I give it 4 of 5 blurry heptopods.