by Philip Price “Our Brand Is Crisis” is a Grant Heslov/George Clooney production, but it's not “Argo” in the sense that it's not a political thriller and it's not “Monuments Men” in the sense it's no heroic story parading around as a nostalgia trip of the ‘60s. As this is a David Gordon Green picture though, this is a film that ends up being something of a mashup between a political drama and slapstick comedy. Green is an eclectic director who has dipped his hand in heavy drama (“George Washington,” “Snow Angels”) as well as broad comedy (“Pineapple Express,” “The Sitter”) and his latest somewhat blends these two styles to create something uniquely edgy if not completely conventional in the beats it hits. From the outset, “Our Brand Is Crisis” feels like a straightforward documentation of the carousel of politics this world and it's countries become wrapped up in, but given this is Green we're talking about it also means the characters involved in such circumstances have a unique set of sensibilities that give the otherwise unsurprising narrative a twist. Early on in the film Sandra Bullock's 'Calamity' Jane Bodine tells a room of campaign volunteers they need to help make the narrative fit their candidate rather than the other way around. Green seems to have heeded his films own advice as he clearly caters his story to the character of Jane and her off the wall methods that have made her one of the most well-regarded campaign strategists in the game. Were Green to have not done this we would have little more than a standard political drama, but given the characters are fun and engaging it's impossible to not see it as more than that. The film, which is actually a remake of the 2005 documentary of same name, is based on the American political campaign strategies used by Greenberg Carville Shrum (GCS) in the 2002 Bolivian presidential election. In 2002, American-educated Bolivian politician Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada hired Washington, D.C. based James Carville's political consulting firm to help him win the 2002 Bolivian presidential election. Carville used American political campaign strategies in the election to help Lozada surge ahead of Evo Morales in order to help him win. While there are similarities between this real-life story and the one told in “Our Brand Is Crisis” it appears Bullock's character is completely fictional and there is actually a reason for Billy Bob Thornton to be bald. In this version Bullock is the campaign strategist who has long since retired from the game with only one reason big enough to pull her back in. Luckily, Anthony Mackie and Ann Dowd have what they need in order to get Bullock back in ring to help them get their candidate, Castillo (Joaquim de Almeida), back in the Presidential race. This reason being that Castillo's opponent has also hired an American campaign strategist in the form of Pat Candy (Thornton) who just so happens to be Jane's sworn enemy. Jane has never won an election when facing off against Candy and despite her reluctance to return to the world of politics the thought of being able to beat Candy is too sweet to avoid and so we roll. Jane shows up in Bolivia with Dowd and Mackie, meets the rest of the campaign team that includes Scoot McNairy's PR guy and intern Eddie Camacho (Reynaldo Pacheco) and initially seems to be no good to the team. Green, working from a script by Peter Straughn, doesn't waste any time explaining such things as why Castillo wants to be President despite seeming to already be checked out of every conversation he takes part in, but instead accepts his candidacy as fact with nothing else to do but move forward. Jane seems to do the same despite voicing her opinion that she doesn't believe Castillo to be a winner. It's as if she too is uninspired to put forth any effort until he gives her reason to and unfortunately for the film that doesn't occur until 25 minutes in when we finally kick into high-gear. The character set-up and exposition is the tired, traditional part of the movie that it could have hacked off and explained in the opening credits, but this is no horrible offense as once things get rolling they continue to do so at an effortless pace that places the cutthroat world of political campaigns front and center. Digging into the politics of politics can certainly be messy and while Crisis presents so many double-crosses and backstabbings it could feel easy to get lost in the shuffle, Green and his actors keep things light enough to keep track of actions and alliances while consistently sticking to the oddball tone that feels inspired by something akin to satire. I don't know that you would technically label ‘Crisis’ as a satire given more of it is probably true than most would care to admit, but it's certainly quick to point out the shortcomings of this vicious circle. That doesn't excuse the film from coming to what is likely too idealistic a conclusion, but for the majority of the time this is a riot of a film one would be hard-pressed to not have fun with. Like I said before, the distinctive feature is how well Green bends his narrative to fit his rather offbeat characters and it is those characters that really allow the script to thrive. It is easy to see how things might have turned out with a less charismatic cast, but Green is filled to the brim with charisma here and he has no problem coercing it out of his stars. Bullock is front and center and while she is essentially playing her “Miss Congeniality” character with a little more booze, she nails it. The amount of subtle, physical comedy (is that even possible?) is impressive in that it consistently comes as a surprise given the rather serious circumstances of the given situation. Furthermore, Bullock takes what could be considered rather flat inspirational speeches and turns them into rousing motivational talks that convince her troops she's worth her trouble. Thornton, on the other hand, is somewhat wasted in the role of Candy for despite the fact he's able to play "creepy old dude" in his sleep these days, he simply isn't given enough to do outside of verbally tormenting Jane any time she gets a leg up on him. McNairy stands out among the crowded campaign team as his entire mentality seems based off a single book he read about politics once in college. His thoughtless dork garners almost as many laughs as Bullock and does so without seeming to try. Zoe Kazan shows up at the request of Jane as well so as to background check their client and dig up any dirt on their opponent, but she too is under-utilized in a role that could have easily served a bigger purpose. Bullock's 'Calamity' Jane and the rest of her team understand they operate in a game based one hundred percent on perception and in accepting this reality the film also banks on our expectations of a certain thing while delivering something wholly unexpected and thus more stimulating than initially imagined. “Our Brand Is Crisis” has a lot of things that lend it a good perception whether it be the actors who star in it, the pedigreed indie director who typically garners favorable reviews on his smaller dramas or the team behind such successful awards contenders as “Syriana” and “Argo,” but while ‘Crisis’ doesn't seem to have any such ambitions it still feels like a carefully observed film that never goes back on itself to discredit the wealth of trust we build in these rather unfavorable characters. My thoughts keep returning to what the film so easily could have been, but the fact that it isn't only stands to make it more appealing. Sometimes, a little surprise is nice and deserves a little cushion for going out on a limb even if it still may not be as great as its potential led you to believe.
0 Comments
by Philip Price Maybe it was the expectations, maybe it was the promise of something fresh in a genre we only get one or two exceptional pieces in each year, but whichever way you cut it “The Witch” is something of a letdown. As I walked out of the theater I couldn't help but feel I'd just witnessed something I wasn't supposed to. Writer/director Robert Eggers has adapted his story from old folklore and stories of supposed witchcraft in the New England region circa 1630 that have been passed down over generations and has even used a fair amount of dialogue from journals and other written accounts that still exist. While this is nothing short of fascinating and makes for an authentic-feeling atmosphere that unfortunately ends up being the film’s single greatest strength. The lurking woods that lay just outside the house of William, his wife Katherine and their five children including newborn Samuel stand as something of a no-man’s land that is a constant reminder of just how little wiggle room there is for our characters. This is not only true of their physical space, but of their mindset as William and Katherine lead a devout Christian life and teach their children to do the same. We never look at the characters as ignorant or naïve, but more in the light of them having a very narrow view of how to explain things and thus the film itself feels trapped in this little box just waiting to burst out with the supernatural sorcery that seems to lie just on the other side of those woods. We are first introduced to William (Ralph Ineson) and Katherine (Kate Dickie) as they are banished from their colony for going against the rules of man for the sake of God's word. Rather than conform to the wills of man William chooses exile for his family forcing them to build a homestead on the edge of the aforementioned impassible wilderness. The oldest of their five children is Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), a young lady who is beginning to come into her womanhood and who her parents are considering sending off to another family so that she might be paired with a boy and begin to make babies of her own. Then there is Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw) who sits on the edge of his teenage years, has a penchant for contemplation while fully supporting his father and having something of a strange attraction to his older sister. This temptation seems to be more or less because Thomasin the only girl for miles rather than some creepy incestuous tendency. William and Katehrine also have twins in the irritating toddler stage that are Jonas (Lucas Dawson) and Mercy (Ellie Grainger) as well as Samuel who can't be more than a few months old. It is when Samuel mysteriously vanishes while Thomasin is playing peek-a-boo with him along with their crops beginning to fail that things take a turn for the weird and the family starts to turn on one another because of it. Beyond being privy to the chilling scene in which Samuel is kidnapped and the horrible result of his kidnapping the first 45 minutes or so rely heavily on the influential and stark atmosphere that has been meticulously constructed on a micro-budget to feel as credible as possible. Kudos to Eggers and his team for pulling this off as the film truly does transcend the trappings of small scale filmmaking and feels like a movie that might have been produced by the likes of Blumhouse or one of the other, smaller companies that specialize in horror. Once we hit that forty-five minute mark though “The Witch” begins to embrace itself. This isn't embracing as far as simply going nuts either as the film is very measured (maybe a little too much) and never lets itself devolve into silliness, but instead delivers more on what we expect from the established, twisted atmosphere. The problem is, by the time we reach this point we feel it has held out too long or at least not given us enough reason to stay invested along the way. When the film eventually gives it goes hard and it hurts to watch, making more than a few people around me wince and look away, but all I could think as shit began to hit the fan was that it needed more. More gore, more blood red colors, more witch. Just more all of it. I understand that horror films shouldn't strictly be about or judged on the amount of blood and gore that is spilled on screen, but there is a certain amount of horror-ridden tension you expect a scary movie to hit and “The Witch” falls short of that quota while having the atmosphere and tone to provide such scares in spades. It's like taking a once in a lifetime opportunity and squandering it because you woke up too late. At only 90 minutes the film feels brief, but that only makes the last half of the events feel even more fleeting. The film is commendable for its efforts in restraining itself from just being about the jump scares and actually trying to paint a portrait of a family slowly unraveling because of their own fears and anxieties, but there is no big metaphor meant to be interpreted here-this is about pure, inescapable evil that is preying on this family and yet the battle doesn't feel nearly as grand as it should. All of this taken into consideration, the performances are rather superb given many of the actors have few credits to their name and those that do mainly consist of little more than bit parts. The way in which each performer is able to naturally speak in the dialect of the time is impressive in itself, but that they're also able to inject a sense of understanding and emotion into the dialogue helps ease the disconnect that could easily occur with an audience. Ineson is admirable as the patriarch of the family, making his compassion as tangible as the regret that eventually overtakes him. Dickie is equally as effective in the mother role, playing crazy to the point we understand why she's been driven as mad as she seems. Scrimshaw is also rather good and is able to speak the language with a better flow than I would have imagined anyone his age could, but Taylor-Joy is the clear breakout here and while her character doesn't have nearly as much to do as she should, when she is on screen she makes every second count and every moment one to build upon the disturbing nature of the events we're seeing unfold. That's the thing about “The Witch,” it is more disturbing than it is scary and while there is nothing wrong with that (in fact, it could be construed as inspiring) I left the theater with that feeling of having witnessed worlds I shouldn't know exist (disturbing, right?) and yet I couldn't explain why it didn't leave me petrified if I tried. by Philip Price I may not have any right to review director Paolo Sorrentino's new film given I'm what I'd consider a 28 and this is clearly a film meant to elicit the broad scope, the big picture or the authentic perspective of an experienced life. I recognize that I can't even attempt to understand all of what this film is trying to say or all of what Sorrentino hopes to accomplish with such a work, but I feel I can at least recognize what he is going for. In fact, one character even describes the seeming intent of “Youth” within the film when he describes the film he's set to direct himself as a, "sentimental and intellectual last statement." While Sorrentino himself seems far from this stage of his career it seems as if that's the kind of film he intended to produce here; a sentimental ode to aging and the wisdom that experience and perspective bring while simultaneously becoming too old to recall any of this knowledge as processed through the guise of an intellectual. There is no issue with the aspiration as I would love to bear witness to a film that does some kind of justice to the striking injustice that is finally reaching a point where you might find some true hint of understanding only to develop Alzheimer's or croak the next day, but “Youth” is more a film that serves as a discussion of such philosophies and ideas rather than one that tells a story that conveys such ideas. In the loose story it does have, we come to know Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine) and Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel), two old friends who are on vacation in an elegant hotel at the foot of the Swiss Alps. Yes, it is one of those movies where all other obstacles any individual might face are put aside for months at a time in the wake of vacation just so they can focus on and over-analyze the existential questions that bother them. Fred is a well-renowned composer and conductor who is now retired, but is being coaxed out of it by the Queen who hopes he will play his songs for Prince Philip on his birthday. On the other hand there is Mick, a film director, who is still working and feverishly at that. He is writing a new script with a think-tank of young writers who seem to misunderstand him more than anything. It also happens to be fact that Fred's daughter Lena (Rachel Weisz), is married to Mick's son Julian (Ed Stoppard). That is, until Julian tells Lena he is leaving her for pop star Paloma Faith and thus resorting Lena back to the shelter of her father’s wings and giving cause for both Fred and Mick to reflect not only on their children's lives, but their own. The clear highlights of the film are its distinctive look and the two lead performances by veterans who have such a depth of acting knowledge that their perspective oozes out of their pores. I'll admit to not having seen any of Sorrentino's previous work, but I think it is safe to say that when it comes to style he is very much about the composition of his shots. Every angle is no doubt justified by some bigger reason that only the contents of the shot can further emphasize while the vibrant colors and beautiful scenery serve as juxtaposition to the dark turmoil that is taking place within our lead characters. Furthermore, Caine constantly repeats how everyone refers to him as being "apathetic" and as true as that may be to those who know him best, Caine is able to make Fred an appealing and deeply interesting guy who clearly isn't good at communicating how he feels, but feels a great amount of things nonetheless. Keitel is especially endearing here as his Mick couldn't be further from Caine's Fred. Rather than taking a seat on the sidelines, Mick would rather continue to risk his already refined legacy by continuing to produce content. Spearheaded by these two performers “Youth” is never about something as simple as our leads questioning what was most important in their lives and how they screwed it up by not paying enough attention to it when they had the chance, but more it seems to want to teach us to be aware of the time in this planet's history that we occupy and what that means if we're to be remembered for anything after we've gone. The truth is, most of us won't be concerned with such thoughts that feel too far out of our hands to even hope to control. Fred and Mick both know they're best days are behind them, but while the plot synopsis tries to make it sound as if the device pushing the narrative forward is that mysterious agent trying to get Fred to conduct again the real story is simply the evaluation of their lives as they knowingly near the end of them and the wondering as to what it all might have been for, if anything. Sorrentino conveys these ideas in lurid fashion by using jolting musical cues and searing commentary on the commercialization of cinema that is presented through exchanges specifically set up to prove a certain point of view. This, for me, is where the film runs into its issues as none of the situations feel natural, but more forcefully set-up circumstances for the sake of Sorrentino's point. This is especially clear in a scene where Weisz delivers a biting monologue to her father that is magnificently performed, but feels undermined by the fact the two are getting mud baths together. There are shots of the young serving the old in this fanciful hotel and of the old sitting in saunas allowing their old skin to moisten while the young get ready for the day with their smooth skin almost teasing their guests. These establishing shots say a lot and convey the necessary ideas and drastic difference the years make, but while the execution is clearly pristine there is not enough substance in the total package to make the product feel satisfactory. Where “Youth” does shine is in its exchanges between Paul Dano and Caine. While Caine and Keitel's scenes are more interesting when they're on their own rather than when they take a walk in the woods, Caine and Dano establish an interesting dynamic with one another immediately. Dano plays Jimmy Tree who seems to be something of a method actor who is preparing for a role while staying at the hotel. He has been pigeon-holed by his most popular role and hates to think it will be all he's remembered for. He relates to Caine's Fred in that he believes Ballinger has also been pigeon-holed by his most popular material rather than the wealth of music he has created for the world. The intermittent exchanges the two have open each other’s respective minds to different ideas insinuating no matter what age you are, there is always more to learn and a different way to view things. Lastly, the highlight of the film is a short appearance from Jane Fonda who absolutely steals the show with her self-deprecating and over the top performance that hits Sorrentino's biggest nail on the head. In this scene alone the writer/director provides more context for his ideas than at any other point in the film and is only a hint of what a testament to youth and aging this could have been. by Philip Price “Brooklyn” is gorgeous and moving and all things warm and fuzzy without ever devolving into a Hallmark Channel original. From the moment the film opens on a doe-eyed and innocent Saoirse Ronan working feverishly in a convenience shop in the early 1950s I was hooked by the effortless quality of the inviting atmosphere director John Crowley establishes. Even when a character as horrible as Ronan's prickly boss is present she can't dampen the mood of the eternally vibrant tone that radiates off this thing like a campfire in early fall. This immediate sense of safe familiarity allows for the rather objective-less story adapted from Colm Toibin's novel by Nick Hornby to feel all the more profound and affecting as it unravels. While nothing that happens in “Brooklyn” will make you think too critically or give you a sense of accomplishment it is more a relaxing and comforting experience of a movie. It exists simply to make you feel something. Whether that something is overly sentimental or not will depend on your own mentality, but for the sake of my gullible and rather naive mind it was a perfectly cooked and plated dessert that made me feel cozy to the point of almost feeling gluttonous. “Brooklyn” gives and gives and never fails to keep you in line with its simple narrative and somewhat complex emotional roller coaster that is complimented by its ability to paint it's scenarios as simply as it can. Cheers to simplicity, to pleasantries and to being sappy; sometimes, it's all you need. The year is 1952 and Eilis Lacey (Ronan) is a young Irish immigrant navigating her way through her new life in Brooklyn. After her beloved older sister, Rose (Fionna Glascott), writes a letter to a friend and priest (Jim Broadbent) Rose is able to secure a boarding house and a job for Eilis to take once she arrives. This is all for the sake of the promise of America and a better life. There is no opportunity for a promising girl like Eilis in Ireland and so she departs the comfort of her mother’s (Jane Brennan) home for the unknown shores of New York City. While the innocent and naive Eilis is initially ravaged by homesickness she comes to acclimate herself well to her surroundings, in her new job and by taking night classes at a local college that she breezes through. Soon after arriving Eilis also meets Tony (Emory Cohen) and her homesickness begins to diminish as this fresh romance with the attractive and charming Italian sweeps her off her feet. Naturally, all cannot continue to get better from here or we would have no movie, but as sure as the sun sets Eilis' happiness is quickly interrupted by her past, forcing her to return to her homeland. Upon returning Eilis is heavily coaxed by her mother and best friend, Nancy (Eileen O'Higgins), to fall into a relationship with the available and sought after Jim Farrell (Domhnall Gleeson). Given she now has a certificate from a college in bookkeeping Eilis is also able to secure a good job in her small hometown, but while she is charmed by the thought of returning to the life she always thought she wanted she knows she will have to choose between two countries and the potential lives that exist within each. It is easy to spot. The idea or message of the movie, that is. Home is where you make it, where your heart is or whatever other glib saying one could come up with to quickly summarize such sentiments. Why then, is a movie that aspires to profess little more than this greeting card saying so charming and rapturous? Well, that would be because everything about the film seems to have been dealt with in such genuine care and emotion. The attention to detail is evident whether it be in the intentionally warm lighting that gives off the comfort level of being tucked under ten layers of covers on a snowy day no matter if a scene takes place at the fancy department store where Eilis works or outside on a snowy winter night, the small touches of hilarity that are the exchanges between the head of the boarding house, Mrs. Kehoe (Julie Walters), and her string of girls that stay with her or even the period costumes that emit such color and diversity you could easily pick up on any one characters mood even if they weren't conveying it themselves. Beyond being well cared for, director Crowley conveys the natural emotion that comes from the story in such convincing and effective ways that it is almost impossible to not become caught up in the tragedy and dilemmas that face our protagonist. In a sense, this is a perfectly composed film in that it hits its major first, second and third act points in natural succession and moves along briskly while consistently ramping up the audiences’ interest level into how such drama will come to a resolution. The film is completely traditional and offers nothing new in the way of directorial prowess or interesting ideas to the point it can only fly so high, but it is done with such professionalism and confidence that it flies as high as it possibly can. Living in our fast-paced, digital world where we're able to connect with the touch of a button it is easy to forget how life-changing and potentially traumatizing traveling to another country once was. There was no turning back, there was no guarantee of ever seeing your loved ones again and communication was stilted by the inability to deliver letters only as fast as any ship could carry them. “Brooklyn” focuses in on these moments, these small instances where what is happening is understood and the potential consequences are understood and they are simply heartbreaking. Specific shots in which Rose stands on the dock as long as she possibly can watching her sister sail away or Mrs. Lacey hug her daughter for what she knows will likely be the last time gut you like you can't imagine and only serve to reinforce the strength of the storytelling and why such a commonplace tale can be so moving. While the film is filled with glorious performances it is Ronan that clearly and somewhat obviously stands above the rest. Her arc as Eilis is truly one of a palpable transformation and gives the film the necessary weight for it to feel profound in the unexpected ways it is. We watch this young woman grow up before our eyes, witnessing her come face to face with harsh realizations and new experiences that test her spirit. We root for her and we hope she only comes to the conclusion we think is the best for her. No matter how charming Gleeson is in his abbreviated time on screen (he doesn't show up until an hour in) there is no reservations about Tony being the right man for Eilis. To that point, Cohen is absolutely terrific. Honestly, I couldn't stand his character in “The Place Beyond the Pines” and I expected some of that to rub off on the actor portraying him, but the moment Cohen cracks a gleeful smile on a bus ride he shares with Eilis, I was sold. He portrays the genuine, hard-working and humble man so well his spirit is contagious. Combined with Ronan's exceptional showing and a lush supporting cast that also includes Jessica Paré, Emily Bett Rickards, Eve Macklin and Nora-Jane Noone “Brooklyn” is the quiet, sublime crowd-pleaser of the year. by Philip Price “Demolition” is more about deconstruction than it is about necessarily destroying anything. I mean, things are destroyed, obviously, but not for the sake of getting rid of them. Instead, our main character Davis (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a person who finds liberation in his soul-searching through methods of destruction. In the latest from director Jean-Marc Vallée, of “Dallas Buyers Club” fame, we dive into the deep end right off the bat as we are witness to a man losing his wife in a horrific car accident and not feeling a thing afterward. This kind of wake-up call to the fact he’s been living a meaningless life for the past however many years gives our protagonist the need to demolish everything that constructed that prior existence. This realization is, of course, tipped off by what is typically a heartbreaking event and yet Davis shows no signs of distress or loss thus giving the film something of an edge while still being able to explore the mundane aspects of life that it seems to find so interesting. If the film is anything it is a showcase for Gyllenhaal to display what has made him one of the more credible leading men in a saturated market and for this “Demolition” thrives the majority of the time. The rest of the time you can feel screenwriter Bryan Sipe (with his first major screenplay) searching for an ending or a way to bring all of Davis' destruction around to some kind of meaningful epiphany, but it never gels. Unfortunately, this trips up a rather promising beginning that has all the momentum in the world in its first hour. We begin with an introduction to Gyllenhaal's Davis who is a successful investment banker, but a bad listener. He is in the car with his wife, Julia (Heather Lind), who is complaining to him about having still not fixed the leak in their fridge. We can see Davis is in and out of the conversation, but that at least he and Julia have something of a natural rapport with one another. It is without warning that they are sideswiped by another vehicle and only moments later do we learn that Julia died on the operating table as the doctors tried to save her from blunt trauma to the head. Davis' father-in-law Phil (the always dignified Chris Cooper), who is also his boss, delivers the news and is as deeply saddened as one might imagine a father who loses a child to be. Davis only stares blankly before walking over to a vending machine to purchase a bag of peanut M&M's. When the bag of candy gets stuck in the vending machine Davis is frustrated and while at his wife's visitation at his in-laws’ house he pens a complaint letter to the vending machine company. As Davis begins to unravel and his letters become more personal admissions than actual complaints he and customer service rep Karen Marino (a rather wasted Naomi Watts) form an unlikely connection. Through this strange relationship that forms with Karen and her son Chris (Judah Lewis leaving a strong first impression), Davis begins to try and rebuild. One thing I've begun to notice (and seeing so many films consecutively at a festival only makes this more apparent) is that much of what we're treated to in our high-brow dramas could be easily summed up in what are known as "white people problems" and while that doesn't immediately make a film insincere it does force each individual picture to work harder for an audiences’ approval. With “Demolition” being a fine example of this (Gyllenhaal smashes up his pristine, modern home just so he can feel better about himself) it had to have something more to it, something that would allow it to earn that feeling of necessary viewing. While this is certainly not essential viewing I can't imagine anyone feeling bad about watching it once the credits roll. Contrary to this culturally-influenced opinion, the film could be viewed as an analyzation of how different people deal with tragedy in different ways and in this regard the film hits on something specific. As I mentioned before, the first hour or so is more than efficient in not only it's pacing, but in hitting it's points through story and sharp dialogue. Moments of Davis realizing his wife is actually gone whether it be through seeing a centerpiece on their dining room that he remembers buying together or her hair that remains on her brush in the bathroom, it is the devil in the details that create an affecting mood. The editing is particularly attractive as it weaves from timeline to timeline in order to make the death of Julia ever-present while maintaining the fact Davis finds it difficult to grieve over her death. Vallée uses the editing as a storytelling function rather than just a way to string together incidents, but it's when those incidents get repetitive that not even the free-flowing editing style can save the story. “Demolition” also features dialogue such as, "Assuming that you're familiar with the Heart catalogue," which may seem rather random, but is well justified in the context of the film and offers Vallée the opportunity to hit some great musical cues that reinforce the rage and energy that Davis feels through destroying things. Embodying this wholeheartedly is Gyllenhaal in his committed and rather funny performance. It is somewhat hard to believe that Vallée and Sipe were able to somehow balance the melancholy tone of the events that set their film in motion with the hilarity of the honesty that Davis adapts after realizing he's only done what other people see as appropriate his whole life, but they manage it and for me, it worked. The idea that no one's ever really honest with each other is fascinating in that we all find it hard to accept we can never truly know what the lives of our friends and family hold. That we so desperately want to and find it hard to accept this truth is where the film both succeeds and fails. For that first, strong hour we are led to believe that Davis is not necessarily a horrible person, just a flawed one who fell into a routine anyone could have, but when the film tries to answer it's rather generic and obvious question of what gives our lives real purpose we are treated to resolutions that feel forced through the hand of standard human flaws. It's not satisfying. That said, I rather enjoyed “Demolition.” Probably more than this review would make you think, but its highs are as good as its lows with a performance from Gyllenhaal that elevates it altogether and for that it feels perfectly acceptable. by Philip Price There is something exceptionally startling about director Denis Villeneuve's approach to his rather subtle character examinations. Neither “Prisoners” or “Enemy” did anything to necessarily expand our minds to the way we work as humans, but they called often dismissed thoughts and qualities to the surface. With his latest, “Sicario,” the director is once again examining the human condition under the most stringent of circumstances and once again he puts our nerves through the ringer. Having more than enjoyed both of Villeneuve's previous studio efforts (I've yet to see “Incendies,” but clearly need to) and anticipating his latest if not based on his previous work, but for the trio of stellar actors he recruited to execute this feature I walked away from “Sicario” with a stunned respect for how what was being said was in fact stated. Brutal beyond measure, unflinching to a fault and featuring an extremely serious tone balanced by a slight comedic performance from Josh Brolin, Vileneuve has crafted a film that is not wholly concerned with plot as much as it is the examination of the complexities of these people who are trapped in a world convoluted beyond their comprehension that only continues to go around in circles. “Sicario” is by no means a masterpiece of the genre as it does tend to lose some of its steam in its middle section, but it more than makes up for it with a chilling conclusion and a tension throughout that is something akin to unshakable. We are first introduced to young FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) who has apparently shot up the ranks and impressed a lot of people along the way. In a sense though, she is doing little more than busy work tracking down folks believed to be kidnapped by the cartel. Busy work in the sense she isn't getting to the bottom of who the people doing the kidnappings are and on top of that is making very little impact on the state of the drug war in the streets. Accompanied by her partner and only apparent friend, Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya), the two (well, mostly Kate) are recruited by Matt (Brolin) to help with a vague operation concerning the capture of a major cartel boss. Also in on the action is Matt's right hand man Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) who has an even vaguer agenda. Led by Matt and his unconventional (read amoral) ways Kate becomes entrenched in a game she isn't sure she's willing to play. In reading the synopsis one notices they use the word "idealistic" to describe Blunt's character and that would be accurate, for the most part. Sure, Kate might be unrealistic in her expectations of how clean her dealings with some very dirty people might be, but I wouldn't call her naive by any means. What is most interesting about “Sicario” (and I've never watched “Sons of Anarchy,” with which writer Taylor Sheridan was heavily involved so I can't say if this is a pattern) is that it gives us this set of protagonists who we naturally assume we can rely on and even if they weren't the "good guys" the film would position it to where we root for them, but while we like both Kate and Reggie we can't help but feel they don't know what's best for them. Given what both of these characters have seen in the line of duty we know they understand there is cause for the rules to be followed and for things to be done a certain way so that they cover their ass while simultaneously looking out for the best interests of those they're attempting to protect, but that is a purely idealistic world Matt and Alejandro simply can't abide by. One would think Kate and Reggie might come to understand why such means are necessary, but not so much. There is the clear sense that Matt and Alejandro know what they're doing and know how to expertly craft whatever plan is necessary to reach their end goal even if it doesn't fall within a certain set of guidelines. It is the clashing of these two ideologies that gives the movie it's thesis with the remainder of the film demonstrating how this idea of peace can never really be achieved even when people are fighting for the same cause. The idea Villeneuve was able to craft a mind trip around this rather standard tale of drug investigation elevates “Sicario” to another level in terms of viewing experience. His keen eye for precision in his visual style is ever present and the way in which he studies his subjects without ever seeming pretentious in his camera work is admirable. Many directors tend to take the "Terrence Malick approach" when it comes to hovering around their subjects hoping to catch every single facial tick, but Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins hold steady with their shots making them as unflinching as the faces of these merciless men in which Blunt is reluctantly learning from. The entire picture has a certain epic quality to the visual approach. There is a shot near the climax of the film where silhouettes of soldiers dressed in full military garb and carrying guns walk through a field into the Arizona sunset and it is literally jaw-dropping. Seriously, I had to pick mine up off the floor after sitting back in awe of how immersive it was. Speaking of Villeneuve's subjects it goes without saying that the leading three performances are nothing short of solid, but all three contribute in such varying but necessary ways that they elevate the picture even further from its genre confinements. Blunt is terrific in her conflicted state playing Kate as a woman prone to disappointments, but trying her damnedest to make her job the one area of her life where she doesn't let herself down. Brolin feels more at home here than he has in the last few years (minus his small, but terrific turn in “Inherent Vice” last year) infusing Matt with what seem to be similar to his own sensibilities and owning the screen every time he's on it because of that honesty. The real stand-out though is Del Toro who is absolutely chilling. Without going into too much detail there is a scene towards the end of the film where Del Toro's Alejandro is presented with an opportunity and though it seems clear he already knows what he is going to do the moment he walks into the room, we don't. The audience, while allowing themselves to trust these people, still don't know what to expect from them and in this particular scene Del Toro's tone and preciseness of concentrated rage inhabits your bones. Given there is so much to take away from “Sicario” there is little to complain about and likely an abundance of things I haven't touched on that will only become more apparent and make the experience of watching the film all the more enthralling on future viewings. “Sicario” is a movie for the mind with just enough action and plenty of credible tension to satisfy what we think we need in order to fill our crime movie quota. by Philip Price There have been countless iterations of Sherlock Holmes over the years, but prior to this film’s release I'd not heard of Mitch Cullins interpretation of the world's greatest detective. At first glance, “Mr. Holmes” seems like one of those ideas that is better left as an idea rather than the likely failure to meet expectations result that would come from trying to make it a reality. What might actually be so fascinating about an older detective who can hardly remember his glory days let alone how he made his reputation? The possibilities are certainly intriguing, but the execution could be questionable given what one takes from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works to inform the state of an elderly Holmes. Having not read Cullins book on which this is based, I don't know how much credit to give director Bill Condon, but by not simply telling another story revolving around a mystery the film starts off on the right foot. As the film plays out we see a mystery element incorporated in the form of flashbacks to Holmes' final case with which he is having trouble completely recalling. These flashbacks are more or less used to both create reason for why Holmes chose the course he did for his later years while also reminding him of a throughline theme by which he intended to live out the rest of his years. Solving the mystery of his forgotten case also incorporates the only way Holmes truly knows how to live and how to deal with getting older and facing death. By both incorporating these aspects, but keeping the film more focused on the man rather than the mystery the film seems to capture the only possibility that could make this type of story appealing without being completely depressing. There are themes of regret throughout that I can only imagine will be more resonant with a second viewing, but on a first pass still strike one as heartbreakingly honest. I say this because “Mr. Holmes” is as much about preserving the thoughts and correct legacy of one's life as it is making amends for the mistakes in one's life by passing on what they've learned to a younger generation so that they may not encounter the same regrets. The strong conveyance of these ideas are made largely possible through two wonderful lead performances in Ian McKellen and newcomer Milo Parker. We begin in 1947 as a nearly 93-year old Holmes has long since retired and is now living in a Sussex village with his housekeeper, Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney), and her auspicious son, Roger (Parker). Holmes has just returned from a trip to Japan, Hiroshima more specifically, in an attempt to acquire a specific plant from which he hopes to cultivate a jelly that will improve his memory. This desire springs not necessarily from extending his sanity or life as long as he possibly can, but more out of a need to right the misconceptions of what his longtime partner, Watson, made of him. Watson's accounts of Holmes are what made him a household name and are what have only been further exaggerated through the years whether it be in new stories or movie adaptations. The elder Holmes that our film focuses on though is bent on correcting Watson's incorrect account of his final case, the one where something must have occurred to make him retire to a life of solitude. While the Japanese jelly is proving insufficient in its healing powers, Holmes takes a liking to the young and inquisitive Roger who continues to question the elder detective about how true the stories told of him actually are. Holmes admits to Roger that he is attempting to right Watson's elaborated stories by writing one of his own, but is having trouble remembering all of the details. Though Mrs. Munro is wary of the elder Holmes and his bee-keeping habits, she allows her son to keep him company and thus they form a reciprocal relationship where Roger learns the tricks of Sherlock's trade and Roger's insistent questioning helps Holmes to better recall his confrontation with an angry husband and the secret bond he formed with that man's beautiful but unstable wife. While “Mr. Holmes” isn't entirely accessible to everyone, what it is is that of a leisurely paced, but consistently insightful look into the realms of reflection and perspective. Once I was able to get past the possibility of the premise being more risky than rewarding I was able to see the approach to Holmes as that of a normal human in that we all get old with the added caveat of having a knack for picking up clues. What this caveat in an otherwise straightforward examination of dealing with one's own mortality brings to the table though are the realizations and repercussions of always looking at situations through pure logic and not necessarily considering the human condition. Holmes doesn't take these experiences with any seeming human emotion, but rather deduces their meaning for the more rational reasons. The one human condition Holmes was never quite able to grasp though, was of course love. And so, as Holmes comes to terms with the realization he truly is near the end of his days, it hits even harder that he has nary a soul to share them with. Holmes, up until this point, has seemed to be able to convince himself that this somewhat cowardice of avoiding any real human relationship is something of a sacrifice for his profession, but as the film builds its case for what forced Holmes into retirement we realize this isn't the first time he's realized he can't solve everything. As we go back and forth between the Alzheimer's-ridden Holmes and that of his last case some thirty years prior the film milks it's methodical pace to build its story to a point of crisis we're both intrigued by and interested in. Not to spoil the crisis, but an observation around it would be the attention to the idea of the preciousness of childhood and children in general. These themes, present in both the past and current narrative strands, only reinforce to Holmes the wonder of how some can be gone long before their time while he's long outlived his. Making all of this more impactful and therefore the film altogether more of a deeper concentration than the pacing might initially suggest is the performance of McKellen. As the titular protagonist, McKellen is loose and unexpectedly more willing in his older age. McKellen's 93-year old version of Holmes is more the introspective type, but only because he has seemingly been forced to be. For, as we see in the flashbacks, McKellen plays the sixty year-old Holmes with a larger air of confidence and an assured nature that leads him to feeling somewhat exceptional if not alone. Through the mirror of both versions that McKellen presents we are given the qualms Holmes has with the experiences of the human condition. Human nature doesn't typically comprehend logic while Holmes is one to only grasp the facts of a case, never picking up on the emotional cues. It is in the mystery the film presents around the case with the unstable wife that Holmes realizes how alone he actually is and likely always will be. This presents a need to feel understood. Enter Parker's Roger and a dynamic that gives us an engaging relationship and an emotional core to the film. I haven't seen the young Parker in anything prior to Mr. Holmes (though he'll be in Tim Burton's Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children next year, of which I just finished reading a few months ago), but if this is any indication of the work he might do should he continue to grow in this profession, we're certainly in for good things. A scene exemplifying the films major theme of regret in which Roger yells at his mother is the best example of what the talented cast (including Linney) brings to this potential-filled material. Hiroyuki Sanada also has a rather critical supporting role that eventually allows Holmes the opportunity to do what he wasn't once keen enough to understand. Not only does this opportunity grant Sanada's character a peace of mind he's never been privy to before, but also helps McKellen's Holmes to finally move on instead of constantly feeling responsible to fix things. by Philip Price In one week's time I will be venturing out for my first experience at the Toronto International Film Festival and I'm pretty pumped. Having sat back and watched coverage of this festival come pouring in over the past few years wishing I was part of the discovery it is honestly a dream come true to be able to not only attend, but cover the festival. I will arrive in Toronto on Thursday, September 10th at 2:12 pm. If time permits the first film I'd like to catch would be director Denis Villeneuve's latest in “Sicario,” but given it starts at 3:00 pm I'm not counting on it. This is no big loss as I'll be able to see the film two weeks later as it will open in my market on September 25th, but still, it would be nice to knock it out. If “Sicario” doesn't pan out I'm looking at my first film being the opening night film, Jean-Marc Vallée's “Demolition” starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Naomi Watts that doesn't open stateside until next April. From this point out, if all goes according to plan, my wide-eyed enthusiasm will have me experiencing five movies a day over the next six days (with days three and four giving me something of a break with only four screenings a piece). On my final day in Toronto, the 17th, I fly out at 5:57 pm leaving me time to catch “Black Mass” at 11:45 that morning, a day before it opens wide. Given ‘Mass’ is already on my most anticipated of the fall list and it more or less was the only option on my last day besides “Mississippi Grind” (which will be on VOD soon so I won't waste festival time on it) don't expect to see it here though there are definitely a few repeats from my most anticipated of fall article. That said, let's take a look. 10. “Our Brand is Crisis” Director David Gordon Green's “Our Brand is Crisis” was given an Oscar-friendly October 30th release date just before it was announced the film would premiere at TIFF. I have to think this bodes well for the quality of the project. The film is an adaptation of the 2005 documentary of the same name, which follows a group of American consultants who accept the challenge of getting an unpopular Bolivian president re-elected. Sandra Bullock plays maverick political consultant, "Calamity" Jane Bodine, who comes out of retirement to lead the team, while Billy Bob Thornton portrays her nemesis, Pat Candy. Zoe Kazan, Anthony Mackie, Scoot McNairy, Ann Dowd and Joaquim de Almeida also star. 9. “Room” I saw the first trailer for director Lenny Abrahamson's “Room” near the end of July and was taken with it immediately. The premise is intensely engaging and the fact it stars Brie Larson is always a bonus. Larson is one of those actors who you want to see in anything she does simply because you trust her decision making. “Room” is apparently based on a novel by Emma Donoghue who also penned the script. The plot synopsis is vague in that Larson stars as a woman who is being held captive with her five-year-old son in a single small room for what appears to be several years. The trailer shows them escaping, but the circumstances of their situation are a mystery I'm anxious to solve. Joan Allen and William H. Macy also star. 8. “The Program” Biopics are always interesting to me (as you'll note given this is the first of three on this list alone), but sports biopics are a different game unto themselves. They are a genre largely capitalized by Disney and the likes of inspirational fodder that doesn't always ring as authentic as some moviegoers would like. Of course, you have your “Raging Bull” and “Moneyball” or what is more in line with my number eight pick, something like 2013's “42” or “Rush.” “The Program” is a sports biopic for sure, but it is not one of glory and triumph. Rather, the film chronicles the hard fall of cyclist Lance Armstrong. Ben Foster as Armstrong who was the subject of a performance enhancing drug scandal that climaxed with his appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show in January of 2013 where he admitted that the accusations against him were true. Director Stephen Frears will undoubtedly focus in large part on the doping scandal, the fact Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times and survived a battle with cancer. “The Program” is based on David Walsh's book, Seven Deadly Sins, with an adapted screenplay from John Hodge and co-stars Chris O'Dowd, Lee Pace and Jesse Plemons. 7. “Trumbo” Now, onto a different kind of biopic. This one dealing more with the circumstances of a prominent figure than the figure himself, but nonetheless “Trumbo” will no doubt be billed as something of a biography as it deals in the life of late screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo. Bryan Cranston plays the titular screenwriter whose successful career came to a crushing end when he and other Hollywood figures were blacklisted for their political beliefs. “Trumbo” tells the story of his fight against the U.S. government and studio bosses in a war over words and freedom, which entangled everyone in Hollywood from Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) and John Wayne to Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger. Elle Fanning, Diane Lane, Alan Tudyk, John Goodman, Louis C.K. and Michael Stuhlbarg also star. 6. “Spotlight” Here's one I'm surprised doesn't rank higher, but am thrilled at the fact given how anxious I am to see if director Tom McCarthy's latest can live up to its dramatic promise and still know there are five other films that rank above it. Written by McCarthy and Josh Singer the film is about The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative unit in the United States and their coverage of the Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal, for which The Globe won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. The film stars Michael Keaton as legendary reporter Walter 'Robby' Robinson with Mark Ruffalo filling the role of Michael Rezendes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and political writer for The Globe. Rachel McAdams, Brian d'Arcy James, Stanley Tucci, Liev Schreiber and Billy Crudup also star. 5. “Demolition” The aforementioned “Demolition” is this year’s opening night film and is a highly anticipated picture on my end not only for its status as one of the "bigger" films of the festival, but because of the several solid credentials it has going for it. The leading credential is of course that it stars Jake Gyllenhaal who has been on more than a hot streak lately. Sure, “Southpaw” didn't go over as well as his previous efforts, but the guy is clearly hitting a stride and I can only anticipate “Demolition” will continue that streak. The film tells the story of Davis (Gyllenhaal), a successful investment banker who struggles after losing his wife in a tragic car crash. Despite pressure from his father in law Phil (Chris Cooper) to pull it together, Davis continues to unravel. What starts as a complaint letter to a vending machine company turns into a series of letters revealing startling personal admissions. Davis’ letters catch the attention of customer service rep Karen (Naomi Watts) and, amidst emotional and financial burdens of her own, the two form an unlikely connection. 4. “The Witch” Ever since premiering at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year to resounding praise I've been anxious to see what the big deal was concerning “The Witch.” At Sundance, the film won the Directing Award in the U.S. Dramatic category and was acquired by A24 Films for a 2016 theatrical release. When the trailer premiered a few weeks ago it seemed to hit all the right spots and hint at a truly terrifying experience that I can't wait to dig into. Taking place in the 17th century, the film tells of a Puritan family who live alone on the edge of a New England wilderness. It is when their infant son disappears that their daughter is suspected of witchcraft and the family begins to break down in the face of an unknown evil. 3. “I Saw the Light” I keep a running list of my favorite films throughout the year so that when we reach the time to make the annual top ten list I have a strong point of reference and don't simply pull from the batch of Oscar contenders that crowd theaters at the end of the year. So far in 2015 I have five films on my list that I've ranked higher than any others and two of those happen to be music biopics. And so, for the third biopic on my list, the one that I'm anticipating the most, we have another music biopic. In director Marc Abraham's Hank Williams biopic Tom Hiddleston plays the iconic country singer and while we have yet to see a trailer for the movie I can't wait to see what this film holds in terms of performances and conveying the rather sad story of Williams who died at the young age of 29. The film will have its world premiere at TIFF and is based on the book Hank Williams: The Biography by Colin Escott, George Merritt, and William (Bill) MacEwen. Elizabeth Olsen co-stars as Williams’ wife, Audrey. 2. “Legend” Tom Hardy has already starred in one of the most critically lauded blockbusters of the summer and will be a part of what is no doubt a front-runner in the awards race this season (“The Revenant”), but the man will seemingly make his own bid for Best Actor with director Brian Hegleland's “Legend.” With the success of “Mad Max: Fury Road” Hardy has become a more visible star than ever and “Legend” seems perfectly poised to be that definitive performance that forever puts him on the map as one of the greats. In the film, Hardy plays both Ronald and Reginald Kray who were identical twin gangsters that essentially ran the London crime scene in the 1950s and ‘60s. I'm somewhat surprised this massive gangster epic is having a showing on the festival circuit given its being distributed by Universal Pictures and has a secure release date in early October, but as one of my most anticipated of the fall I'm more than ecstatic to be seeing it early. Emily Browning, David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Chazz Palminteri, Tara Fitzgerald and Taron Egerton co-star. 1. “The Martian” While “Legend” initially ranked higher than “The Martian” on my most anticipated list for the fall movie season as I've made it further into Andy Weir's novel I've become more curious as to just how director Ridley Scott and screenwriter Drew Goddard will adapt this sci-fi opus. “The Martian” tells the story of Astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) who is presumed dead after a fierce storm and left behind by his crew. Watney survives and finds himself stranded and alone on the hostile planet. With only meager supplies, he is forced to draw upon his ingenuity, wit and spirit to subsist and find a way to signal Earth that he is, in fact, still alive. “The Martian” is by far the biggest film of the festival and while it may seem cliché to be the most excited for the most commercial film at a festival originally intended for independent cinema it's largely unavoidable to feel less than ecstatic when it comes to a new science-fiction film from Ridley Scott. Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Peña and Donald Glover co-star. by Philip Price “Queen of Earth” is writer/director Alex Ross Perry's follow-up to last year’s “Listen Up Philip” which also served as my introduction to Perry. With that frame of reference I thought I would somewhat know what to expect from his next feature, but “Queen of Earth” is decidedly different in tone while still focusing in on the same tortured themes that always stand to be enticing when conveyed in as artistic and finely articulated a manner as Perry tends to deliver them. That said, his film that more or less chronicles the psychological breakdown of one Catherine (Elisabeth Moss), never seems to transcend its precise and bluntly honest dialogue to become something more fascinating or involving. It wants so bad to create this world of crass attitudes and lush greens so that the juxtaposition of these beastly people and their beautiful environment will create an intriguing entry point for the unsuspecting. Here's my issue with “Queen of Earth” and movies like it though, movies that enjoy being pretentious by default because of their flowery language and granulated picture intended to elicit a certain, more artsy aesthetic so as to say it's not as concerned about appearance as it is content - they don't do anything but talk in circles (or cycles, as the film would have it). The characters go on and on about how they've trapped themselves in their own destructive patterns, but by the time the final shot flashes on screen it feels more like the film has sabotaged its own self. The fact is, “Queen of Earth” is as much about style as anything else. In many ways it wants it's free-wheeling, handheld, 16mm style to cover up its lack of actual depth. Modeled on Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach who themselves were inspired by Woody Allen, Perry is only giving us more coddled people with problems that only stem from their own self-absorption rather than any real world issues. While the film attempts to call its characters out for such traits it never becomes about more than deep psychological issues because of others deep psychological issues which, at some point, only renders people as ideas and not actual human beings. No one is welcome in this pampered, but harsh world where Catherine and Virginia's (Katherine Waterston) friendship exists. Both women interchangeably bring male counterparts so as to only piss off their actual counterpart. They both desire for it to be just the two of them at their getaway lake house (which is really a place owned by Virginia's wealthy family), but this never happens as either Virginia is irritated by Catherine's boyfriend, James (Kentucker Audley), or a year later after James has broken up with Catherine it is she who is annoyed by the boy next door, Rich (Patrick Fugit), who seems to have a little something going on with Virginia. So, do Catherine and Virginia actually even like one another? We're lead to believe at one time they did and were as close as sisters even though a scene in which they recount past relationships signals their friendship has been distant for some time now. The general gist of what we're then getting into here comes down to exploring two rather repugnant women who we only hope aren't as much of mirrors of ourselves and our selfish thoughts as we're likely to believe they are if we tend to enjoy the nastiness of the film. This is the enticing and conflicting aspect of the film for as much as I disliked these people, for as much as they dislike one another, it is impossible to not understand the places they're coming from. We all have a selfish side to us, a side that pines to be adored and praised by those most important to us in our lives and that hates to see our safe cocoon of familiarity be destroyed by possible incoming threats. At the same time, we find it strangely comforting to know we possess the knowledge and power to really hurt those closest to us due only to the tight-knit relationship we share with them. Perry, as any of the aforementioned directors and writers, is able to tap into these dark kinds of thoughts we don't like to profess on our social media accounts and relay them in a way that cuts like a knife. Thus, the problem then becomes whether the film itself is good for such reasons or if it's little more than Perry being a braggart and once again putting on display how acutely he can write the broken human psyche. For a film such as this to be something a viewer enjoys it would seem to require the ability to really relish in the hatred and emotional terrorism that is going on, but “Queen of Earth” never reaches such levels of madness. This isn't to discount the efforts of actors Moss and Waterston who spew dialogue no actual human would speak no matter how prepared they might be to hate someone else. Moss has the showier of the roles as her mascara seems to constantly be running down her face, but Waterston is just as effective as the ice cold Virginia who delivers her insults with chilling disregard and takes Catherine's constant sulking as something of a joke. Unfortunately, none of this is enough to send “Queen of Earth” off its hinges in a good way. The real problem is that both Catherine and Virginia are so egotistical and prone to self-importance that they can't see how ridiculous they sound when they talk about their father being a great artist or how they're not made for the world that utilizes employment to earn money in order to sustain one's self because it isn't essential to their personal prosperity. Viewers, myself included, may echo some of the internal struggles these characters face, but the majority will not deal with them in such an outward fashion we come off as arrogant yet as boldly stupid as these characters do. Perry's point may not even be for us to like these people or relate to them, but instead could be to simply explore a fractured friendship and while the dialogue certainly stings in certain circumstances, there is never anything to suggest any of this is genuine and no matter what Perry's intentions were I have to believe capturing some kind of genuine emotion was part of it. by Philip Price “Z For Zachariah” possesses qualities both appealing and disenchanting. What more can be done with the post-apocalyptic scenario that we haven't already seen and yet when this scenario contains only a trio of engaging actors might we actually get something enticing? Of course, there are numerous ways in which we could look at the factors that influence whether a film is appealing or not, but until actually taking it in we can't be sure what surprises it might hold. What surprises most about “Z For Zachariah” is not that the only three actors in the film deliver superb performances, but that they are so well written and developed that part of the narrative comes to be how these three individuals deal with one another's personalities and character traits. An aspect such as this is so inherent to our daily routines that we don't think twice about it, but when there is even a slight possibility these could be the last three human beings on earth the importance of how they get along with one another is magnified. Based on a novel by Robert C. O'Brien that was published in 1974, “Z for Zachariah” apparently diverts from its source material in rather large ways to not only tell a tale of survival, but one of meaningful survival. We are first introduced to Margot Robbie's Ann Burden as she digs through the remains of what we are led to believe is some nuclear war searching for anything she might be able to use in a hazmat suit. It is on her way back to what is more or less her own little oasis in a valley that has somehow remained unaffected by all of the radiation put off by the war that she comes across Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Loomis is a scientist who has been searching for exactly what he has stumbled upon and is more or less thankful to the humble Ann for taking him in and allowing him time to recover from his journey at her isolated farmhouse. With Loomis' knowledge and Ann's farming skills the two begin to make a place for themselves among the desolate landscape that surrounds them and maybe even kindle a little something more between them. That is, of course, until Caleb (Chris Pine) shows up about 45 minutes in and things are made all the more complicated by the basic human dynamics that come into play. While what we expect from “Z for Zachariah,” given it is a movie, is for this love triangle to take over the narrative and derail the focus of the film from the larger themes it was attempting to explore prior to the entrance of its third party (which, again, the book apparently doesn't have). Instead, it only serves to amplify these ideas by pushing them to a tenser, unnerving state. Religion is a heavy theme here in that Ann is a devout Christian who was raised as a preacher's daughter and whose father built the local church. Loomis being of a scientific mind is automatically assumed to be less religious, if at all, but nonetheless he is respectful of Ann's beliefs. Bringing things back around to the importance placed on the gelling of the personalities it would seem these two were destined to be at odds with one another. Loomis wanting to tear down the church to build a water wheel generator while Ann seeing the church as the last thing they need to get rid of in this desperate time. What is refreshing is that this never comes to boil over as the dividing line between our two main characters. Rather, they respect one another and therefore show shades of more complex personalities, enticed by one another’s thoughts and eager to see if they can accommodate each other’s minds. There is a specific scene right after Caleb's arrival between just Ann and Loomis that speaks volumes to these ideas and it more or less serves as the basis for why this post-apocalyptic world is worth venturing into even if it feels overly familiar. What makes the scene so affecting is that it is one of the few moments that puts aside the nuance of the characters and allows them to liberate themselves with no cautionary guard in front of their words. Ann clarifies that she'd reached a point where she was ready to give up on life while the appearance of someone else wouldn't have necessarily done the trick, but the appearance of Loomis specifically more or less saved her. Loomis can no longer keep a potential deal-breaker secret from Ann and in the aftermath of telling her the two are both still very broken, but wounds can be seen beginning to heal. What makes scenes such as this work as well as the overall tone reach its intended and necessary tension level are the performances of both Ejiofor and Robbie. Ejiofor is a measured man who knows his limits and can read people well enough to have survived as long as he has and to know how far he can push them. Ann, despite her naive first impression, is smarter than she appears and capable of adopting certain perspectives so as to remain in line with the men around her. This is not to discount Pine, whose Caleb we never know whether we can trust or not. Caleb's eyes cut from Loomis to Ann with what could certainly be read as sincerity but comes off as more cunning and deceitful than anything else. The performances bleed the ideas that both writer Nissar Modi and director Craig Zobel seem intent to tackle and thus, by the time we reach the rather solemn conclusion (what can you expect though, really?) there is real weight to the drama. “Z for Zachariah” plays strong on its characters’ interaction and buffers the sometimes laborious pacing with beautiful cinematography that captures the lush greens of the hills surrounding it's valley. What ultimately makes this a worthwhile endeavor though is the mysticism that Zobel is able to capture in his tone while never delivering anything more than a purely realistic, science-based reality. Again, given what we typically expect from movies and especially these types of movies I was surprised to not find more of a science-fiction edge to this film, but in keeping this genre aspect out of the realm of possibility and contrasting only the religious aspects with that of Loomis' scientist background we are given a world much like our own where we think we know the why's and how's of the reasons we've come to be as we are, but can only hope there is more to it that our mortal minds can comprehend. Enticing indeed. |
Archives
May 2024
|