Wednesday, January 18, 2017

“Gold”– Movie Review

 

gold

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club World Premiere of “Gold”, a new drama starring Matthew McConaughey and Bryce Dallas Howard. 

Synopsis

When a prospector discovers gold in a remote location, can he hold on to his fortune or will he be completely swindled out of his wealth?

Story

In the late 1980’s, prospector Kenny Wells (McConaughey) is struggling to keep his generations-long family business, Washoe Mining, afloat.  During the seven years since his father’s death, Wells does not seem to have the same knack for this business as his ancestors.  After being forced to vacate his Reno, Nevada offices, his employees now work out of a local bar where they make cold calls to potential investors.  As if this isn’t bad enough, Wells also has to give up his home and move in with his long-time girlfriend Kay (Dallas Howard).  Researching new opportunities, Wells learns of the possibility of gold in the jungle mountains of Indonesia. 

Unable to pursue this on his own, Wells seeks venture capitalists to finance the operation, but comes up empty.  In order to enhance both his credibility and chances for success, he pursues Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramírez), a noted geologist, to work with him.  Once Wells is able to raise a small fraction of the funds he will need for this project, Acosta informs him they have just discovered gold right around the point when they’ve run out of money.  With this proof of concept complete, Wells and Acosta are now finding that investors with deep pockets are suddenly interested in joining them. 

Soon, Wells partners with an investment banking firm which underwrites Washoe Mining’s IPO on The New York Stock Exchange.  Later, when another, more experienced mining company tries to purchase a controlling interest in Washoe in order to see this project through to a successful completion, Wells rejects the deal, finding it insulting.  This proves to be a fateful decision as that company retaliates by using its connections with the Indonesian government to shut down Washoe’s mine.  Wells and Acosta counter by finagling a partnering deal with the prodigal son of the Indonesian president, which results in their mine being reopened.  As Washoe becomes increasingly successful with the discovery of large quantities of gold, the rug gets pulled out from under Wells when it is revealed that a scam has been perpetrated by trusted associates.  When Washoe collapses and Wells finds himself under investigation by the FBI, will he be able to prove his innocence to stay out of prison?

Gold

Review

“Gold” tells a remarkable tale – only made more amazing by the fact that it is inspired by a true story.  There are so many twists and turns – crosses and double-crosses – that it would be difficult for even the most creative screenwriter to invent a fictional story such as this.  But therein lies part of the problem.  In addition, it is not helped by the fact that its protagonist is so flawed that it becomes difficult to root for him, save for the fact that he becomes victimized by so many people around him that the audience almost starts feeling sympathetically.  It is noteworthy, however, that much of his victimization is brought about by his own doing.

To begin with, the story gets difficult to follow between all of the intricate details and introduction of many characters.  It probably could have used a narrator – whether Wells himself or one of the FBI agents investigating the case or some other character.  The filmmakers might have been well served by taking in an additional viewing of Martin Scorsese’s “Goodfellas”, which handled this same challenge rather artfully by the use of a narrator (in that case, protagonist, Henry Hill).  “Goodfellas” also had many different turns to its story as well as quite a few characters coming and going throughout.  Can the use of a narrator be considered something of a cheat?  Yes, but it depends on the film, how the narration is used and other factors as well.

Another problem with “Gold” – equally lamentable – is the way its ending is handled.  Without giving away too much, Wells has been beaten up pretty badly by this point and is currently under FBI investigation, yet we are given to understand by the way the ending is presented that he manages to land on his feet and all is well in his world.  Given the circumstances of his investigation, this is difficult to comprehend. In addition to the movie missing a narrator, it might also be missing a rather valuable epilogue as well.  True, epilogues in films have become trite due to overuse (or misuse), but here, it would have been extremely helpful in order to clarify exactly how this true story resolved itself.  Audiences often recommend motion pictures based on how they feel coming out of the theater, and this is frequently dictated by how satisfying the ending may or may not be.  It is difficult to imagine audiences emerging from a screening of “Gold” without doing a considerable amount of head-scratching due to its ending. 

Gold (2016) on IMDb

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

“Our Revolution: A Future To Believe In”– Book Review

our_rev

During this year’s winter vacation, I read the new book by the junior United States Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, “Our Revolution:  A Future To Believe In”. 

Synopsis

Senator Bernie Sanders describes his personal and professional background, provides a diary of his presidential campaign and supplies fine points for each of his policies.

Summary

“Our Revolution” is made up of two parts:  Part One is “Running For President”, Part Two is “An Agenda For A New America:  How We Transform Our Country”.  Part One is the shorter of the two, containing the following six chapters:  “How Do We Turn Out The Way We Do?”, “My Political Life In Vermont”, “Thinking About Running”, “How Do You Run A Presidential Campaign?”, “The Campaign Begins”, and “On The Campaign Trail”. 

Following the introductory chapters on Sanders’ background and political résumé, the remainder of Part One is essentially a diary of his 2015-2016 Democratic Presidential Campaign.  After years as the lone House Representative from Vermont, Sanders won a vacant Senate seat, representing his state as an Independent.  In describing those early days in the Senate, Sanders talks about the hostility he encountered from Democrats when he started; initially wanting to caucus with the Democrats, he found many of them opposed to him doing so.  Leader of the Senate Democrats, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, finally interceded on Sanders’ behalf; it wasn’t until that point that he was finally given committee assignments. 

Part Two’s 10 chapters are as follows:  “Defeating Oligarchy”, “The Decline Of The American Middle Class”, “Ending A Rigged Economy”, “Health Care For All”, “Making Higher Education Affordable”, “Combating Climate Change”, “Real Criminal Justice Reform”, “Immigration Reform Now”, “Protecting Our Most Vulnerable”, and “Corporate Media And The Threat To Our Democracy”.

The chapters in Part Two allow those unfamiliar with Sanders’ policies to glean an in-depth understanding of what they are and exactly why they are of importance to him – as well as why they should be important to the rest of us.  For people who have scoffed at his ideas of a “Medicare For All” system or free public college, here you have a detailed breakdown of how Sanders proposes to pay for these social programs.  The Senator maintains that giving greater access to higher education is crucial for young Americans if they are to effectively compete in what is now a global market.  In discussing climate change, Senator Sanders suggests that since coal will eventually be phased-out, companies that specialize in making solar panels should be incentivized to establish factories in former coal country locales such as Central Pennsylvania and West Virginia so as to put displaced coal miners back to work,  re-training them to manufacture and/or install solar panels.  This, he believes, might also work in Rust Belt states where the unemployed could find new careers in a burgeoning field.   

Review

Those looking for a first-hand memoir by “The Man Himself” will be sorely disappointed.  His personal and professional history are glossed over without much detail.  The divorce from his first wife, the breakup with the woman who was the mother of his first son, Levi, and his subsequent marriage to Jane are just a few examples.  Sanders clearly wants to keep his private life private and who can blame him? 

Throughout “Our Revolution”, Sanders keeps referring to his movement as a “struggle”, which is uncomfortably reminiscent of “Mein Kampf”.  The Senator credits himself with single-handedly changing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign as well as making the platform of the Democratic Party the most progressive it has ever had.  To some extent, this book is something of a victory lap of a losing campaign, much like Trump’s self-congratulatory “Thank You” tour.  “Our Revolution” is rather self-congratulatory in tone, Sanders patting himself on the back despite coming in second.  He lacks some degree of objectivity and will tell you gladly everything he did right during his campaign but won’t always admit to exactly what he did wrong.

The book is certainly no great piece of literature – it’s written in a very conversational style and as you read it, you can almost hear Sanders himself speaking it to you in his own form of Brooklynese.  It could have used an editor.  In addition to some occasional typos, one example is on page 175, where he almost seems to be suggesting that Alaska is not a state.  Perhaps its most unforgiveable sin is the fact that the book lacks an index, which is shameful – there is absolutely no excuse for that.

While “Our Revolution” cannot be recommended for its relatively flimsy Part One, it most definitely is worth reading for Part Two alone.  The considerably longer portion of the book, it is by far the more interesting read.  There, Sanders goes into  great detail spelling out not only what America’s objectives should be throughout the next four years but also why they are important and how to achieve them as well.  If anyone had any questions about Sanders’ thoughts on various policies, they will all be addressed and answered extensively throughout each chapter. 

In its conclusion, “Our Revolution” ends on an upbeat, inspirational note with the Senator’s coda for the book being, “Let’s get to work!”.   Yes, Senator Sanders, let’s indeed.   

Saturday, December 24, 2016

“Live By Night”– Movie Review

 

LBN

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new drama “Live By Night” starring Ben Affleck (who also wrote and directed). 

Synopsis

When a small-time thief joins forces with bootleggers during Prohibition, will he be able to survive when he finds he’s gotten in over his head?

Story

During The Prohibition Era, Joe (Affleck) is trying to survive as a petty crook in his home town of Boston.  A veteran of World War I, he finds this an easier way to make a living than working for either the Italian or Irish mob as they battle each other in their respective bootlegging endeavors.  But Joe makes the fatal mistake of falling in love with Emma (Sienna Miller), the girlfriend of Albert White (Robert Glenister), the Irish mob boss; when White discovers Emma has been cheating on him, he gives Joe a severe beating, after which he brags that he’s going to kill Emma. 

Although Joe pulls through, he is now a changed man and wants to avenge Emma’s death.  To do this, he requests a job from Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone), the Italian mob boss, as a way to get back at White.  Pescatore informs Joe that White is now making inroads in Tampa by importing Cuban rum and selling it throughout Florida; as a result, Joe is dispatched to Tampa in order to divert the business from White to Pescatore.  Once this has been accomplished, he becomes aware of an opportunity where he and Pescatore can open a casino where they can both become wealthy.  Pescatore partners with Joe in this venture, but it turns out to be harder than it seems when Joe must battle the local KKK who insist on owning the casino outright. 

After defeating the Klan, Joe thinks he’s home free, but he soon learns of another obstacle in his way that may be more difficult to beat:  Loretta (Elle Fanning) is the daughter of the somewhat crooked local Police Chief Figgis (Chris Cooper).  Overcoming a troubled past, she becomes a popular evangelist who preaches against all types of sin and vices – including gambling.   With a large and growing enthusiastic following, Loretta denounces the new casino that Joe is trying to build and encourages the people of Tampa to speak out against it to prevent its opening.  When she succeeds, Pescatore is furious at Joe, who by now has taken up with Graciella (Zoe Saldana), the sister of the Cuban rum importer.  With Joe’s life now endangered, can he endure a confrontation with Pescatore’s men?  

Review

In 2007, Ben Affleck directed the acclaimed film “Gone Baby Gone”, which was based on a Dennis Lehane novel.  Nearly a decade later and in desperate need of a hit since “Argo” in 2012, Affleck goes back to the well to adapt another Lehane novel.  This time, however, the results are considerably less stellar.  The main problem with “Live By Night” is the fact that story is rather murky – note that the screenplay is not called out specifically because the problem could be the source material itself (perhaps readers of the novel on which it is based can share some insight here). 

Although the movie is only about two hours in length, it feels longer in part because the forward momentum of the story is interrupted; this stop-and-start quality is due to taking so many detours (a luxury that novels have over films).  The other problem here is that it has what might be referred to as a “false ending”; just when you think the story has reached its resolution, it goes on considerably longer – as a result, with the audience psychologically believing that the motion picture has concluded, it’s actual ending feels interminable. 

Another area where novels differ from movies is with the number of characters involved.  In “Live By Night”, there are too many characters introduced whom you are given to understand are central to the plot, but in fact turn out to be rather secondary (perhaps less than that).  They are given too much weight – either in implied importance or screen time – and the viewer winds up feeling a bit misdirected.  Was this supposed to be Affleck’s attempt at a sprawling epic?  Instead of coming off like “The Godfather”, it feels more like a pale imitation of “Boardwalk Empire”. 

Live by Night (2016) on IMDb

Friday, December 23, 2016

“Fences”– Movie Review

 

fencex

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new drama “Fences”, starring Denzel Washington (who also directed) and Viola Davis.

Synopsis

When a man’s disappointment in the outcome of his own life forces a wedge with his family, can their relationships be salvaged?

Story

In 1950’s Pittsburgh, Troy (Washington) works as a garbage man to support his family – wife Rose (Davis), teenage son Cory (Jovan Adepo) and brother Gabe (Mykelti Williamson), who returned from World War II mentally disabled.  Occasionally, he finds himself also supporting Lyons (Russell Hornsby), his adult – and illegitimate – son from a previous relationship.  While Troy yearns for a better life, he is simultaneously trapped in bitterness about his past; an athlete in his youth, he once played baseball in The Negro League.  Segregation in Major League Baseball at the time prevented him from playing on a team with the players famous nationwide where he could compete and show off his skills.  To this day, Troy still cannot shake off his anger about this. 

Cory shares both his father’s interest in sports and athleticism – he’s a star player on his high school football team.  Delighted to learn that a scout from a major college has been following his progress and wants to recruit him to play for the school’s team upon graduation, Cory believes he has a future in professional sports.  However, when Troy learns of this, he refuses to even meet with the scout, much less sign the necessary paperwork that will give Cory the permission to play college ball.  Instead, Troy encourages Cory to quit the football team and learn a trade so he can have sufficient skills to have a steady job. 

Troy and Rose are now experiencing a bit of a rough patch in their own relationship as well; it turns out that for quite some time now, Troy has been cheating on his wife – something which she wasn’t aware of until one day he is forced to admit to her that his long-time girlfriend is now pregnant and he is the father of the child.  Understandably, things grow increasingly distant between Troy and Rose during the pregnancy and when his girlfriend winds up dying in childbirth, Troy asks Rose to take care of the baby.  Reluctantly, she agrees, but things are now quite different between Rose and Troy.  With his family seemingly falling apart, can Troy do anything to somehow repair the relationship between himself and his wife and son?

Review

Perhaps the movie “Fences” would be the perfect example of the term “Oscar Bait”; it is based on a Pulitzer Prize winning Broadway play and boasts a killer cast of Denzel Washington and Viola Davis (both of whom won Tony Awards for the play’s revival back in 2010).  Playwright August Wilson wrote the screen adaptation of his own play – and arguably, therein lies the problem.  Wilson wrote the screenplay before his death over a decade ago, but the film only got made now, likely because of the fact that Denzel Washington was attached to it as both star and director. 

Where Wilson’s screenplay collapses is that his so-called “adaptation” is nothing more than a copy and paste of his stage play script broken up by a few Interior and Exterior locations thrown in just for good measure.  Unfortunately, this puts the director (and star) Washington at something of a disadvantage because he is now forced to creatively envision visual methods in which to make this more filmic and his efforts frequently appear as forced.  Washington’s Troy is left giving monologue after monologue under the guise of relating tales (in fact, one character tells him, “You have more stories than the devil has sinners” – ain’t that the truth!). 

As far as the performances are concerned, the no-brainer casting of these powerhouse talents yield the expected results; both Washington and Davis have heavy lifting to do here – Washington with long stretches of dialog and Davis with visceral reactions to Washington’s deeds.  This begins to wear down the viewer when Washington as director must rely on close-ups (and many of them) in order to convey the emotional impact.  There is also action that occurs off-screen; between that and the florid dialog carried over from the stage play, one is again reminded that we are watching an adaptation.  While it seems sacrilegious to criticize a movie like “Fences”, it must be stated clearly that in this case, the Emperor wears no clothes.

Fences (2016) on IMDb

Thursday, December 15, 2016

“Julieta”– Movie Review

 

julieta

This week, I attended a screening by The New York Times Film Club of the new drama “Julieta”, directed by Pedo Almodovar. 

Synopsis

When a widow is abruptly abandoned by her adult daughter, will she try to locate her after learning the daughter doesn’t want to be found?

Story

Looking forward to leaving her Madrid apartment to live with her boyfriend in Portugal, Julieta must abruptly alter her plans when she discovers her estranged adult daughter Antía was in touch with a former childhood friend.  This new information releases a flood of memories for Julieta, who anxiously documents her past in a letter—which soon expands into more of a journal – that she wishes to somehow get into Antía’s hands at some point so her daughter will get her side of the story about their rift.   However, the more Julieta is forced to revisit her past, the deeper she sinks into depression. 

As a young substitute teacher, Julieta met Xoan, a fisherman, during a long train ride.  After their trip, they kept in touch, even though she knew he was married; following his wife’s death, Julieta visited Xoan to pursue their relationship, which results in the birth of their only child, Antía.  Over time, Julieta finds Ava, Xoan’s long-time friend, was having an affair with him while his wife was sick; Julieta worries that Ava and Xoan are continuing their trysts.  One summer while Antía is at camp, Julieta and Xoan argue over Ava; Julieta storms out while Xoan goes to work fishing.  By the time Julieta returns, a major storm moves in and Xoan has not come home; soon, the police inform her that Xoan’s fishing boat was caught in a squall and he perished. 

Upon returning from camp, Julieta breaks the news to Antía about her father; by now, Antía has formed a very close friendship with Bea, whom she met at camp – the two become increasingly inseparable as Antía deals with her loss.  As time moves on, Julieta falls into a deep depression and a now teenage Antía must care for her, with Bea’s help.  By the time Antía  becomes a legal adult, she decides to attend a religious retreat –but just as she is scheduled to return, the operator of the retreat informs Julieta that Antía is gone, leaving word only that the religious awakening she experienced at the retreat has caused her to take a new direction in life without any contact from Julieta.  But when Julieta then becomes obsessed with tracking down her only offspring, will the effort be fruitful or will she be consumed by this for the rest of her days? 

Review

While “Julieta” could be characterized as a deeply moving story, it’s a little unclear whether it is life-affirming or simply depressing.  Part of the reason for that is the movie suffers from being severely melodramatic, to the point that a viewer might have to wonder how realistic some of these situations could truly be.  Sometimes, it feels like Iron Man might be more believable than a few of the events in “Julieta”, so extraordinary and overwrought are they.  All of this happening to one woman – or even a single family – is really fairly fantastic. 

Perhaps it is better left to experts like psychologists and sociologists to account for why some of the richest movies about women are frequently made by directors who happen to be gay men.  Certainly, Almodovar has a history of this and once again he seems to succeed in plumbing the depths of women’s emotions in “Julieta” – here, largely, grief and guilt.  He treats his subjects with respect, wonder and admiration but manages to avoid making the men in their life appear as nothing more than physically appealing cads.  Almodovar’s women are taken seriously – but in the case of “Julieta”, perhaps a little too seriously as they tend to come across as humorless. 

Almodovar’s latest is neither a complete fail nor an utter success; it lies somewhere in the middle.  Among the highlights are the visuals; the director seems to take extreme glee in framing shots cleverly.  The first shot looks like a red curtain, but we soon learn it is merely Julieta’s dress.  There is another scene where Julieta is rifling through a wastebasket she has put atop a table; the composition of the shot looks like the painting on the nearby wall – a large picture of a man’s face – may be either looking at Julieta frantically searching through the garbage or simply peering into the basket with her.  Possibly the best visual is that of nature itself; Almodovar has treated us with a couple of scenes in the mountainous Spanish countryside which are breathtaking.   

Julieta (2016) on IMDb

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

“Collateral Beauty”– Movie Review

 

coll-b

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new drama, “Collateral Beauty” starring Will Smith and Edward Norton.

Synopsis

When a successful advertising executive suffers a personal tragedy that also impacts his professional life, will it cause him to lose both his friends and his business?

Story

As recently as three years ago, Howard (Smith) seemed to have it all.  A co-owner of a rising advertising agency, he saw a bright future for his partner Whit (Norton) and his executive team Claire (Kate Winslet) and Simon (Michael Peña).  But a year later, he lost his six year old daughter; devastated, he was unable to recover and has allowed his business to suffer as a result.  Two years after his daughter’s death, Howard is still mourning her; Whit and the executives are concerned about the solvency of their agency.

With Howard’s erratic behavior undermining the company, Whit hires a private detective to investigate him.  It turns out that Howard is conducting a somewhat unorthodox form of therapy by mailing letters to Love, Death and Time; the content of the letters basically condemns all three so he can express the pain he has been feeling.  This causes Whit to hatch a scheme:  since the only way to save the business is by selling it to another company, he must be able to prove to The Board Of Directors that majority-owner Howard is not of sound mind to sign-off on the deal. 

To assist him in this plan, Whit hires three actors:  Brigitte (Helen Mirren), Amy (Keira Knightley) and Raffi (Jacob Latimore), each of whom will confront Howard as the three abstractions to which he wrote.  Brigitte will be Death, Amy portrays Love and Raffi is Time.  As they individually engage Howard and make an attempt to answer his letters, Whit orders the private investigator to make videos of these encounters, believing that when the videos are shown to the agency’s Board, it will be unequivocal proof that Howard is no longer of sound mind.  But will Whit be able to bring Howard to his senses and get him to sign the deal or will he be forced to show these embarrassing videos to their Board of Directors?

Review

Those anxiously awaiting that perfect Christmastime dead baby movie, then “Collateral Beauty” may be the balm for your soul.  If, on the other hand, you seek something considerably less mawkish, then be advised to look elsewhere.  This is a film that is more heart than head and preys on those susceptible to spirituality, especially during the holiday season.  Others who tend to be more grounded in reality should probably take a pass.  Whatever messages it may have regarding life and parenting are sabotaged by a script that lays it on pretty thick and is considerably inelegant when it comes to exposition.

With any film, if you buy the premise, you’ll likely hang in there until the end.  “Collateral Beauty” has the self-induced problem of daring the audience to buy into its premise from the beginning.  At the outset, Howard is introduced as a people-person and yet years after his loss, tragic though it may be, he cannot get passed it and as a result negatively impacting the livelihood of those around him; he comes across as self-pitying and narcissistic because he cannot (or will not) pull himself together for the sake of his colleagues and employees. 

While the main plot focuses on Smith’s character, the movie is filled out with various subplots of Howard’s colleagues facing challenges of their own.  Norton’s character is desperately trying to repair a fractured relationship with his daughter following a divorce; career woman Winslet is mourning her decision not to have a family of her own; as Simon, Peña is concerned with his family’s welfare when he suspects he may be terminally ill.  Obviously, the theme that is supposed to resonate is that of family in whatever forms it may take.   Its overbearing sentimentality causes it to ring hollow.

Collateral Beauty (2016) on IMDb

Friday, December 09, 2016

“Office Christmas Party”– Movie Review

 

office-xmas

This week, I attended a screening by The New York Times Film Club of the new comedy “Office Christmas Party”, starring Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman. 

Synopsis

When a corporate CEO decides to close the branch run by her brother, he decides to throw a Christmas Party to please a potential client – but will doing so save his job or serve to seal his fate?

Story

With the impending holidays, the employees of Zenotek’s Chicago office are looking forward to their company’s modest party.  Unknown to them, though, this may be their farewell party.  After her father’s recent death, Carol (Aniston) has been named interim CEO and with the branch under-performing in revenue, she is going to close it, putting all of the employees out of work – including her own brother Clay (T.J. Miller), who is the branch manager.  This being the case, Carol orders the party cancelled, but Clay wants to hold it anyway to reward his workers. 

Given everyone’s jobs are in jeopardy, Clay gets an idea:  if he can land a big client, he can keep the branch open and everyone can remain employed.  Instead of cancelling the party, Clay decides to make it even more elaborate, including spending considerably to enhance the festivities with an excessive amount of alcohol.  Clay invites the prospective client to the party and things get out of hand when everyone gets drunk.  When they all have a good time, it seems that Clay may have won the new business – but when it turns out that this is not the case, he must face the consequences.    

This is where Josh (Batemen) steps up.  As the company’s Chief Technical Officer, he urges his Senior Software Architect Tracey (Olivia Munn) to resume working on her latest idea, which could save the branch.  As it turns out, Tracey is encountering challenges trying to finish her proof-of-concept in order to give a demonstration.  Meanwhile, when it is discovered that Clay is now broke because spent all of his own money on the party, Josh and Carol must set out to try to find him after he got drunk and disappeared.  But even if they can locate Clay, will Tracey be able to complete her project in time to ensure the future of the Chicago office?  

Review

With such a great cast – and unsurprisingly, Kate McKinnon from “Saturday Night Live” gives the funniest performance – it would be understandable to have high hopes for “Office Christmas Party”.  Unfortunately, it’s a very uneven comedy; many of the jokes fail to deliver the impact they intend, mostly because they’re already quite familiar to us.  “Office Christmas Party” tries to combine the magic of “Horrible Bosses” and “The Hangover” and winds up being a pale imitation of the two.  If you make it through the entire film, the end credits contain outtakes.  Déjà vu?

Aside from McKinnon, there are other good comic performances including her SNL cohort Vanessa Bayer as a recently separated single mom looking for a new love at the office and Rob Corddry as an employee fed up with the company’s overbearing rules as enforced by the Human Resources department.  Aniston’s role is reminiscent of the aforementioned “Horrible Bosses” in that she is a downright unpleasant and soulless executive, but her Carol is far from the other movie’s nymphomaniacal dentist.  As Clay, T. J. Miller seems like a natural fit cast as the irresponsible younger brother of Carol.    

A rowdy, raunchy, raucous comedy can be quite the welcome relief during the sometimes stressful holiday season; it’s just too bad that “Office Christmas Party” is nowhere near as clever as it would like to believe it is.  The film winds up as rather routine fare with the exception of some entertaining moments.  If you’re not attending your own office holiday party this year – or even if you did and it didn’t turn out to be much fun – then maybe “Office Christmas Party” is worth a try.  It could cheer you up, assuming you’re not asking very much from the movie because we’ve seen it all before.   

Office Christmas Party (2016) on IMDb

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

“The Autopsy Of Jane Doe”– Movie Review

 

Jane-Doe

This week, I attended a Sneak Preview at The Film Society Of Lincoln Center for the new horror movie, “The Autopsy Of Jane Doe”, directed by André Øvredal and starring Brian Cox. 

Synopsis

When father and son coroners must perform an autopsy on a mysterious woman, will they be able to determine both the cause of her death and her identity?

Story

The police in a small Virginia town have quite a bit on their hands:  recently, an entire family was massacred in their own home and there are few clues as to how it happened or who committed the crime.  Amid this gruesome tableau, their most interesting discovery is in the basement where they discover the nude body of a young woman buried in a shallow grave beneath the house.  Although she cannot be identified, they do know that she was not a member of the family that was murdered; members of that family have been known to locals for decades. 

That night, they deliver this young woman’s corpse – which is referred to as “Jane Doe” since she cannot be identified – to The Tilden Morgue and Crematorium, where Tommy (Cox) and his son Austin (Emile Hirsch) serve as coroners.  They are instructed to perform an autopsy on the body and provide the authorities with as much information as possible first thing the next morning – even if they have to stay up all night in order to complete their examination.  The father and son immediately get to work and find unusual and deeply troubling information upon initial inspection.        

As the two delve more deeply into their work, things become rather suspicious and unnerving; the closer Tommy and Austin get to finding the truth, the more they are aware that their lives may be endangered.  When outrageous events unfold, it eventually becomes evident that this young woman’s corpse may not be entirely what they thought it was – that she may in fact still be alive somehow and trying to interfere with their autopsy.  Upon trying to escape from their underground offices, they find themselves trapped when the electricity goes out and their back-up generator isn’t powerful enough to move the elevator.  Without any way to flee, can they survive the various threats when under relentless attack by paranormal forces?  

Review

At times, “The Autopsy Of Jane Doe” seems to cross genres being not only a horror story, but also a story about the supernatural as well.  In its biblical references to Leviticus 20:27 and allusions to The 17th Century Salem Witch Trials, it contains potentially subversive hints regarding the alleged worthiness of religious beliefs.  Just as the classic Arthur Miller play “The Crucible” is seen as an allegory to the rampant McCarthyism of the 1950’s, so may “Jane Doe” with its similar Witch Trials plot points be compared to the paranoia of today’s pervasive Islamophobia that partially helped to elect Donald Trump. 

But what “The Autopsy Of Jane Doe” mostly appears to be about is forgiveness – specifically, forgiveness of family members who themselves may ultimately be forced to admit to their own imperfections.  Redemption, it seems to suggest, may only be possible once we recognize and acknowledge our human frailties.  Although Tommy and Austin seem to be close as father and son, there is an overriding feeling of tension between them; on some level, Austin blames his father for the suicide of his mother just two years ago.  Neither has yet gotten over her death, and just as Austin thinks his father is somewhat guilty of enabling it, so Tommy feels partially responsible as well.

Following the screening, there was a brief question and answer session with the two stars, Brian Cox and Emile Hirsch, and director André Øvredal.   Øvredal said that while actress Olwen Kelly played Jane Doe, a dummy was also used to substitute for her in certain scenes; he estimated that Kelly was before the camera 80% of the time while the dummy was in only about 20% of the shots.  Cox also marveled at Kelly’s performance throughout the shoot; while it may be true she didn’t have much dialog to memorize, he remarked she was able to perfect a shallow breathing technique so subtle it could not be picked up on camera.  Hirsch agreed that Kelly’s job was particularly difficult – not only was she nude all of the time, she had to lie still on a cold marble slab during most of her scenes.   

The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) on IMDb

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

“Bleed For This” – Movie Review

Bleed

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new biographical drama, “Bleed For This”, starring Miles Teller and Aaron Eckhart. 

Synopsis

Just as a promising prize fighter's career is taking off, his neck is broken in a near-fatal car accident – but will his physical rehabilitation allow him to return to the ring?

Story

In November of 1988, Vinny Pazienza (Teller) loses his third straight fight and promoters think prospects for any future bouts are so dim they encourage him to retire.  Feeling he still has more boxing left, Vinny ignores them and instead hires Kevin (Eckhart) as his new trainer.  At this stage in their lives, they are made for each other; they are both seen as being washed-up – in Kevin’s case, his professional decline stems from alcohol abuse.  But both men feel as though they have something to prove to the world, so they engage in their new business relationship with a renewed sense of purpose. 

During th training sessions, Kevin notices Vinny is punching better when he maintains a higher weight, so he suggests that in his next fight, Vinny jump two weight classes; this is fine with Vinny, who always had a tremendous amount of trouble making the weight for his previous matches.  When his next fight is scheduled, it turns out to be for a title at the higher weight class; Vinny wins and now owns a championship belt.  With his boxing career now revived, Vinny is sitting on top of the world – but his celebration is short-lived when he winds up in a serious automobile accident that partially severs his spine. 

In the hospital, Vinny’s doctor encourages him to have spinal fusion surgery, but he opts for the other alternative:  attach a halo to stabilize his neck.  The device will have to remain intact for a period of six months – and after that, there’s no guarantee Vinny will ever walk again, so his boxing career, is effectively over.  Vinny disregards this; he asks Kevin to start training him again as part of his rehabilitation.  Once the halo is removed, Vinny resumes normal training for a return to the boxing ring; since this makes the news, promoters are easily able to secure yet another fight – but while Vinny is focused on winning, the real question is will he even survive?

Review

Boxing fans will easily recognize the names here, but for those unfamiliar with the sport, it should be noted that this is based on a true story.  Given that, the screenplay is helped significantly by having a natural structure.  Despite this advantage, the film is somewhat self-defeating because of the way the story is laid out.  It lacks a visual timeline; we start in late 1988 and sequential events happen but we don’t know how far afterwards they occurred; this directly impacts on the end of the movie because we can’t quite know exactly how long it took him from the time of his accident until the time when he got back in the ring. 

We know the halo removal came six months after the accident, but how long was the accident after Vinny won the belt?  How long after the accident did he fight Duran?  If you’re a fight devotee, you probably already know the history.  However, for an audience new to this story, there’s a feeling something is missing.  Also, the end is problematic; it’s an interview where Vinny is supposedly saying something profound, but it simply falls flat.  There is no epilogue at the end of the movie; perhaps this is done because it’s become trite.  Ironically, this is one of those movies that actually would benefit from an epilogue because the viewer is left hanging as to what happened to Vinny afterwards. 

If there are any bright spots in “Bleed For This”, it is the performances by Teller and Eckhart.  For one thing, Teller did an extraordinary job of sculpting his physique into that of a boxer in such a way that it is somewhat vaguely reminiscent of what De Niro did in “Raging Bull” (perhaps it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that one of the film’s executive producers was Martin Scorsese).  As for Eckhart, he is unrecognizable as the trainer; he completely disappears into that role and you often forget who the actor is, which is quite a remarkable feat.   

Bleed for This (2016) on IMDb

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

“Allied”– Movie Review

 

allpitt

This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new historical drama “Allied”, starring Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard and directed by Robert Zemeckis. 

Synopsis

During World War II, a military officer learns his wife may be a Nazi spy – but can he prove her innocence or will she have to suffer the consequences?

Story

In 1942, Max (Pitt), an officer in the Canadian military, is dispatched to Nazi-occupied French Morocco on a dangerous mission:  to assassinate the German Ambassador stationed there.  Working undercover, he’s instructed to meet with Marianne (Cotillard), a member of The French Resistance, who will pose as his wife and work closely with him on this assignment.  When the time comes, they succeed in their operation, but now comes the hard part – they must escape.  Having developed a mutual attraction while preparing for this undertaking, they decide to flee to England, where they marry.

More than a year later, they are settled in London, happily married and with a daughter.  Their idyllic lifestyle is disrupted when Max is informed by his superiors that Marianne is suspected of being a spy; naturally, he vociferously denies the accusations, but when confronted with mounting evidence, he relents.  His wife will be tested in order to confirm their suspicions:  Max is provided with phony intelligence, which he will  leave out in the open.  The message will be tracked and if it in fact does get forwarded to The Nazis, then Marianne must be executed. 

Shaken, Max sets out to determine the truth for himself.  Is this some kind of tragic mistake?  Are his superiors merely testing his loyalty in order to decide whether or not he deserves a promotion?  Or is Marianne not who she has claimed to be all this time?  Their relationship suffers as he looks at her differently now.  As he investigates further, Max only becomes more confused because he’s getting conflicting information.  At this point, he realizes he must hatch a back-up plan:  If it does in fact turn out that Marianne is guilty, can Max smuggle the three of them out of the country?

Review

Throughout his long and successful career, Robert Zemeckis has proved time and time again that he is a talented filmmaker; this is what makes his decision to direct “Allied” all the more puzzling.  In this movie, Zemeckis appears to have succumbed to the ultimate in narcissism – an attempt to remake the classic “Casablanca”.  In fact, that is arguably the most cringe-worthy aspect of the film – its attempt is so blatant that at times, you don’t know whether to feel insulted or to laugh at what may be some kind of perverse parody.  If the joke is on us, few may be laughing. 

Zemeckis is in no way subtle about his parallels between the two movies.  A woman with a foreign accent falls in love with an English-speaking man early in World War II (actually in Casablanca, no less!), then find their fateful relationship may culminate in the two of them being separated as the result of a noble act.  The final scene also takes place where airplanes are taking off and Pitt’s character is even provided his own version of Claude Rains.  When Hollywood runs out of ideas, they start recycling old ones – it’s just that they won’t always admit to doing so. 

Ultimately, it may be the case that “Allied” finds an audience and becomes somewhat successful.  Folks who like a tearjerker with an old-fashioned story might embrace this movie.  On the other hand, with the divorce between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie so much in the news recently, this film could get something of a lift – especially when you consider the rumors that Cotillard, Pitt’s co-star, is believed to have been the woman who assisted in breaking up their union as a result of having met Pitt during the shoot.  Somewhat fitting, considering Jolie was believed to have broken up Pitt’s relationship with Jennifer Aniston when the two shot “Mr. & Mrs. Smith”.  Et tu, Angelina?