The Jungle Book

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Jon Favreau
Starring Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, et. al.
Running time:  105 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Elf) directed this new adaptation of a favorite children's story.  This is no gimmick release: the visual effects are amazing and put to excellent use with all the animal characters involved.  Bill Murray, Idris Elba, and others prove great voice actors, but so does young Sethi as Mowgli.  Add in a strong, straightforward script, and you have a must-see family film.  Highly recommended.


Deep in the jungles of India, there is a strange wolf pack.  One of the "pups" being raised is a human boy named Mowgli (Sethi).  The orphan boy learns the ways of the pack, frolicking about with the wolf pups under the watchful eyes of mother wolf Raksha (Nyong'o) and the elusive black panther Bagheera (Kingsley).  The boy's place does not seem to hinder anything or anyone in the natural cycle of life in the jungle, until a long and brutal drought comes.  As all the animals are drawn in to the last remaining water source, a fearsome, man-hating Bengal tiger, Shere Khan (Elba), finds Mowgli and promises to kill the boy once the drought ends.  Although Mowgli's friends hope to protect him, the boy decides he can't put anyone else at risk and leaves for the nearest human village, with Bagheera as his guide.

Furious at being denied his victim, Shere Khan hunts down Mowgli.  Soon, the boy is lost and alone, facing dangers he's never encountered before.  Yet new friends arrive, too, and Mowgli begins to discover the usefulness of his human abilities or "tricks", as the wolves called them.  The boy would be happy to live in peace in the jungle - but a final reckoning with Shere Khan the tiger is inevitable.

The cast of The Jungle Book is exceptional, though, with the exception of Mowgli, entirely computer animated.  Leading the way is Neel Sethi as the "man cub".  Child actors are hit or miss, but fortunately Sethi is very impressive in the role.  His character, Mowgli, has been raised by animals, and Sethi does a very good job of giving that impression.  He clearly comes across as a strong, brave, compassionate boy, making Mowgli a vivid, interesting character, but also doesn't go overboard (a common weakness for child actors).  While not the most spectacular part of the film, Sethi's rock solid,  compelling performance lays the foundation for all the rest.

The voice acting is also very good, with a few particularly good fits.  Serving as Mowgli's animated co-star is Baloo the bear, voiced by Bill Murray.  Murray does a great job, though the part certainly fit him well, anyway: a rather lazy, self-serving and sarcastic bear, he is nevertheless loyal and, when it comes down to it, compassionate.  He is largely responsible for making the film's middle section, often the least interesting, meandering part of a film, great fun.  Idris Elba is also a bit typecast here as Shere Khan the tiger, but he is plenty menacing, in a unique way that shifts from blunt to unsettlingly subtle.  The main members of Mowgli's jungle family are Bagheera the panther, voiced by Ben Kingsley, and Raksha, by Lupita Nyong'o.  They aren't standouts like Murray and Elba, but they still do very good work in portraying their weary wisdom and motherly love and fierceness, respectively.

While The Jungle Book is not a fancy new tale in the world of cinema, this latest film version both makes it fresh again and is as strong, traditional filmmaking as I've seen in some time.  This is due to good writing, the performances just described, and the absolutely incredible visual effects work.  Many films rely on at least a few good effects shots, but The Jungle Book relies on them almost entirely - not only are the animal characters (obviously) CGI, but so is all of the scenery.  Fortunately, the technicians for this film created exquisitely detailed, incredibly realistic work throughout.  More credit again goes to Sethi for working in such an environment, and the effects blend seamlessly with him.  To be honest, one of the most impressive specific examples of the visual work is the sunlight - strikingly bright and real (more so than many live action films').  The visual effects provide a considerable "wow" factor, but they also don't distract from the original (though modified) story.  And thank goodness, the writers did not attempt to dumb things down or convert the dialogue to modern vernacular.  Yes, this is a story for children with some basic, important life lessons - but adults are well served, too, by the earnest, non-pandering writing.

***

The Jungle Book is almost certainly destined to become a family film classic, taking its place among other outstanding adaptations.  Frankly, I didn't have much interest in seeing this at first, and saw it mostly due to its phenomenal Rotten Tomatoes score.  I thought it would use a few fancy visuals and a modernized tone to "update" the classic and grab some cash.  Well, the visuals are more than fancy, they're groundbreaking and breathtaking, and the storytelling atmosphere is old fashioned at its best.  I will warn prospective family viewers that this isn't for the very youngest as there are some scenes that could be pretty frightening (heck, I jumped once or twice).  I don't pretend to know what the threshold is, but this is not exactly Bambi we're talking about.  At any rate, above that threshold this is a film for all ages, whether you are taking in the astounding visual effects, enjoying a familiar and well-retold tale, or laughing and singing along with Bill Murray and co.  Highly recommended (and see it in the theater!).




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46830494

The Boss

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Directed by Ben Falcone
Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Bell, Peter Dinklage
Running time:  99 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Boss is the newest comedy feature from superstar Melissa McCarthy.  She slips into the new role (a self-serving "0.1 percenter") with great skill and her usual massive dose of hilarity.  Unfortunately, the plotting and writing that attempt to form a semblance of a story around her great performance fail miserably.  Still, if you're a fan of the star, it's worth seeing.


Michelle Darnell (McCarthy) has never been a very nice person.  Raised in an orphanage, she made few friends but also quickly learned how to get ahead - by any means necessary.  She even betrayed her one true connection, Renault (Dinklage), as she made her way to the top.  Once she got there, Darnell became revered by millions - those who didn't know her, but who craved her fame, power, and wealth.  However, Darnell becomes a bit too comfortable in her status and sees it all come crashing down in an insider trading conviction.  Having to support her child, Darnell's loyal but put-upon assistant Claire (Bell) leaves her behind, as does everyone else.

When she emerges from prison, Darnell is determined to become bigger than ever, now further motivated by those who abandoned or hurt her.  Still, she is starting back at square one, and so she pleads with her former assistant for help.  The way forward seems impossible, but Darnell's nose for opportunity leads her to the unlikeliest of "markets" as she attempts to rebuild.

The Boss has a decent cast, but of course, all are subordinate here to the queen of comedy, Melissa McCarthy.  She dives into her new character, and matching wig, with her typical gusto and is the driving force behind everything good in the film.  McCarthy is deceptively good, in fact: her character is truly a rotten egg, an expert at controlling and manipulating others without any regard for them, not to mention an enormous ego.  Yet while McCarthy presents all that with great skill and makes you feel it, she somehow also makes the character sympathetic and real; the character is not exaggerated (well, in these terms, anyway) and almost feels... normal.  This is all in addition to being hilarious as always, and so McCarthy deserves great credit for her performance.  Dinklage is also fun in a pretty small role.  His character is certainly over the top, but entertainingly so (particularly in the final act).  Bell is fairly bland as McCarthy's straight co-star and is essentially a plot device (albeit one with a lot of screen time).  Among the other supporting roles, my favorites are Cecily Strong (current SNL cast member as Claire's weird post-Darnell boss) and Kristen Schaal (as a timid Girl Scouts troop leader).

The Boss has some very good things going for it... and a lot going against it, too, unfortunately.  As previously mentioned, McCarthy is as hilarious as ever, and her character work is among her best ever.  The movie has plenty of laughs, which is a comedy's first priority, naturally.  There are several standout sets, especially a knock-down, drag-out street fight between rival Girl Scout troops (yes, I'm serious); and Darnell's attempts to "adjust" Claire's wardrobe for a date.  McCarthy also has a great ability to dig out extra humor and interest from otherwise normal scenes, an underrated skill.  However, there's also quite a bit going against The Boss as well.  Aside from a few inspired scenes, the plotting and pacing are awful; not just frequently cliche, but bizarre much of the time to the point that I thought the director and/or writer must be amateurs.  Most elements of the film dealing with Claire are dull, uneven or poorly executed, particularly those dealing with her single-mother status.  To end on a more positive note, the soundtrack was at least quite well selected - so at least you could tell they were trying for the right ideas in most scenes.

***

Overall, The Boss ranks as one of Melissa McCarthy's lesser starring vehicles.  It's certainly not as bad as the 19% it has on Rotten Tomatoes, though.  I would guess this score is driven primarily by the strange, often poor plotting and pacing, which are what most drag the film down for me, anyway.  McCarthy does not have a primary partner-in-crime in terms of humor; if Bell was supposed to serve this role, she failed miserably (at least there are other supporting actors who provide intermittent help here).  However, McCarthy is just so good, and there are enough genuinely funny moments and scenes - and this is a comedy after all, not a serious drama - that however bad some of the other elements might be, they aren't enough to sink the film.  If you're a McCarthy fan, you should check this out; and even if you're just looking for something funny, this is a perfectly fine choice for a Netflix night some time.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48652703

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Zach Snyder
Starring Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Jesse Eisenberg, Amy Adams, et. al.
Running time:  151 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Following on the success of Marvel's Avengers, DC has finally put the two biggest heroes in all of comics into one film: Batman and Superman.  Ben Affleck debuts as Batman, joining Henry Cavill who reprises his role as Superman, and both have their fair share of glowering to do in a decidedly darker (but still PG-13) vision of these heroes.  If you're looking for something lighter or you want a standalone film, you might listen to the critics and stay away.  But it offers a lot, from the action to the story, for those willing to go along and stay for the ride.


Eighteen months after Superman's (Cavill) arrival on Earth, tension around this seemingly noble yet supremely powerful being is reaching a boiling point, both in public and in private.  Many laud Superman as Metropolis' savior, but others - including Senator Finch (Hunter) - view him as a potential threat who must be held accountable.  Across the bay in Gotham, Bruce Wayne (Affleck) also grapples with how to handle him; Wayne is personally driven by the collateral destruction of the Wayne Enterprises building during Superman's battle with another Kryptonian when he arrived.  Still others have interest in the man of steel:  wild-haired (and -brained) Lex Luthor (Eisenberg) obsessively seeks out remnants of the Kryptonians and their ship which had menaced the world.

Batman's anger and frustration with Superman's presence intensifies the brutality of his already less-sanitized crime fighting work.  Clark Kent the reporter gets wind of some of these messy altercations, and before long he becomes determined to end the terror caused by the dark knight.  It seems there isn't room for two superheroes in the world as Superman and Batman set their sights on each other, but they are far from the only interested parties.

Batman v Superman is stuffed with a cast of stars, most of them well-suited to their characters.  Ben Affleck makes his debut as Batman/Bruce Wayne; despite my prior skepticism, he does a very good job in the role.  This version of the dark knight is grumpier and grittier due to years of fighting; gray hair streaks and weary gazes emphasize his long experience.  Affleck fits this brooding demeanor well, though he also gets to show his charisma occasionally through Wayne.  Henry Cavill returns as Superman, having debuted this version of the character in Man of Steel.  As in that film, Cavill is mostly asked to put a conflicted grimace on his face, although he gets one light-hearted scene here.  I'll have more on the character itself later; as for Cavill, he's fine but unspectacular.  The third major part is that of Lex Luthor, the villain played by Jesse Eisenberg.  This Luthor reminds me of a brainier version of the Joker here; it's not very original, but at least interesting to watch.  From what I've seen there is a wide variety of opinion on Eisenberg's performance, and I would say overall it's solidly positive.  He definitely comes off effectively as both smart and mean.

There is a significant supporting cast as well, led by Amy Adams' Lois Lane.  She's another returning player but while the part gets a good bit of screen time, it's underwritten; Adams' talent isn't utilized.  If Superman gets Lois Lane, then Batman gets his support through butler Alfred, played here by Jeremy Irons.  While Batman's a bit older than usual, Alfred seems significantly younger than other versions.  Irons' Alfred is faithful and dry-humored as most are, but he is still a welcome addition.  Other smaller roles include Gal Gadot as Diana Prince (Wonder Woman), shown just enough to give promise for future films; and Laurence Fishbourne, returning as Daily Planet editor Perry White (still a great choice).

Batman v Superman is a flawed film, but still a very entertaining and interesting one.  The director, Zach Snyder, has built a reputation as a visual maestro who can't carry a quality story.  In this film, he retains the former strength while improving significantly on the latter weakness.  Snyder and his writers made the very smart move (IMO) of making Batman the main character and Superman - while crucial - largely symbolic.  It makes sense: Batman is a human and thus more relatable - and frankly, more interesting -  than Superman as a character.  We mostly get Bruce Wayne/Batman's past through brief but effective moments, which is where Snyder's style and visuals really shine.  The shooting of his parents is here yet again - but it actually comes back to play a direct role in the film, which is nice. The main theme is built around Superman: what responsibilities and accountability do heroes have to the people; does the collateral damage and their lack of oversight outweigh the good they do?  While Marvel started this theme earlier (in film), there's really no better representative for it than Superman.

As an interlude, I want to say that the action is quite well done; well-choreographed, and purposeful within the story rather than just for its own sake.  Although there are others, the three scenes that stand out to me the most are two featuring Batman, and then of course the titular hero duel.  The first, chronologically, is nearly as cool a Batmobile chase as the one in The Dark Knight; this one doesn't have the incredible tension, but it's visually spectacular and has a great ending.  The second Batman scene is a pretty ordinary setup but features great choreography as Batman beats the hell out of some bad guys by hand.  And while I had serious doubts about how an actual fight between Batman and Superman could be plausible, this manages it pretty darn well.  The final fight is in some ways another monster mash, but once again, fits well with the story (and introduces Wonder Woman!).

The last element is that which DC is somewhat shamelessly - but effectively - ripping off from Marvel, in building a multi-character world from which to spin off many million (or billion) dollar films.  Is this financially motivated?  Sure.  But it still has very compelling storytelling potential.  Man of Steel, a "solo" film (i.e. Superman's the only hero), kicked off this world, and its final battle - particularly the consequences of it - set the entire stage for Batman v Superman.  There are only a few minutes of flashbacks from the earlier film (from different perspectives this time), but BvS takes what was a weak movie and turns its resolution into a fascinating take off point.  BvS itself carries hints of next chapters but not over much.  The ending - which I won't spoil here - leaves the door wide open, but the exact direction uncertain.  DC may have stolen some of Marvel's ideas, but it has already done even better with several of them.

***

Batman v Superman is very much a popcorn blockbuster, but both the film itself and the reactions to it lead to a lot of interesting thought and discussion; this itself is a victory, I would argue.  Now to address the drubbing BvS has received.  In pure film terms, it's not hard to find flaws; the ones that stand out most to me being continued overuse of moral(e) speeches told to Superman (though they are fewer and not nearly as bad as those in Man of Steel); awkward and/or poor use of Lois Lane; and some deus ex machina.  Still, to me the good elements of the film were more than enough to minimize the impact of the bad.  Others complain that it's another big, loud, overlong slog.  I would counter that it's quite well paced and for crying out loud, it's Batman vs. Superman - of course it's going to be big!  But I think the most underrated element of the film is how well it uses previous material (Man of Steel) to create more compelling ideas and story, and concludes its own chapter while allowing a bigger adventure to grow from it.  Clearly, most critics don't have the patience to discern that or the interest to try; and no one is forced to.  However, if you are looking for a big, fun action movie that asks you to see it in the context of an extended franchise (read: see Man of Steel first), this film has great rewards.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41557090

Zootopia

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Byron Howard and Rich Moore
Starring Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, J.K. Simmons, et. al.
Running time:  108 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Zootopia is yet another animal-based animated film, but it stands out among its peers due to a Pixar-like level of quality.  An odd couple bunny and fox, Judy and Nick, are a strong lead pair and appropriate voice actors are found throughout the cast.  It's also of the moment, with both Judy's empowerment and a broader racial allegory.  Highly recommended for families, it's also smart enough for adults of all kinds.


Despite historically being mortal enemies by the laws of nature, predator and prey live in harmony (and without the presence of pesky humans) in the world of Zootopia.  With this unifying situation, many of this world's denizens believe the other stereotypes of different species no longer matter; one of these is a bright, young, ambitious bunny named Judy (Goodwin).  Determined to make the world a better place, she works hard to overcome her diminutive size and graduate from the police academy. However, when she moves from her small hometown to the big city, she finds that the greater variety of species has not resulted in an equal open-mindedness.  Judy's first assignment is... meter maid.

Still, Judy believes that she can prove herself in her new home.  Staking her career with the police on a case of disappearing citizens, Judy enlists the help of a variety of characters, even con artist Nick (Bateman), a member of her species' worst enemy, the fox.  Biological barriers between species may have ended, but Judy finds that past differences die hard.

Zootopia does not have quite the A-list cast of other recent hit animated films, but the voice actors are well chosen.  In the lead is Judy the bunny, voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin.  Not the most original character, Judy's combination of classic animated bunny cuteness with modern strong, determined femininity is still winning.  Goodwin's voice carries both of these qualities easily, and the animation brings this plucky heroine to life well, particularly her expressive eyes and ears.  Anyone familiar with Jason Bateman's work will find that he fits perfectly into the cynical yet very funny role of Nick the fox.  Nick serves as a great foil-turned-partner for Judy, an intriguing and entertaining part that still leaves the spotlight for her.  Idris Elba and J.K. Simmons are probably the most recognizable of the supporting cast, but my favorites are employees of the police department: Jenny Slate as an adorable-with-an-attitude sheep secretary, and Nate Torrence as a sloppy, obese cheetah with a good heart.

Zootopia is a well-made animated film with a surprising amount going on.  In fact, it's a considerable credit to the writers that it all plays nicely together without feeling forced or bloated.  There are three primary levels to the story itself.  It starts off with Judy's development: she's already a determined, bright spirit when we meet her and she achieves her lifelong goal quickly - but the rest of the movie is about the reality (and difficulty) of doing something with that.  This flows into her relationship with Nick; not only does this touch on bigger "race" issues, it works well as an odd couple.  Finally, about halfway through, a rather overt allegory for the Black Lives Matter issue comes around.  I wouldn't say it's at all forced, or particularly preachy, but admittedly it only works on the surface (a deeper comparison to the real life issues is problematic, to put it lightly).  With good pacing and dialogue that is clear enough for kids yet surprisingly live action-y, this apparent jumble fits seamlessly together.  Of course, this is still an animated film and while the pictures are busier than usual, they're very high quality.  It's also quite funny - not laugh out loud, but I was chuckling throughout.

***

Zootopia is one of the best non-Pixar animated films in years.  While it doesn't match that studio's top films, and the 99% RT rating is a little deceptive, the overall quality is very impressive.  Along with the quality, it has a Pixar-esque focus and maturity.  It isn't quite as clever as Pixar but still has some cool parts - my favorites being a (literally) sloth-run DMV and an entire Breaking Bad-referencing scene.  Judy and Nick are rock-solid leads with good chemistry and voice actors behind them; with the film's resounding critical and financial success I would be surprised if they didn't get a sequel, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.  My main quibbles - which are mostly due to inevitable comparisons to Pixar - are that I didn't feel a true spark of inspiration, more a series of components that happened to work well together; and some stretches are more obligatory than entertaining.  Still, it's a top quality animated film highly recommended for families, and most anyone else, too.



*By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48786765

Deadpool

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Directed by Tim Miller
Starring Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin and Ed Skrein
Running time:  108 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Deadpool is the newest hit superhero film, led by Ryan Reynolds, the actor who campaigned for the foul-mouthed outsider character.  The R-rating is not just for show - this is significantly bloodier, and has a crude sense of humor altogether new to the genre.  To my tastes, both of these were done quite well.  The story is bare-bones origin fare, making way for Deadpool's unique personality to dominate.  A polarizing film in terms of audience; choose for yourself.


Wade Wilson (Reynolds) is living the low life... and while he may not love it, it pays well.  A mercenary in New York, Wilson frequents an underground organization that connects him with clients who need various dirty work to be done.  One day he meets a special woman, Vanessa (Baccarin), and they enjoy a happy relationship for awhile - until Wilson is suddenly faced with a terminal illness.  Resigned to his fate at first, Wilson eventually succumbs to a dubious offer from a strange man to save him.  He turns up at a run down, makeshift medical facility where he learns that the "treatment" will either spur his body to fight off the cancer - or kill him.  Seeing no other choice, Wilson goes ahead with it.

Wilson survives the brutal experience and comes out of it with extraordinary new power, but a completely disfigured body.  Despite having undertaken the treatment for Vanessa's sake, he finds he cannot face (literally) her, and instead his thoughts turn to revenge on his cruel "savior".  With great power comes great responsibility... but some interpret that differently than others.

Deadpool has a somewhat limited cast, but it is good and features a strong performance from the lead.  That role is Ryan Reynolds' title character, a sarcastic, self-aware super-but-not-so-heroic dude.  Apparently Reynolds has tried to get this character his own movie for quite some time, and it turns out that he suits the character pretty darn well himself.  He seems right at home with the bone-deep sarcasm, and so it feels neither forced nor over-the-top; mostly, it is pretty amusing.  The particular tone and pitch of his voice is even appropriate, particularly when he dons his full body- and face-covering red suit; the dissonance caused by what you expect from a costumed hero (Spider-Man, for instance) and the voice you hear and what it says is a genre game-changer itself.  We don't get much deeper into Wilson than this humorously cynical attitude, though.

The villain of the film, Ajax (played by Skrein) is not a stand out, but he's just fine.  With a very asshole-y leer, he is easy to root against, but the writers wisely shape him more as a goon than a supervillain.  The love interest Vanessa, played by Morena Baccarin, is pretty generic, not much to say other than the not-your-average-superhero fact that she's a stripper.  A few lesser-known X-Men are in this, and are played up for their stereotypes - the hulking but noble Colossus, and young, punkish Warhead.  Finally, the best supporting role is certainly T.J. Miller as Weasel, Wilson's friend from his mercenary days.  Weasel is perhaps even funnier than Wilson, and is twice as dry in doing so.

Deadpool is another in a rapidly growing segment of superhero films that is moving away from the traditional earnest/save-the-world style (e.g. Superman).  This film subverts the genre in three main ways:  R-rated humor, language and violence, self-awareness and a not-so-heroic protagonist.  These elements serve as the backbone of the film, an introduction to the colorful, charismatic title character; the story itself is pretty standard origins fare, whose stakes are much more personal than wide-scale.  To me, the humor worked, typically at chuckle-level but there are several laugh out loud moments as well.  Most of the self-awareness is amusing, and fits in well with the tone of the film despite consisting of, literally, asides.  The way this affects the opening credits is probably the best part of it.  The violence is also acceptable, although even I squirmed a few times (oxygen deprivation and a skewering).  The key set piece, a shoot-out on the freeway, actually sets up right at the start (Deadpool isn't chronological).  As it unfolds, it features impressive and creative choreography, and also symbolizes Deadpool's violent, humorous style effectively.  The narrative itself is underwhelming and the climax lukewarm, but again the focus is Deadpool himself, and this generally works well, particularly since the film wraps up well short of two hours.

***

Deadpool is of high enough quality to settle into the second-tier of superhero films, a genre that has developed consistently high quality overall (granted, this is coming from a fan of the genre).  Films like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man paved the way for Deadpool, in fact building a strong appetite for funny, non-traditional superheroes and their stories.  While this first Deadpool film doesn't really suggest any specific, intriguing directions for sequel(s), it does a great job of introducing him so I can imagine a variety of even well-worn scenarios could get fresh, even thought-provoking takes in this world.  Ryan Reynolds capably commands the cynical, foul-mouthed yet fun lead and holds your attention throughout; I wouldn't want a sequel to focus so exclusively on him again, but he is a perfectly good lead.  Finally, remember once again:  this is significantly more violent than other superhero films, and way more crude and potty-mouthed than its genre peers.  If you don't think it's for you, you're probably right.  If that "warning" sounds appealing to you, then definitely give it a try.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46244159

Hail, Caesar!

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Channing Tatum, et. al.
Running time:  106 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Coen brothers' latest film is a Hollywood-based comedy with an impressive roster of stars.  However, it's also a deceptive one; the main focus is not what you (or at least I) thought and screen time is limited for many stars.  I didn't like the change of focus but it is quite funny and both Clooney and new guy Ehrenreich are great.  This will be just right for some, and not at all for others.


Set in 1951, Eddie Mannix (Brolin) is head of production at a Hollywood studio.  While the pay is good and the industry is exciting, his star performers give him plenty of headaches.  The studio's main film in production is the title, starring one of the biggest actors in the world, Baird Whitlock (Clooney).  In the middle of one day of shooting, Whitlock goes missing, but Mannix brushes it off; he has more fires to put out.  One of them is DeeAnna Moran (Johansson), whose surprise pregnancy Mannix is desperate to keep secret.  Another of his stars, Hobie Doyle (Ehrenreich), a singing Western actor, gets thrown into a prestigious drama directed by the esteemed Laurence Laurentz (Fiennes) who is maddened by Doyle's lack of nuance.  As Mannix deals with all this and more, he receives a ransom note: a group calling itself "the Future" demands $100,000 for the safe return of his star Whitlock.

The trouble keeps piling on, as Mannix is confronted by competing twin reporters (Swinton) alleging a Whitlock scandal.  It all makes a recent offer from Lockheed Corporation sound very tempting to Mannix, who could leave all the drama and frustration behind.  But he is determined to keep it all together - one way or another.

As appropriate for a movie about Hollywood, Hail, Caesar! boasts a star-studded cast.  Josh Brolin plays the lead, Mannix, a very competent and calm but weary executive.  He plays the straight man in a cast of colorful characters and does it well; he balances Mannix by keeping him as the anchor of the story but allowing his co-stars to take the spotlight.  George Clooney's Whitlock is the primary "actor" character.  While I almost always enjoy Clooney, he is particularly good here as the confident but bumbling star.  He displays great, nuanced physical comedy and carries one of the film's best scenes in which he builds a serious mood and concludes with hilarity.  Alden Ehrenreich, one of the few faces you won't recognize, plays talented star Hobie Doyle.  Despite his unfamiliarity, he shines in the role and is maybe the funniest part of the whole movie.  Almost the reverse of Whitlock, Doyle is deceptively simple yet good-hearted and able to see what others overlook.  Ralph Fiennes has a pretty small role as director Laurentz (make sure you pronounce it right!) but is noteworthy for how good - and funny - he is.  Honestly, the rest of the big-name cast has small roles not worth going into any detail.  In fact, there are some supporting roles that are more noteworthy.

A mostly light hearted comedy, Hail, Caesar! has both some very good, and some very frustrating, elements in my view.  First, I want to note that the trailer and commercials had me fooled: I thought that the focus of the story was the kidnapping of (and attempt to rescue) Clooney's Whitlock.  That is a significant part of the film, but the main idea is instead a "day in the life" of a Hollywood producer (Brolin's Mannix).  This is not a completely terrible thing, but it took me a long time to adjust to it (I'm probably just slow to catch on).  So, be prepared!  Within that framework, there are some very fun moments.  Clooney and Ehrenreich's characters, as mentioned, are highlights.  Much of the humor is based on chuckles here and there except those two consistently amusing roles.  Ehrenreich's earnest, patient first attempt at a scene on Laurentz's film is particularly hilarious.  Perhaps even better is a meeting of religious leaders convened by Mannix to determine whether his big new film is acceptable to a variety of faiths.  The barbs thrown around are excellent.  The Coen brothers also take the time to show a few "clips" of fake films from Johansson and Tatum's characters, which are neat though not as entertaining as their co-stars' humor.

While there are plenty of individually entertaining elements here, Hail, Caesar! is overall a frustratingly scattershot film.  This could partly be due to my slowness in orienting to its main idea, but the "day in the life" idea just has little coherence or consistency.  It's often silly, only to abruptly turn to a seemingly much more serious scene... which turns out not to have much depth or consequence.  I guess the Coens just wanted to show a broad view of this world that intrigued them, but I think it would have been vastly improved by eliminating Johansson and Tatum's characters and focusing more on Clooney and Ehrenreich.  I was more surprised when the credits rolled here than I have been in a long time.  I thought, "wait... that's it?"

***

Hail, Caesar! is a fun film to watch, and even more interesting to review thanks to its array of strengths and weaknesses.  This is certainly a film where some people could rate it quite a bit higher, and others quite a bit lower, depending on tastes; I think a "B" is about right.  I want to emphasize the focus (or you could argue, lack of focus) of the film, though, so you know what to expect if you see it.  There's some great humor, including several truly hilarious scenes, and Clooney and Ehrenreich are really fun.  It's just a shame that it's bogged down by superfluous (and not nearly as interesting) elements, along with the odd tonal whiplash.  The appeal of the strengths, as I see them, may be enough to outweigh the weaknesses - if so, give it a try.  Otherwise, a Netflix/rental later could make this a nice change of pace entertainment for a night.





By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48146489

The Revenant

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson
Running time:  156 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Revenant is a wilderness revenge tale, director Inarritu's follow-up to his Best Picture-winning Birdman.  DiCaprio drives the action in an extraordinary physical performance in harsh conditions, allowing the audience to get a sense of his trials.  And the film is beautifully made, all shot on location by a virtuoso cinematographer.  There isn't much story or character drama to it all, but it's such an impressive visual event that it's still well worth seeing.


In the 19th century, skilled hunter and tracker Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) guides a party of fur trappers in the wild, cold frontier of the Dakotas.  While Glass hunts, the camp is attacked and overrun by a tribe of native Americans; only a handful of survivors, including Glass, his half-native son Hawk, and Captain Henry (Gleeson), escape down a river on their boat.  Glass goes against the wishes of many of the men in insisting they abandon the boat and try to get to the safety of Fort Kiowa by foot.  The captain takes his advice, but before long Glass is savagely mauled while scouting ahead.  The others stabilize and carry him, but the natives are still in pursuit and so Captain Henry offers a reward to two men to continue carrying Glass until he dies, while the others go on ahead.

Fear and personal reasons soon leads one of the men, Fitzgerald (Hardy) to betray his promise, and Glass is left for dead, even partially buried.  But the experienced, resourceful Glass is not yet ready to give up, and finds a powerful new drive in his desire for revenge.  From his grievous wounds to the bitter cold to the prowling natives, Glass faces a formidable challenge just to survive, but none of it can bend his will.

The Revenant has a small but effective cast, with familiar faces literally thrown into the wild.  Leonardo DiCaprio is the lead as Hugh Glass, and his performance is deserving of the Oscar he has been nominated for.  It is a physically arduous role, as the film was shot entirely on location; while it may have helped DiCaprio capture the grueling nature of his predicament, it was surely quite difficult.  There isn't much character depth here (more on this later), but the sheer relentlessness and drive evident in his performance is very impressive.  Tom Hardy is the "villain" Fitzgerald, who leaves Glass behind.  This type of role seems to suit Hardy quite well (The Dark Knight Rises) and he is easy to root against, as well as quite menacing in his fierce individualism.  But he is also the worst culprit in an overall trend - it's difficult to understand what he is saying, especially early on.  You thought his Bane was hard to make out?  This was much harder for me.  There are some supporting roles, most recognizably Domhnall Gleeson as the trapper Captain, but none particularly stand out.

The Revenant, a wilderness revenge tale inspired by true events, has both some great strengths as well as weaker elements that hold it back.  The filmmaking itself - the very images on screen - is outstanding, which is particularly rewarding within the setting of a story like this.  It is beautiful from the very first frames, of simple dark, running water through a forest, continuing through the use of only natural light and so on.  The camera work is very intimate, almost always right up close to the characters (particularly Leo's Glass) which pulls the audience into the experience.  It's not surprising the quality, considering it's cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who also did the stunning work on Children of Men, Gravity, and Inarritu's Birdman.  The action is inventively done and exciting, such as the native American attacks which provide a sense of chaos.  And of course, the mauling scene with incredibly realistic CGI beast, so real that I kind of felt bad for it when Glass finally manages to off it.  As pure scene-to-scene imagery and interest go, The Revenant is a superbly made film.

However, The Revenant is not particularly engaging on just about any other terms.  The story is a simple one, and depends on the audience sympathizing with either Glass' "background" attachment to the deceased mother of his half-native son, and/or rooting for Glass to get revenge on Fitzgerald.  I didn't think either one was effective.  The wife-son element seemed generic to me and yet distracting at times to the better parts of the film; and there's so much focus on Glass just surviving (quite understandably) that revenge seems like an afterthought.  The film is also just too long, even if it is visually interesting throughout.  Watching Glass survive in the wilderness is the strength of the film... but even that starts to lose its impact over time.

***

Thanks to the strength of the filmmaking, The Revenant is a very good film, a nice way to start the year in film for 2016.  Along with Leo's impressive physical performance, it's probably deserving of its Oscar nominations.  Quite simply, I'm not sure I can think of a more visually-engaging and -dazzling film in recent years, and following Glass' journey provides a sense of both the exciting and the grinding nature of his struggle.  But with very little behind that, to me it is an impressive technical accomplishment more than a great film.  It would be a big mistake, in my opinion, if this won Best Picture over Spotlight or The Big Short; even co-star Hardy's other nominee, Mad Max, is a more well-rounded film.  Still, if you can stomach some intense violence (or at least turn away when it comes up), then The Revenant is certainly worth seeing, especially on the big screen.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48337450