Fences

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Denzel Washington
Starring Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Jovan Adepo
Running time: 139 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Fences is the film adaptation of a play by August Wilson; it stars, in fact, the lead actors from the Broadway show of 2010.  Denzel and Viola are incredible, a dynamic duo whose characters' lives speak not just to the African American experience but to any family.  Wilson's simple yet compelling and powerful story translates just fine from stage to screen, with loads of great dialogue and interactions that keep you riveted.  Highly recommended for all.


Pittsburgh garbage collector Troy Maxson (Washington) has a seemingly traditional 1950s life, with a wife, teenage son, and home of his own.  After work each day, Troy shoots the breeze with best friend Jim (Henderson), reminiscing about the old days while waiting for dinner.  However, a world of complexity and pain lies beneath the surface for Troy.  His mentally disabled brother, Gabe (Williamson), wanders the streets and Troy often gets him out of trouble.  His adult son, Lyons (Hornsby), struggles to support his own family in the way his father does.  Both Lyons, and younger son Cory (Adepo), strive at making their dreams (in music and football) a reality - which only makes Troy look back at his own dashed dreams with regret.  All the while, his loyal wife Rose (Davis) stands by his side, somehow finding the strength to make the physical and emotional effort of keeping the family together.  But when Troy reveals a secret to his family, they are all forced to confront not just the painful differences that have separated them, but also the parts that join them all together.

Fences benefits from a very talented ensemble that breathes life into the story.  Denzel Washington and Viola Davis are the leads, and both bring much experience to their parts: they each won Tony awards for their work in the Broadway play.  Their comfort with the roles is clear on screen, as they both simply disappear into the characters.  Denzel's is one of the most emotional and animated that I have ever seen - his Troy wears his heart on his sleeve - and also one of the best in general that I've seen.  He is usually energetic, even if crankily so, and Denzel powers through extended scenes of dialogue with tremendous endurance and focus.  Through his eyes and face and voice, you can easily see what a damaged soul Troy is, yet Denzel lowers his defenses enough, at times, to show his vulnerability, too.  Viola Davis is equally brilliant, albeit in a much less showy role (although she gets a few moments, too).  Credit goes to August Wilson, of course, for making the wife of the focal character as deep and complex as she is, but Davis pulls off the great feat of making her presence known at all times, while not hogging all the attention.  Her Rose is a model of strength and courage and Davis' performance is at least as important as the script in doing so.  All of the supporting roles are superbly done, too: from Troy's friend Jim (Stephen M. Henderson), the affable man of deep wisdom; to Lyons (Russell Hornsby), the distant yet warm son and Cory (Jovan Adepo) the passionate adolescent son.  Multiple Oscar nominations are deserving here.

Fences is an excellent film adaptation of a very interesting and powerful play by August Wilson.  It is important to first note, if you haven't yet seen it, that the style of the action retains its roots from the stage.  Not only is it set almost entirely in the Maxson family home, but there is continual dialogue (I say this because my attention tends to wander a little while watching films, since dialogue is usually less constant - but you can't do that with this one!).  This all was just fine with me, and it fits the needs of the characters and story quite well; it's a testament to the strength of the script and the performances, though, that such a style does not drag at all during a two hour-twenty minute run time.  Denzel is the tour de force here, but there is room for a complex set of issues not just within him but for his individual family members as well.  Of course, the story and characters speak volumes about the African American experience: the resentment of the treatment of blacks, and indoctrination of "their place" in society, which itself powerfully limits even a strong, capable man like Troy - beyond even the de jure means of oppression.  I would argue, though, that it is even more interested (and interesting) in terms of even broader ideas of family.  Troy's early experiences, race-related and otherwise, strongly shaped him.  And tragically, even as he did all he could not to raise a family the way his father did, the avoidance of those evils also created a different kind of oppression for his own family.  The film's ending, with Troy's family coming to terms with his legacy from their various perspectives, speaks powerfully to these themes with love and compassion.

***

A great, bread-and-butter drama, Fences works beautifully as a film even as it retains much of its style as a play.  The adapted script - started by Wilson and completed by fellow Pulitzer-prize winning Tony Kushner (Wilson died in 2005) - is just fantastic.  Wilson's framework is tried-and-true yet also creates characters and a story with true life; and I'm guessing that Kushner's work helped make it even more appropriate for the big screen, while retaining the intimacy of the stage.  The entire cast is equally deserving of praise, especially Washington and Davis, of conveying these people and their thoughts and emotions - and not in brief snippets, but in long, heavy doses of intense and evolving dialogue and action.  It's instantly among the strongest overall dramas I've seen, with universal appeal and relevance.  Highly recommended.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51925252

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Gareth Edwards
Starring Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Mads Mikkelsen, Ben Mendelsohn
Running time: 133 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Rogue One is the first stand-alone film in the Star Wars universe, whose main characters are all-new (though familiar ones make cameos).  It's an interesting set up, led by another capable young woman in Felicity Jones playing a pre-Luke Skywalker rebel.  There's plenty of action and then some, much of it impressive, but ultimately the film fails to let its new cast truly shine and make a connection, playing it too safe.  You'll have a good time watching it, but temper those expectations.


On a cold and lonely outpost in a galaxy far, far away, a young woman named Jyn Erson (Jones) languishes in the captivity of the ubiquitous, evil Empire.  A small group of renegades breaks her out; surprised that anyone should come for her, she discovers that her father, Galen (Mikkelsen), is helping the Empire to develop a superweapon.  The renegades - working for the Rebel Alliance - hopes she will help them find him.  Jyn is sent first to another Imperial-controlled world which harbors an old friend of the Erso family.  The man takes Jyn to an Imperial pilot who has defected, bringing with him information on the nearly-finished Death Star, a message from Galen himself.

Jyn and her companions manage to escape with the news and return to the rebellion, but there is panic at the imminent danger to all.  Therefore Jyn, herself recently thrust into the galactic war between the Empire and the rebellion, must choose her own path, caught between the stakes to the galaxy and her family's personal involvement in the danger.

Rogue One has a solid, impressively diverse, yet unspectacular cast.  Leading the charge is Felicity Jones as Jyn Erso, the daughter of a crucial weapons engineer who herself becomes a rebel at a young age.  Jones does a nice job, a charismatic presence with her share of strong moments, but is let down by the script.  I'm all for a female hero/leader in the wake of The Force Awakens' Rey, but despite an interesting set up there isn't much development of her character.  An engaging hero, Jones' Jyn is also merely a generic one by the end of the film.  Jones is joined by an ensemble of fellow rogues; Diego Luna as the main rebel spy commander, who has hints of a grittier background and character but is even less well fleshed out.  Most interesting are a blind warrior and a droid.  Donnie Yen plays Imwe, who maintains strong faith in the Force despite the last (known) Jedi having disappeared years ago.  Yen makes Imwe's faith fervent and fascinating when allowed to, and he is unexpectedly (and somewhat mischievously) funny.  Alan Tudyk voices the droid of the film, a reprogrammed Imperial.  He, too, is quite funny (more directly so) and gets the best lines.  Ben Mendelsohn, a great actor, does well as the primary Imperial villain, although his part doesn't reach its menacing potential.

Rogue One is the first stand-alone Star Wars film; in other words it doesn't have a single Skywalker (let alone a Jedi), whose lineage has served as the backbone of the franchise.  In ways this is freeing, allowing more storytelling flexibility with many familiar elements (the space ships, aliens, etc.); yet also challenges the filmmakers to develop a new set of compelling characters.  Rogue One has the pieces and potential for a truly special development of the Star Wars universe, but unfortunately only succeeds in limited ways.  The collection of characters is an intriguing one, as described earlier, a group that fits their predecessors' scrappy nature perfectly.  Each has different, interesting reasons for fighting against the Empire, as well as realistic flaws.  In fact, Rogue One gets into the politics of Star Wars, similar to the prequels (which I continue to defend) and much more than in the original trilogy - both on the rebel and the Imperial sides.  The effects are very good, of course, and the final 30+ minutes put the "war" in Star Wars, both in the trenches and in space.  I did enjoy a lot of this quite a bit, watching X-wings, Star Destroyers, AT-ATs (walking tanks) and more engaged in far more spectacular battle than ever before.

However... in the end, Rogue One in other ways lives down to its status as a stand-alone film, unable to ultimately distinguish itself within the Star Wars universe.  The film begins with a flashback that appropriately takes its time in introducing Jyn's family and their role - and then the film kicks into hyperdrive, in a bad way.  Jyn is all grown up, and being hustled around as quickly as the exposition that is shouted around and about her.  Not only is it done too quickly, but it all gets straight to the point - the Death Star - leaving little to the imagination; and far worse, neglecting to pay any attention to the characters that are involved.  Things start to settle down a bit, yet the script remains quite clunky in trying to fit all the pieces together, always focused on the Death Star to the detriment of everything else.  Other problems crop up here and there:  stormtroopers are mowed down at a ridiculous clip, the score is clearly trying to invoke John Williams but is a sad imitation (not the composer's fault - he was brought on late and had literally only a few weeks to start and finish it).

***

Rogue One is still a solid film; if you're looking for an entertaining action movie, you're not going to do better right now (unless Doctor Strange is still out).  But Rogue One also isn't just any movie: it's a Star Wars movie.  The results remind me a lot of Suicide Squad - both exist in well-established franchises/worlds, but focus on a new set of grittier, much less well-known characters.  Both films introduce a set of intriguing new characters, potentially worthy of their own mini-franchise.  But both films also largely squander this potential by trying to play it safe with formula and focusing on the plot and action at the expense of nurturing their characters.  Yes, it's cool to know how the events of Episode 4 - A New Hope were made possible (i.e. blowing up the Death Star) - but it would have been even cooler to have launched a parallel set of rebels to continue the fight behind the scenes.  Maybe repeat viewings will bring me around to it, but for now I am well entertained but ultimately disappointed.  Moderately recommended, but not a success like The Force Awakens was.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50076808

Manchester by the Sea

Score:  ***** out of ***** (A+)

Directed by Kenneth Lonergan
Starring Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler
Running time: 137 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Manchester by the Sea is a quiet, simple drama on the outside, and a tumultuous and affecting one on the inside.  It's also one of the best films I've ever seen.  Casey Affleck leads a set of brilliant performances as the film takes a deep, sometimes painful but always revelatory, dive into his character.  Amazing writing and filmmaking turn ordinary people and events into both a moving and thought-provoking experience.  A must-see.


Lee Chandler (Affleck) lives a lonely existence as a janitor in Boston.  Forced to deal with abrasive tenants in an apartment, Lee's patience is often tested and he frequents a bar to cope.  One day, his routine is abruptly interrupted when he receives a call that his brother (Chandler) suffered a heart attack.  Lee rushes to him, but by the time he arrives his brother is dead.  Left behind is his sixteen-year-old son, Patrick, and Lee is shocked to learn that he is to become the young boy's guardian, according to his brother's will.  Once close, Lee and Patrick are now tense in each other's presence; Patrick dealing with school, girlfriends and a band, and Lee trying to sort out his brother's affairs and coping with his past.  One missing a father, the other his brother, the two must relearn how to live, together.

Manchester by the Sea boasts an ensemble that works so well, both individually and as a group, that it is easy to forget that they are acting.  Casey Affleck delivers an incredibly powerful, nuanced and memorable performance as the quiet and tormented lead, Lee.  The camera follows Lee throughout the film, and mostly his misery is internal, seen through his gaze and his weary but persistent march through life's everyday challenges.  Affleck brings Lee to life as fully as any film character I've ever seen.  Like any human, he sometimes responds awkwardly to others, makes odd decisions, and grits his teeth and bears life's annoyances; and he is also sympathetic, a good man trying to find his way after losing it years ago, though often conflicted about whether he should even try.  Lucas Hedges does a great job as teenage Patrick, simultaneously aware of the adult challenges of his situation while showing the pain of the loss of his father as he experiences both setbacks and joy in other roles.  Michelle Williams' screentime is fairly limited, but she makes the most of it as Lee's ex-wife by bringing startling detail and individuality to a character that could have merely been a powerful symbol of Lee's old life.  Kyle Chandler is in the final significant role, as Lee's brother Joe in flashbacks; although we don't get to know him, he excels at portraying the pillar of emotional stability in the family, without which we can see (partly) how things have fallen apart.

Manchester by the Sea is an incredible film, the drama of a simple story of ordinary humans, but the film delves deeply - and movingly - in and through those people.  The main plot event, Joe's death, is front and center, yet the film's most powerful event is one from the past and in more subtle ways it affects everything and everyone in the film just as much.  I won't reveal what that is (and please don't go look it up!), but it is a symbol of the way the film overall works not through direct events but through individual responses and relationships.  Manchester confounds expectations everywhere; it is deeply affecting and emotional, yet by the end neither depressing nor uplifting but simply life affirming.  It is not Hollywood drama in any way, yet not minimalistic (read: boring), either.  Though there are a few incredibly emotional scenes (especially the one above), you can regain an emotional equilibrium afterward.  The film has no jokes, and of course is quite serious, yet it finds humor consistently and effectively through the little things in life.  The film ends with the characters having made progress and there is hope, yet it is not at all tied up with a bow; it resists expected resolution and not everything works out the way you think it will or want it to.

How does Manchester by the Sea achieve such balance and power while relying on simple components (characters, plot, setting)?  The acting described above is of course an essential part, and just as important is a phenomenal script which, combined with the performances, creates one of the most vivid worlds I've every seen on film.  The plot - Joe's death, and what that sets in motion - is only the canvas of this work; it is the characters and their relationships that are the "action".  The pacing, in a conventional sense, is therefore deliberate (some would say slow), yet it is the characters driving the pace, not the events.  Everyday life makes up most of the scenes, particularly that of Lee adjusting into his old hometown, Patrick struggling with adolescence, and the two attempting to bond (or at least put up with each other).  Each scene shows one (or usually several) of the following: another side of a richly shaded character; a small (yet important) thing that causes them to change; and/or something amusing.  This allows us to know the characters as few other films can do, increasing the impact of all that happens to them, from the small to the large.  We genuinely root for them, want the best for them, because we see some of ourselves in them.

***

Manchester by the Sea is one of the best films I've ever seen, period, and is therefore one of the few films that I've give an A+ to outright.  I admit that when I first heard about this film and read the premise, I was unimpressed.  But I read (while trying to avoid too much detail) that it was outstanding, and I try to see most films that get praise like that.  Fortunately for me, my rural theater happened to show it.  This is a film that had me thinking about it the rest of that night and the next morning.  The performances, writing, and filmmaking in general are masterful.  And there's plenty you can take away from it, both specific to the type of tragedy it illustrates as well as to life's struggles and changes in general.  I'm not sure what more I need to say about it here, though it's also a film that I could talk about all day.  Manchester by the Sea is a must-see classic.



By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51487176

Arrival

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Denis Villeneuve
Starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forest Whitaker
Running time: 116 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Arrival is another alien encounter sci-fi film, but not at all what you're expecting.  Denis Villeneuve, having shown so much skill with both tension and personal challenge in previous films, is the perfect filmmaker for this ostensibly much different story.  With Amy Adams leading the drama in a strong performance, the film is more concerned with what alien contact might mean for humanity beyond just who blows up who.


In the span of a few minutes, the life of a young girl with her mother, Louise (Adams), unfolds and is tragically cut short by illness.  Louise, a linguist, teaches at a university when normal life is abruptly interrupted by the appearance of twelve alien craft, spread around the world.  The military, led by Col. Weber, soon comes to Louise in hopes of finding a way to communicate with the alien visitors.  Intrigued, Louise agrees and goes with them to Montana, where she meets the team including physicist Ian (Renner).  Operating from a small make-shift base, the team goes into the alien ship.  They encounter two individuals who make odd, indecipherable noises.  Although she is overwhelmed by them at first, Louise remains determined, and becomes convinced that written communication is mankind's best hope of understanding the aliens.

While Louise and Ian became fascinated by the intellectual process of understanding the aliens, their military commanders pressure them to work faster and faster.  Society begins to crumble under the stress of the alien presence, and other nations faced with alien ships in their territory also begin to lose patience.  Resting on Louise's shoulders, then, may be the fate of civilization itself.

Arrival operates with a small cast, and focuses even more narrowly on its lead.  Amy Adams takes on that lead role as Louise, and she is tremendous.  Of course, Adams has proven herself one of today's top actors already and she readily takes on this complex - and not particularly sci-fi-y - role.  She brings Louise to life, a woman more comfortable as a curious, highly intelligent academic woman than her personal side which she keeps to herself.  Louise first develops a professional rapport with Ian, only slowly becoming closer on a personal level as they are confined together on the base.  Encouragingly, Louise remains not only the more active but also the primary character in the film, not giving way to Ian.  Personal stakes do eventually come into play for Louise, and Adams handles them in a way appropriate for the character (i.e. controlled), rather than succumbing to Hollywood norms.  Jeremy Renner is also very good, perhaps for his restraint more than anything else.  Optimistic, though not cheerful, Ian is a team player who does not try to become the star of the show, offering crucial support for the lonely and stressed Louise.  Beyond Louise and Ian, the roles are few and small; Whitaker's Weber is torn between support for Louise and military duty to achieve its objectives as quickly as possible; and Michael Stuhlbarg is a sarcastic agent focused on America's coming out on top in the situation, regardless of the consequences.

Arrival is a brand-new flavor of sci-fi film, one that is flawed yet powerful and represents great hope as a melding of popular and artistic styles.  Like Christopher Nolan's Interstellar (more comparisons to this to come), Arrival is not a simple us-vs.-them shoot out.  There is plenty of tension, yes, but both films' primary mission is to engage your mind by using the tangible strangeness of sci-fi to look inward at humanity and the self.  Again, Arrival shares similar themes to the Nolan film: both the importance and lack thereof of time, and the need to put aside societal differences to advance the common causes (or to prevent the common destruction) of humanity.  A new element is that of communication and language, which plays into both of the others.  The details still demand a certain suspension of disbelief, of course, but I would argue it's the concepts that count.  The emotional elements are much more restrained in Arrival, but the main twist is fascinating (**highlight the blank area after this if you want to read spoilers**).  Louise's flash-forwarding to her daughter's life is both ingenious and heartbreaking.  I personally feel it actually could have been made even more affecting, with a tweaking of other elements in the film, but opinions on this will vary.

Fear not, Arrival is not just some abstract examination of ideas (Tree of Life this is not, thankfully).  The build up to the aliens in the first third or so of the film is riveting, and most reminiscent of the director Villeneuve's other work.  It's all quiet and very real, given just enough information and atmosphere (empty seminar rooms, roaring jet engines) to feel something big coming - not to mention a very eerie and affecting soundtrack.  Getting suited up to go into the alien ship, Adams breathes hard and noisily, echoing the audience's feelings.  Then the film admittedly bogs down a bit; there's only so much you can do to enliven the process of essentially language translation, I suppose.  But there is constant pressure to the intellectual work being done, with occasional news footage of rioting and tension among nations shown.  The ending, in fact, is surprisingly nail-biting in bringing the fate of the world to a last second confrontation at the base.  Impressively though, thanks to the script and directing, there is more intrigue in solving the film's idea riddles than in the exciting yet comparatively empty goal of preventing humanity's destruction.

***

Arrival is a great film, but I'm finding it one of the more difficult films to grade in a satisfactory way.  Once again, I come back to the comparison to Interstellar.  Both films reach for much more than the usual sci-fi genre, and appeal as both entertainment as art, which raises them (for me) to a certain minimum score.  Arrival is also made with the care and high-quality that I've come to expect from director Denis Villeneuve, one of my new favorites.  But I also feel it is missing a certain something, perhaps a crucial last link between the intellectual and emotional elements that could make it truly memorable.  It does also have its flaws, notably a pace that sometimes bogs down and a few odd elements in the script that are out of place.  I think it's easier to for me to nitpick these ambitious, hybrid films but Arrival's strengths still far outweigh its weaknesses.  From Adams' performance to the tremendous opening to the development of interesting ideas to the resolving personal twist, it has more positive things to offer than either flaws or just run-of-the-mill sci-fi.  Highly recommended.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51343430

Doctor Strange

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Scott Derrickson
Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, et. al.
Running time: 115 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Doctor Strange is the latest superhero film from Marvel Studios, and like Guardians of the Galaxy, it extends the reach of the genre.  Benedict Cumberbatch is perfectly suited for the title role and gives the film a great anchor while spectacular special effects provide dazzle like few others.  Yet it's all grounded in good acting, a good script and pacing, resulting in another high quality Marvel film.  Highly recommended for all, whether or not you're a fan of the genre.


In New York City, Dr. Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) is a great neurosurgeon and knows it, humiliating colleagues in showing off and zooming around town in his Lamborghini.  One day, his ego leads him to disaster - and on the other side of the table in his own hospital.  Dr. Strange's mind remains as sharp as a scalpel, but his hands have been ruined and he is unable even to shave.  Strange searches the globe for something or someone to heal his hands but despairs as he continues to fail, turning against the few who remain close to him like Dr. Palmer (McAdams).  He finally turns to an old story he heard about a man who should have been permanently paralyzed but now walks again; tracking him down, Strange is pointed to Kathmandu, Nepal.

Strange finds there a compound full of unusual individuals - and even more unbelievable revelations about the nature of reality itself.  The leader of the group, known as the Ancient One (Swinton), acknowledges that they are capable of healing his hands, but only if Strange is able to relearn what he knows is possible in the world.  Determined to return to his old life, Strange is a quick study - but lurking in the shadows are forces seeking to harness that same power for evil.

Doctor Strange reaps the benefits of a well-chosen and engaged cast that brings a, well, strange story to life.  Benedict Cumberbatch, an actor well-known and regarded for brilliant enigma roles, plays the title character.  There are times when casting against type is great, but Cumberbatch seemed so tailor-made for the role that he was an obvious choice.  Cumberbatch fully inhabits Strange, from the physical performance (action scenes to his American accent) to the human.  He makes both a believable star surgeon and an entirely new kind of action star, his movements melding seamlessly with the awe-inspiring CGI.  Cumberbatch mostly keeps Strange's feelings reserved, with a few notable exceptions; this bearing is in line with the story and Strange's background.  Tilda Swinton, known for her unusual roles, plays the Ancient One.  This role is actually pretty straightforward for her, despite sporting a shaved head, as the guru and leader of the world's sorcerers.  Still, Swinton's acting makes the role appropriately mysterious, with both compassion and menace lurking just underneath the serene surface.  The other roles are comparatively small yet also impressive.  Chiwetel Ejiofor plays the Ancient One's lieutenant, at first a standard role which by the end morphs into a crucial one for future films; Rachel McAdams makes the most of her brief but important time as Strange's closest "normal" relationship; Mads Mikkelsen's villain is rather shallow but the actor knows how to play a bad guy; and Benedict Wong provides great comic relief as the sorcerers' librarian.

Doctor Strange is yet another resounding success for Marvel in pushing the boundaries of the superhero film genre.  It uses a very familiar story structure, but executes it with such energy - produced by the actors, the ideas, and the visuals - that the film easily defines its own, incredibly entertaining identity.  Yes, this is another origin story, but one that is less like the typical superhero than an interesting combination of The Matrix, Star Wars, and Harry Potter.  The script introduces Dr. Strange, the man, in a straightforward yet also an effective and prompt manner.  Then it's off to the races when Dr. Strange meets the sorcerers.  Here again the script - and direction - displays a subtle yet crucial balance.  The amazing new aspects of reality are revealed so as to convey an appropriate sense of awe but not to the degree that the audience becomes numbed to them, nor do they overwhelm the characters.  But it's not all about neat tricks and dazzling visuals (see more below).  Doctor Strange has some great food for thought as well, particularly around the theme of whether means justify ends.  The film doesn't dwell on these - it (rightfully, in my opinion) prioritizes the adventure elements and therefore avoids tonal incongruity.

The film's magical reality truly is awesome.  Not only is the CGI stunningly realistic and enveloping (think Inception on steroids), but it's thoughtfully designed and nothing is there without reason.  There are several incredible action scenes, particularly Dr. Strange's first encounter with the main villain.  To top it all off, Doctor Strange is one of the funniest in a catalog of Marvel films that are always humorous to some degree.  The standout here is not any of the human characters, but a certain item of clothing.  Doctor Strange isn't perfect, most notably character development and emotional grounding are minimal, and the villain isn't all that interesting.  But as in the case of its Big Ideas (see above), the filmmakers were wise to instead accentuate the strong focal points of the film.

***

Doctor Strange is one of the year's strongest films, and to me cements Marvel's status as the Pixar of superhero films.  The studio churns out its films - about two a year - at an amazing rate, especially considering the high quality of virtually every single one.  Rather than stick with one winning formula, the studio has boldly expanded the limits of the genre (in film, anyway), enriching every element of its films - stories, characters, visuals, ideas.  Had Doctor Strange been released in 2008 or earlier - even granted today's technical capabilities - I would have been quite skeptical.  But Marvel has proven itself and so I came in with every expectation that it would be strong film.  In Hollywood today, that is a rare thing.  Certainly, I am a fan of the genre but I don't think the general quality of the studio's productions can be denied.  I highly recommend this film, in particular, to anyone - even if you aren't a fan of the genre yourself.




*By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50143602

The Birth of a Nation

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Nate Parker
Starring Nate Parker, Armie Hammer, Aja Naomi King
Running time: 120 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Birth of a Nation tells the life story of Nat Turner, who led perhaps the most famous slave rebellion in American history.  Once hailed as a sure Oscar contender, the film has found controversy via news of criminal allegations in filmmaker Nate Parker's past.  The film is solid if flawed, but worth pushing past the noise surrounding it to see it and confront its issues for yourself.


In the early 1800s, young Nat Turner (Parker) lives as a slave on a Virginia plantation.  His father flees, his fate unknown, when he kills a white man in an altercation and so Nat is raised by his mother and grandmother.  The matron of the plantation takes Nat in to be educated when she discovers that the boy has an inclination to read, and years later he begins preaching to the other slaves on the plantation.  Samuel (Hammer) becomes the head of the plantation and frequently takes Nat with him on his travels, having played with him when the two were young.  When visiting town one day, Nat urges Samuel to purchase a female slave at auction, and the two end up growing close and marrying.  Once thriving, the Turner plantation comes on hard times and so Samuel takes Nat to other plantations in the area to preach to other slaves for a fee.

On his preaching visits, Nat is exposed to shocking conditions and barbaric acts of cruelty endured by slaves.  Confronted with such pain, suffering and injustice, Nat agonizes over not just the words he brings to his brothers - carefully selected passages from white men seeking to justify their actions - but also what he can and should do in accordance with his faith.

The Birth of a Nation features a sizable and generally strong cast.  Nate Parker - who also directed, wrote, and produced the film - stars as the famed Nat Turner.  He is a charismatic man who commands focus on the screen, particularly in intimate personal moments with his wife and family.  Nate also portrays a convincing evolution in his character from quiet, thoughtful, gentle man of faith to increasingly despairing and enraged as his eyes are opened to the full horrors of his world.  Among his multiple roles in the film, Parker's acting might be the strongest.  Beyond Parker's Turner, all other characters are supporting.  Armie Hammer does an OK job as Turner's slaveholder, though he struggles with Samuel's darker turns later in the film.  Jackie Earle Haley, an actor much more familiar with ugly roles than Hammer, effectively plays a stereotypical white goon.  Unfortunately, there are not any other black characters of real depth beyond Nat; even his wife played by Aja Naomi King is largely a plot device.  Esther Scott does do well, however, as his grandmother.

For all the controversy surrounding Nate Parker and his film, The Birth of a Nation itself is actually a fairly straightforward film, not as harrowing as 12 Years a Slave.  The film literally goes from the beginning to the end of Nat Turner's life, and he is the focus from start to finish.  Thanks to his strong performance, Parker keeps the audience engaged throughout even when the script or pacing wander at times.  There are a number of powerful scenes and images to convey the horror of slavery, though admittedly having seen 12 Years I found myself slightly less impacted.  Those of you who have also seen that film will likely find that Birth of a Nation deals with the portrayal of slavery with less subtlety and power, though well enough anyway.  To be fair, Birth's tone is more consistent than 12 Years, as it - consciously or not - finds a stable middle ground between stark realism and Hollywood drama.  Having a standard plot and tone, The Birth of a Nation most unsettled me in Nat's turn to violence.  I don't attempt to defend slave owners but I felt a significant pang of regret when Turner, a good man and one of faith, turns to brutality himself.  Parker as actor and filmmaker tries as hard as he can to tell us that Nat simply embraced his destiny, but I felt his turn to revenge was more worthy of heart break rather than victory in the noose.  There were no winners, only victims.

I have not read extensively about the news surrounding Nate Parker, but even a basic awareness leads to some interesting thoughts on the film - both intended and not.  Parker has asserted the film's relevance to our society today, but it wasn't apparent to me at first since I essentially viewed it as a biopic.  However, I now see the parallels to the black lives matter movement.  The black community is still witness to, yet largely helpless to prevent, the violent suffering of so many of its members - whether at the hands of law enforcement or inner turmoil - and this must lead to a tremendous urge to do something when words alone seem to fail.  I would hope that the follow-up message to that is that more violence is NOT the answer... yet beyond that, there is frustratingly little I can say.  Another topic that arises is the treatment of women, coming into the spotlight with Parker's acquittal of sexual assault charges in 1999.  Birth of a Nation includes several sexual assaults (not shown) which help fuel Parker's rage yet are not apparently historically accurate (or at least confirmed).  The women of the film generally are victimized or at least relegated to the sidelines in favor of male counterparts.  It's difficult to avoid an association between Parker's previous actions and his portrayal of women in the film, one that shows them as passive and at the mercy of men for better or worse.

***

The Birth of a Nation is a flawed yet intriguing film, deceptively simple in many ways yet oddly an important one (set +150 years ago) for today's audience.  I have had the pleasure and humbling learning experience of seeing several films on the black experience over the last few years, including The Butler, 12 Years a Slave, Selma, and now Birth.  I recommend seeing all of them, if simply because they are all very good (though Birth of a Nation lags significantly behind the others in this regard).  In addition they each have something important to say, each connected to the others yet with its own unique perspective.  While Birth of a Nation doesn't rise to the level of the others in quality, it may make up for that in the important discussions and debates it can inspire - about gender as well as race.  As a white male I do not pretend to understand let alone feel these issues as others do, but I hope that the films have played a part in helping me to be a better citizen in our diverse, messy, unfair world that needs more love.  I urge all to support films like Birth of a Nation which act as just one way but a very public and accessible way to continue the process.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50559876

Masterminds

Score:  *** out of ***** (B-)

Directed by Jared Hess
Starring Zach Galifianakis, Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Kristen Wiig, et. al.
Running time: 94 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Masterminds, based on a true story, features a cast of heavy-hitter comedians but doesn't follow through on the potential.  Galifianakis is rock-solid and funny, but the film can't decide on a tone and so the whole is less than the sum of its parts.  Don't rush out to see it in the theater, but it should make for a fine on-demand/Netflix choice on some frigid winter evening.


Armored truck driver David Ghantt (Galifianakis) is a simple, gentle yet restless soul, engaged to a desperate woman, Jandice (McKinnon) yet pining for a co-worker, Kelly (Wiig).  When Kelly is fired from the company, however, she joins up with Steve Chambers (Wilson) who leads a group of petty criminals.  Hoping to become a legend - and filthy rich - Steve sees an opportunity in Kelly's previous employment and gets her to draw David into the plot.  Despite a rather clumsy effort, David succeeds in robbing his employer and then takes flight to Mexico where he awaits Kelly.  Steve and his gang cut him off, however, and David soon finds himself hunted by the authorities as he was caught in the act on camera.  As David flees, Kelly finds herself conflicted between the comforts of a new life of luxury and her guilty feelings.

Masterminds features an impressive comedic cast which mostly hits its marks.  Zach Galifianakis, one of my favorite contemporary comics, is the lead.  Featuring a great country accent and style of speech that reflect his naivete, Galifianakis' David is a sympathetic main character who sets up easily for a variety of humor.  He does a solid job, stays true to the character and offers up plenty of primarily slapstick laughs.  Kristen Wiig, playing David's love interest, is another top comedian, but unfortunately she basically plays a normal, plot-device-based character here.  She's an underrated actress and still gets some laughs, but she's underutilized.  Owen Wilson, whom I find just OK, lives up (down?) to those middling expectations; not hilarious, but at least suits his role as the lead villain well enough.  And Jason Sudeikis clearly has a blast as a disturbed/disturbing assassin, earning some of the film's bigger laughs.  Current SNL cast members Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones also have small roles and they employ their vastly different styles to give the film a boost.

Masterminds is a solid comedy, though also a bit disappointing given the impressive acting talent involved.  The primary problem with the film is its indecision about what kind of comedy it wants to be.  Being based on true events admittedly makes this harder than usual, but it shifts between a fairly light-hearted silly slapstick adventure (more of this) and a more subtle, darker humor (less of this).  Given this inconsistency, it's all the more impressive that Galifianakis maintains a steady lock on his character.  But then you have the contrasting styles and tones of Wilson (slapstick) and McKinnon (weird); and with Sudeikis you get both styles.  Taken as individual scenes, both styles work, but it makes for kind of a messy body of work.  Partly this may have resulted from production troubles, as the film was originally to be released in August 2015.  The writing and script is at least solid with a few big laughs, and a lot of good chuckles to be had throughout.  Rated PG-13, there's nothing too raunchy (perhaps I've just been numbed).

***

Masterminds continues 2016's trend of decent but unspectacular comedies.  In fact, the best films that feature humor have been animated films, for which 2016 has been a great year.  There's a lot of great comedic acting talent out there, but I have significant doubts about the comedic writers (at least the ones that are in charge at the moment).  Your Galifianakis, Ferrell, McCarthy, and others do great work and tend to elevate otherwise mediocre if not poor material.  Most egregiously untapped by far is Kristen Wiig, perhaps the most talented actor/comedian active today.  She demonstrated her range on SNL, and in Welcome to Me which unfortunately only saw limited release (get it on Netflix!).  She should either be given complex, lead roles in well-written films, or something off-the-wall in bizarre roles in a new kind(s) of comedies.  Her roles in Ghostbusters and Masterminds are like having Michael Jordan in his prime play in the D-League.  You can do better than this, producers and writers.  All that said, Masterminds makes for a fine Netflix choice if you're in the mood for a goofy comedy, particularly for fans of Zach Galifianakis.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51300259