Darkest Hour (2017)

SUMMARY

Covering the first several weeks of Winston Churchill’s term as Prime Minister of England, this film meditates along with him, and England itself, as it is decided how they will respond the the Nazi sweep over Europe’s mainland; sue for peace or go to war.

My Thoughts

I think it’s wonderful that we get this film the same year as Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan). This movie covers some of the same time period but where Dunkirk seeks to put you on the beach, in the boat, and in the cockpit, Darkest Hour puts you in the seat of power. You get all the information, all the politics, all the personal stories that the leader of this country gets, and you get to live in the full weight of what decisions he will make.

You see the deliberation over sending men to their deaths, the self doubt that causes one to wonder whether the decisions that have been made were right, and the pain of being unsupported and even undermined by those who disagree.

The movie is a little slow. If you are expecting a war film with soldiers charging across the battlefield, you will be disappointed. This is a very deliberate character study. There is really only one large decision that gets made in the film with a couple supporting smaller ones. This story is not about what happens but how and why and through whom it does.

That being said the most crucial thing in this sort of film is the acting, which is solid all around. Everyone is great, but let’s face it, this is Gary Oldman’s movie and he does not disappoint.

He disappears into the role seamlessly. The prosthetics are great, but we all know from other films, that is only a part of the transformation. The mannerisms, speech patterns, and gait, while I have no idea how accurate, cause you to forget that the person you are watching is an extremely recognizable actor. You forget that he isn’t an overweight foreign leader almost completely, and so the immersion that you as an audience member are able to achieve in this movie is the antithesis of our current ages fascination with blockbuster tent poles and celebrity.

If you watch a Tom Cruise movie you see Tom Cruise and I defy you to name Mark Wahlberg’s character name in the Transformers franchise.

But here, the man on screen is Churchill through and through. Listening to his speeches as he stirs a country to war, despite their trepidations you understand why he was EXACTLY the leader that England needed at that time. Even I, in my seat, a non-violent borderline pacifist, found myself gripping my armrest almost waving my ticket stub in the air, saying “Here here.”

A simply stunning performance.

VERDICT

I enjoyed this film immensely. It is perfectly primed for me to. I’m the target audience for this movie. I’m a film aficionado, history buff, and armchair student how what make people tick. If that is you, you’ll love this film.

It’s also a pleasure to be able to recommend a film about war that doesn’t glory in the carnage of battle. So many great films I could never recommend to certain audiences because of the violence but as most of this film takes place in committee meetings and war rooms it’s remarkable mild in its violence.

Same with language. While there are certainly swears in this film, they are not the sort of casually thrown out profanities that we are accustomed to in our culture of R-Rated Comedies. I would venture to say you will here far more swearing at a high school football game than in this film.

All in all, I would highly recommend this film to anyone with similar interests in history, or if you are just a mature enough person to handle the pacing and want to see a brilliant performance by a veteran actor.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

Dark City (1998)

Summary:

A man with no memory awakes in an apartment to find a murdered woman beside him. In an attempt to learn his identity and the truth about the city in which he resides, the man becomes caught up in a twisted game of cat and mouse, only to find things are not at all what they seem.

My Thoughts:

I wanted, so badly, to love this movie.

The first minutes of this film were tailor made for my tastes. From the incredibly bizarre opening scene featuring an Igor-esque scientist played by Kiefer Sutherland (“The Lost Boys”); to the creepy, pale, corpselike men going about the city in their peculiar ways; to the shadowy, noir-like cinematography- this movie had me- hook, line, and sinker. The film continues to inspire suspense and surprise as it goes on, but seems to really loose focus towards the third act. Still, while this movie is not perfect by any means, it’s unique aesthetic alone puts it miles ahead of your average, run-of-the-mill blockbuster.

Reader’s Note: Before I go too far, though, I want to say that this film is best seen without any prior knowledge. I went into this movie blind as Ray Charles; I knew only that it was a sci-fi mystery. There will inevitably be some (minor) spoilers peppered throughout this review, but I will shy away from any major plot twists.

A man without memory (Rufus Sewell, “A Knight’s Tale”) awakens in a dark apartment where he discovers a woman covered in blood; the blood, inexplicably patterned to look like inward spiraling swirls. Suddenly, pale strangers in long black trench coats appear at the door. The man, confused and frightened, flees the strangers, but as he does, he discovers that the white strangers in black cloaks have a sort of telekinetic power, and to his shock, he too seems to possess a small inkling of that same power. As the story progresses, the man discovers his name, John Murdoch, and that he is married to Emma Murdoch (Jennifer Connelly, “Phenomena”). John and Emma reunite. John is still without his memory, but he’s begun to piece together bits of his life; with Emma’s help, he hopes to find out what is happening on the streets of the mysterious city.

Meanwhile, Inspector Bumstead (William Hurt, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence”) makes an entrance at the apartment where Murdoch first awoke. (Side note: Hurt easily gives the best performance here- I’ve come to love Hurt for his characteristic subtlety and monotone mumbling; Bumstead’s character benefits immensely from Hurt’s portrayal.) He is charged with the investigation of the woman murdered. Bumstead, while searching the apartment, finds evidence of Murdoch at the scene of the crime. He goes to Emma, hoping to find John. Emma attempts to convince Bumstead that John is innocent, and that there is something much larger going on behind the scenes. For reasons he can’t quite understand himself, Bumstead believes her.

Meanwhile meanwhile, (a lot happens in this movie, which is surprisingly under two hours in length) Dr. Schreber (Sutherland), an enigmatic scientist, works on a secret project for the strange men in black cloaks. I won't go into what’s going on here; as to do so would be to give away some of the twists.

There’s so much going on in this movie. The three main storylines overlap and weave through each other, for the most part, seamlessly. There are problems, however, many of which come from the length of the film. Like Alice after ingesting the “Eat Me” cakes, the story was much too large for the room it was given. I think this movie could’ve been great- a true sci fi classic- if it had been allowed to breathe.

There are many things done very right in this story- first is the setting. In a good story, setting is just as much of a character as the actual humanoid characters; setting can be moody, murky and brooding or cheery, colorful and bubbly. Setting is the invisible character that provides mood, backstory and crisis by simply being there. In this story, the crepuscular city is a more interesting character than many that live within it.

The design of “Dark City” lends itself to the incredible- the buildings (minor spoilers) move and grow into themselves, morphing old brick and steel into new architecture. This, right here, gives the world of “Dark City” plenty of intrigue. Even from the beginning, we know something is amiss with this tenebrous town, and Murdoch seems to be the only one attuned to the amorphous nature of the city. The dated special effects, it must be noted, do take away from the film, and while they don’t look terrible, it is distracting. The effects crew had a hard job to pull off; in some scenes they succeeded admirably, and in other scenes, particularly the climax, they failed; but the effort is still quite admirable.

The Good:

Alex Proyas has created a nightmarish pseudo-bureaucratic dystopia that is even more interesting than the world in which he set “The Crow”, and that in it of itself, is rather impressive (“The Crow” is another movie that, even with its flaws, I still enjoy the heck out of). These worlds have depth, and they hint at even deeper backstories. But I wanted more from this world. I easily could’ve watched another twenty or thirty minutes and not have been bored. In Proyas’s 90’s films, setting seemed to be everything, and it paid off. Proyas was onto something in the 90’s; sadly his latest works- “Knowing” and “Gods of Egypt” - have left a lot to be desired.

The story, though at times convoluted, is an interesting adventure in storytelling. There are plenty of twists, but if the viewer is paying close attention, they should be able to piece together what is happening before the end, as I did. Strangely, though I was able to take a guess at what was happening, that doesn’t make the film overly predictable- there is so much going on that there are bound to be some surprises along the way.

The Bad:

This film was so close to great, but it missed the mark a few times, and as a result, I imagine it is only a pale shadow of what Proyas envisioned. As I mentioned before, the third act is where the story really loses its focus. Near the end, all of the storylines are whirring about in a chaotic fashion- the storylines are like atoms in a particle accelerator- and as they collide, the result, as can be imagined, is explosive.

Now, ‘explosive’ could be taken by many to mean a great compliment to the movie, but that is not my intent. When I say the movie’s climax is explosive, I don’t mean that I was at the edge of my seat and I thought my eyes might pop out of their sockets. No, what I mean is that the film devolves into deliriously hectic pandemonium. I won't give anything away because “Dark City” is still 100% worth watching. But know that near the end, viewers are bombarded with twist after twist after twist and then, on bated breath, they are catapulted into a less-than-stellar special effects extravaganza that sadly looks, after nigh twenty years, slightly silly. The streamlined ending leaves the viewer little time to react to any of what is happening until after the climax has happened, the denouement has been hastily rushed past, the film is over, and the credits are rolling.

Verdict:

What started as a truly remarkable film ended up being a decent movie; there is a skeleton of a great film beneath all the bits that didn’t work. This movie is truly one of a kind. Watch it for the unique craziness that it is; there aren’t many films that boast this much originality, and even if this one doesn’t work on every level, it absolutely succeeds in entertaining the viewer from start to finish.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Heaven Knows What (2014)

Summary:

Harley is a homeless teenage heroine addict living in New York City  desperately trying to navigate the grim ghettos of dealers and users. She survives by panhandling and backstabbing friends for her drugs, all the while flirting with her on-again-off-again psychotic boyfriend, Ilya, and the idea of suicide.

My Thoughts:

This film is BLEAK.

Inspired by the unpublished memoirs of lead actress, Arielle Holmes, “Heaven Knows What” is the story of Harley, a homeless heroine addict living in New York City. One of the most interesting tidbits about this movie is the fact that the lead actress is portraying a fictionalized version of herself. Discovered while she was panhandling on the streets, Arielle Holmes was encouraged by directors Josh and Benny Safdie to write a memoir; “Heaven” is the product of her memoirs and some fictional happenings added by the Safdie brothers. “Heaven” was Arielle Holmes’s first credit as an actress.

The film starts with Harley (Arielle Holmes, “American Honey”) as she sits in a library, writing a suicide note to her boyfriend. She’s made a mistake, and Ilya (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out”) is angry with her. She believes the only way to redeem herself is through death. She writes a suicide note, telling Ilya that him she loves him, and he gives her reason for living. She delivers the letter to Ilya and he, without reading it, tears it to shreds and lets it fall to his feet. Ilya tells Harley to prove that she loves him, so she buys razors and, with his prompting, she slits her wrists in front of him.

From there, Harley is taken to a hospital. When she gets out, she goes to score drugs without a second thought. Despite the warning of her friend, Skulky (Ron Braunstein, “Good Time”), Harley meets up with her dealer, Mike (Buddy Duress, “Good Time”). After spending the night with Mike, Harley begins living with him, panhandling for money to buy food, drugs and alcohol.

This film is a remarkably harrowing character study. Most of the time, the plot takes a back seat- it doesn’t go much further than Harley trying to get money or drugs- but the plot is not the thing that drives this story; what drives the story is the tumultuous, destructive chemistry between characters. This film gives us a passenger car filled with characters to care about, and all of them are barreling blindly towards an inevitable train wreck, and honestly, it’s impossible to look away.

Arielle does an amazing job portraying Harley, which makes sense considering the character is based on her. As she wanders through the streets, bleary-eyed and dejected, continuously making decisions that will sink her further into her habit and further into trouble, we can’t help but feel sorry for her. She inspires so much sympathy, but at the same time so much frustration. You want to help her, you want her to help herself, but time after time she disappoints and fails.

But she keeps trying. She is determined. And though her determination is misplaced- directed towards finding enough drugs to keep her from getting sick- we still can't help but hope she does the right thing next time. She is such a beautifully broken, schismatic character. I found myself drawing many comparisons between Harley and Rodion Raskolnikov. She is a slave to her heroine as Rodya was a slave to liquor; both characters are poor but do nothing to rectify their situations, despite many opportunities to do so; both do things that cause themselves and others harm without thinking them through, turning to violence on impulse, lashing out at those who help them; both characters are reckless and put themselves at great risk for minimal gain.

I suppose many people could look at this movie and see only sadness, only darkness. It is a sad story, that much is true, but it’s important to look beyond the circumstances in which the character find themselves, to try and find some semblance of meaning, some light in all this. Harley is always looking for redemption no matter where she goes, she’s just always looking in the wrong places; but she is at heart, despite all her flaws, a good person.

This is one of the reasons why this movie is so good: because it convinces you to root for a character so deeply flawed, so horribly broken, that it gets you to want to believe in some sort of redemption for her. I found there is so much beauty in this film. Down among the broken hearts, slit wrists, needle-pierced veins, and drug-riddled minds- in the trash-filled gutters of our society, people can still find love; it might not be whole or perfect, but they can still find it.

The Good:

Arielle Holmes is amazing as Harley, Caleb Landry Jones is fantastic as Iyla, and Buddy Duress is great as Mike. None of the actors here (save Caleb) have big credits, but most of them really hold their own on screen.

But the real talent here is behind the camera, with the writing and directing. The Safdie brothers are incredible. Though the story draws on the almost meditative state in which Harley lives her life, the direction is anything but meditative. Colors are at times vibrant and rich, and other times dull and drab (much like the schismatic nature of Harley and the high and withdrawal of her drug). Some scenes linger, while others are quick and intense. The brothers show an incredible amount of range in such a short time frame, something they do again in “Good Time”. Their work will be something to watch for; though their next film, “Uncut Gems”, which has Jonah Hill attached to star, still has no release date.

The Bad:

The content matter is very disturbing; the whole story focuses on a teenage girl’s addiction and the addictions of those around her. You really have to look through the darkness to see the light in this film; but the light is there, if you search for it, and it is beautiful.

Verdict:

This is a great movie, but it is not for everyone. There are plenty of trigger warnings: drugs, violence, domestic abuse. But it's important to remember that this stuff really does happen, and there are teens that are going through what Harley went through right now. So often we get caught up in the comfortable bubbles of our own world and forget how much pain some people experience every day. I believe if you can look at this movie for what it is, not a picture of a good, noble person, but a portrait of a broken person searching for redemption, then this film is an incredible odyssey to experience.

Closing thought: I don’t know where Arielle is now, but I pray that wherever she is, she’s well. After completing her work on this film, Arielle asked the Safdie brothers to help her in recovery, and they brought her to a treatment facility in Florida. She has since has been in two other films: “American Honey”, and “2037: Winter’s Dream”, but her IMDb page shows no upcoming projects.

This film was dedicated to Ilya, Arielle’s real life boyfriend, who died of a heroin overdose in 2015.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)

Summary:

Bradley Thomas is a down on his luck ex-boxer forced to turn to drug running to make ends meet; through a series of misadventures he winds up in prison. But it gets worse- his pregnant wife is kidnapped by the cartel that Bradley used to work for, and unless Bradley can kill a high-profile inmate, who's being kept in the high security ward of the prison, the cartel’s surgeon will perform an experimental procedure to hew the limbs from his unborn child.

My Thoughts:

Last year, I checked out Zahler’s “Bone Tomahawk” at the recommendation of a friend. The violence in “Tomahawk” was absolutely brutal, and though the story was somewhat slow and probably could’ve been trimmed by a half hour, the movie was worth watching (provided you’ve got a strong stomach.) When I learned of “Brawl”, I was eager to see if Zahler could live up to “Tomahawk”, and I was not disappointed. “Brawl” is better than “Tomahawk” in many ways; it’s an epic tale of violence, revenge, and justice.

Bradley Thomas is a hulking ex-boxer with a large black cross tattoo on the back of his skull. In the first scene, Bradley is fired from his job, and upon arriving home and he finds his wife (Jennifer Carpenter, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”) talking on the phone with another man. After a brief confrontation, she admits she’s been cheating. Bradley tells her to wait inside, and as soon as she closes the door to their house, he begins to beat his wife’s car with his bare fists. He breaks a window, pulls out the headlights, rips the hood off and throws it across the yard. The way Bradley does this is methodical, slow; he takes his time; makes every punch count. It’s the way he does everything. Bradley slowly tearing apart this car piece by piece becomes a metaphor for the whole film.

His anger abates, and Bradley goes inside to talk to his wife. He’s not angry with her, he knows things have been bad, and he promises he's going to do everything in his power to make things better. He goes to an old acquaintance (Marc Blucas of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) who helps him get into the drug running business. Time passes, and Bradley is at the top of his game again; his wife is happy, pregnant- their lives are going the way they want.

But alas, good things are not meant to last.

(Mild Spoilers)

During a drop, two new runners accompany Bradley. Bradley senses something is wrong and suggests they walk away, but the new runners refuse. Cops descend on the smugglers as Bradley watches from afar. One of the cops takes a bullet, and Bradley knows he can’t stand idly by. He approaches the drug runners from behind and kills them. The cops then arrest Bradley and he’s sent to jail (the judge gives him a light sentence for helping the cops.) As Bradley arrives in jail, he receives a message from the cartel: you killed our men, we’re going to cut the limbs from your unborn child unless you can kill someone for us- an ex-cartel member who’d ratted them out, who is being kept in the most secure location of the prison Bradley is being held. Bradley agrees to kill the man to save his wife.

(End of Spoilers)

Vince Vaughn deserves far more credit than he gets. In the underwhelming second season of “True Detective” he gave a standout performance, and in “Hacksaw Ridge” he did the same, but this movie is a milestone for him. Vaughn absolutely kills it (no pun intended) as the stoic, straightforward, no-nonsense, anti-hero Bradley; he dominates every frame of the screen, he has more presence than any of the other actors, by far. Even veteran actor Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”, “Django Unchained”), whom plays Warden Tuggs, pales in comparison to Vaughn.

The deliberate pacing in this movie allows for the characters to breathe and adjust to their environments before making rational decisions on what to do next. Though the word ‘Brawl’ is in the title, none of the violence is unwarranted; all of it is necessary to the story. The style of violence, too, is deliberate. The meticulous way that Bradley destroys the car at the beginning of the film is how he fights the entire movie. Bradley is an ex-boxer; he defends himself when he knows he’s going to take a hit, then packs a wallop when finds his opening. The violence is slow, but so brutal. There are broken limbs, bashed faces, beatings with barbells, headshots and much more. The camera likes to linger on each hit, making you feel the impact of every blow Bradley takes or deals out. The taught thriller builds towards the end, gathering speed as Bradley works his way through different cellblocks towards his mark.

The characters in this film are all believable, and though they commit crimes and horrible acts of violence the writing makes us sympathetic towards them. Vince Vaughn’s character in particular stays on a straight and narrow path- he knows what he has to do, and he never strays from that path, even if it means a lot of pain for him. He wants to do right by his wife, and nothing will stand in his way; he is a very commendable character in that regard. The tattoo of the cross, featured prominently throughout the film, seemed to be a symbol of a kind of sainthood achieved by the martyrdom Bradley goes through.

There’s no way to beat around the bush here; some of the effects look really bad. Really, this is the only issue I had with this film. There are some scenes where the victims of Bradley’s beatings are clearly mannequins. It is quite distracting, and honestly takes the viewer out of the movie a bit. Strangely, I said the same thing about some of the special effects in “Bone Tomahawk”. Zahler needs to find someone else to do his practical effects.

Verdict:

The movie is entertaining as all get out; intense, thrilling, satisfying, and even a little emotional at times. This is one thriller that has, sadly, flown under the radar, but it is well worth checking out if you get the chance. If you like this, keep your eyes on the horizon; Zahler has reteamed with Vaughn, Carpenter, and Johnson (and added Mel Gibson) for his next film, “Dragged Across Concrete”, which, if the title is any indication of content, could provide another bloody thrilling ride.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Bright (2017)

Summary:

In a quasi-fantastical alternate universe, two LA cops- one an Orc, and the other, human- must navigate the underworld to obtain a magic wand, which, if in the wrong hands, could be used as a deadly weapon.

My Thoughts

As an avid fan of all things fantasy, I looked forward to this movie with warranted skepticism. We fantasy fans have been hurt before, and recently (looking at you, Hobbit trilogy, “Warcraft”, “The Dark Tower”, etc.). Fantasy stories are hard to do right, primarily because the worlds in which the stories take place need so much work in order for them to feel like they have depth. Good fantasy films have rules for their magic systems, there are consequences when magic goes awry, races or species have deep cultures and backstories. Good fantasy stories create entire worlds that we can escape to.

This is not a good fantasy film.

The world in this film seems like a Frankenstein’s monster created from the mismatched limbs of other fantasy worlds. Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files is obviously a rather large influence as far as feel and tone, but Ayer pulls creature designs from Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft, Harry Potter and plenty of other mainstream fantasy worlds. Vague backstories and even vaguer prophecies make for a poorly established setting. The elves are in an elevated status, better than humans and orcs, though there is no real reason given for this elevation. Humans are in the middle, and orcs are at the bottom of the heap because they worshipped a dark deity two thousand years ago (I want to make note that the film uses this scrap of backstory to take several thinly-veiled jabs at religion). Other than the looks of the characters, however they all behave relatively the same (the races have different languages, but don’t think they went full Tolkien and developed dialect. It’s all mumbled jargon). The orcs mention a coming of age blood ritual, and that’s about the most insight we get into any of the species cultures. This isn’t a thought out fantasy world, it’s as half baked as they come.

Enough about the underdeveloped world of Bright, what about the actual story- does it offer anything new and exciting? Does Will Smith knock it out of the park? Is this Ayer’s best movie since he wrote “Training Day”?

No.

Will Smith stars as Ward, a character whom has been cut from the same cloth as the other loudmouthed, brazen anti-heroes Smith has been known for playing his whole career. Have you seen “Independence Day”? “I, Robot”? “Men in Black”? “Wild Wild West”? “I Am Legend”? Okay, well, you know what you’re getting into. Alongside him, heavily caked in layers of grey-blue orc makeup, is Joel Edgerton (“Gringo”) as Jakoby, the first orc allowed on the LAPD. Ward is not happy about being assigned to Jakoby, as he thinks the orc will only cause trouble, and he’s not shy about voicing his views to his fellow officers. His ‘racist’ views towards Jakoby make Ward’s character even less likeable, but Ward is not wrong in thinking Jakoby’s presence will cause issues; within the first few minutes of the film Ward takes a point-blank shot to the chest from a large-gauge shotgun. Don’t worry- the wound has absolutely no effect on Ward because he was wearing a bulletproof vest, which, given the vest's divine durability, must have been made of mithril.

Plot holes, ridiculous twists, and cringe-worthy dialog string together the action scenes, none of which are remarkable. Screenwriter Max Landis (“Chronicle”), said he drew heavily from Ayer’s earlier works, particularly “Training Day” and “End of Watch”, and this is incredibly evident. There is a twist in “Training Day” that is repeated almost scene for scene in “Bright”; just replace Mexican drug runners with orcs. The writing is lazy; adding orcs and elves into a cliché storyline doesn’t make the storyline more original.

The story tries to poignantly touch on hot social issues like police brutality and racism, but the bullheaded way in which the film approaches these issues ends up totally negating anything it wants to say. Metaphors unravel if you pull at the slightest thread. Jabs at police brutality end up coming off as insensitive and slightly silly. There is a scene where Ward and Jakoby drive up on cops whom are mercilessly beating a few orcs with batons; instead of stopping the cops from beating the orcs or helping the cops arrest them, Ward gives Jakoby a lecture on the meaning of loyalty to the badge. Brutality unfolds behind them while they casually chat in their vehicle; they drive away without giving lending help or even giving a reason for their stop.

I’d be remised if I didn’t mention makeup and creature effects, which look to pull inspiration from the earlier episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (think Xander fighting the praying mantis teacher in S1 E4- Teacher's Pet); the makeup on every single humanoid character is distracting. It’s hard to see any sort of emotion on Jakoby’s face underneath the layers of makeup. “Is he crying?” My roommate asked during one scene. “I don’t know,” I responded. “He’s staring at the ground… so that must mean he’s sad, right?”

But, hey… let’s be real for a minute. Anyone who has intentions to watch a Will Smith fantasy/ buddy-cop/ action movie must know that the film will never win any Oscars (nor any other awards for that matter); the real reason you’d watch this movie is pure, simple, mind-numbing entertainment. So, does this film succeed in entertaining the viewer at least?

No.

I watched this film with my roommates, and after about a half hour, one of my roommates stood, stretched, and said dryly, “I think that’s about enough of that.” He was the smart one. Alas my other roommate and I were already committed. We were like Dante and Virgil in Inferno. We’d passed under the gates warning us to ‘Abandon all Hope,’ and the only way out was through Bright's seven circles of hell, where the end of the film and the credits lay waiting. We would finish the film, and suffer the consequences (mainly boredom).

The action in this film is dull; the gunfights are uninspired, and the magic used is wishy-washy, and the powers granted by this wand are very vague, so we don’t exactly know what could happen if the wand were to fall into the wrong hands. We’re told over and over again that the wand can be used to (yawn) resurrect the Dark Lord, but the implications of this are left for the viewer to decide. Will the realm of Hades bleed over the earth? Will this Dark Lord be worse than Hitler, Caligula, and Vlad the Impaler combined? Who knows, and who cares? The writer and director clearly didn’t, so why should you?

If you are looking for something dumb and (at times) fun, then you could watch this, but please know there are a million other movies out there that are more worthy of your time. Yes, this may be free with your Netflix subscription, but remember that watching this helps Netflix justify putting out subpar product.

If you keep watching crap, they’ll put out more crap.

The reason Hollywood doesn't invest in truly original concepts is because American viewers are okay with sub-par schlock. Critics are panning this movie, as they well should (as I’m writing this, “Bright” is sitting at a 28% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the audience score for this film is much higher, sitting at an 87%.) Lazy writing, unlikeable characters, poorly executed action scenes, and a sad attempted social commentary make for what I would call a very boring, generic movie, but apparently it’s just what the people of America are looking for (“Bright 2” was announced two days before “Bright” dropped on Netflix). Just because something has magic in it does not mean it is magical.

Verdict

Ultimately, the choice is yours- critics everywhere have voiced their criticisms, but that hasn’t stopped Netflix from pressing forward with the sequel. I personally believe that the time I wasted watching this would’ve been better spent trying to melt all the snow in my front yard with a bic lighter. There is a market for this type of movie- it panders to the lowest common denominator. If you’re fine with knowing that what you’re watching is dumber than bovine with brain damage, then by all means tune in.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

The Shape of Water (2017)

Summary:

A mute janitor, responsible for cleaning a government lab during the Cold War, develops a bond with the peculiar creature being housed there.

My Thoughts:

Guillermo Del Toro’s latest addition to the fantasy genre is reminiscent of Pan’s Labyrinth, but in all the right ways. Both “Pan” and “Water” rely heavily on tales from old folklore, myth and legend; and both are magical realism in settings of wartime. While “Pan” tells us a story about the fae, “Water” focuses on mermaids. Del Toro has built a career around his darker fantastical visions; his style is unique in that the magic in the worlds he creates is always secondary to the characters living in that world. He makes us care about the characters; we cry for them when they hurt and laugh with them when they feel happy. As we enter into the fringe of awards season, Shape of Water leads the Golden Globe race with seven nominations for Best Drama, Director, Screenplay, Score and three acting nominations for Hawkins, Jenkins, and Spencer.

Sally Hawkins (“Happy-go-Lucky”) plays the mute janitor, Eliza. Within the first few minutes of the movie, her character’s whimsy sets the tone. She goes about her daily routine in a dancelike fashion, flitting from here to there without a care in the world. It’s hard not to take a liking to Eliza immediately. She converses amiably with her neighbor, Giles, a closeted homosexual, played by Richard Jenkins (“The Cabin in the Woods”). She goes to her job where we are introduced to her effervescent friend and fellow janitor, Zelda (Octavia Spencer, “The Help”). They spend their time mopping the shadowy halls of the facility, Zelda chatting amiably away, until something is brought into a chamber; a large cylinder reminiscent of an isolation chamber, inside is one whom the credits have dubbed Amphibian Man (Doug Jones,“Hellboy”).

In the minutes after learning about the existence of this creature we are giving the foundations of the plot. Michael Shannon’s (“Fahrenheit 451”) tenacious, unflinching character, Richard Strickland, reveals that he’s dragged Amphibian Man out of the dark depths of the Amazon all the way to this tiny seaside town to find out what makes the creature tick, hoping that in studying the creature they might make a breakthrough in breathing without air- something he believes could be very useful in the Space Race against the Russians. Strickland is everything Eliza isn’t; where Eliza is a mute, Strickland is always barking commands; where Eliza is bubbly and mischievous, Strickland is always down to business, no nonsense. The two characters dance around each other creating perfect balance in celluloid. Michael Stuhlbarg (“Call Me By Your Name”) plays Dr. Robert Hoffstetler, a scientist first and foremost, but he’s also doubling as a spy for the Russians. With the characters set on the murky stage, the story begins.

Perhaps the best part of this movie is the believability of the actions taken by the characters and the changes they endure as a result. Every character, no matter how small, is dynamic; they all learn something, and different things drive them each of them towards their goals. Even Strickland, the villain of the film, has specific reasons for what he does, and though he isn’t a sympathetic character, he is one who’s actions are easy to understand when looking at it from his perspective. Giles, Zelda, and Hoffstetler, too, all have their own moral dilemmas they go up against, and each one handles it in a way that makes perfect sense for their characters.

The actors here are all veterans of their craft. Of the top billed cast only Doug Jones and Michael Stuhlbarg have yet to be nominated for an Oscar; the talent soaks through the screen without filter. Hawkins and Shannon steal the show for the majority of the movie, but Doug Jones manages to evoke a surprising amount of emotion and convey his curiosity even under all the makeup. Hawkins’s presence is something to behold, as she has next to no actual dialogue, she still manages to captivate the audience through her mannerisms and personality quirks. Her character’s happy-go-lucky nature shifts seamlessly into open defiance against Strickland, a change we are all too excited to witness. Shannon is phenomenal as always. While not nearly as subtle as he was in “Nocturnal Animals” or “Take Shelter”, he gives a chilling performance as a man driven to complete his work, even if it drives him to the brink of insanity.

Another fantastic element, one that rarely lacks in any of Del Toro’s films, is the production design. The film has a teal hue that permeates throughout, water spills, drips and pours over nearly every frame, much of the lighting is done from above and has shimmering elements to it- as if the whole movie were lit underwater. Many of patterns on the walls in the government facility look like ripples or waves. Water being in the title, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that water is featured prominently throughout the film, but Del Toro has found a way to make water flow through this film even when there’s none on screen. The design of Amphibian Man is flawless, and while it’s clearly paying homage to the “Creature from the Black Lagoon”, the design is far improved from the 1954 classic Universal Monster flick. Much like the Faun in Pan’s Labyrinth, the character relies on heavy prosthetic makeup instead of CGI, something that works to the advantage of the aesthetic- the creature feels far more tactile this way.

This is not necessarily a weakness, per say, but it is something that may turn off a number of viewers. The theme of this film revolves around love and the unconditional nature of truly unselfish love. There are brief, fragile glimpses of this type of love through the film; between Giles and the Diner owner, Zelda and the husband she complains about constantly but loves regardless. As the story progresses, a romantic interspecies relationship develops. While the story is meant to convey the idea that all love is valid, some viewers may find the relationship between Elisa and Amphibian Man a bit too strange for them. Indeed, during one of the more physical scenes of the movie I heard exclaimed from the darkened theatre a quiet uttering of the word “gross,” to which there arose a warbling of giggles. I have a hard time believing that those who can’t get past this will fully appreciate the movie; some suspension of disbelief is required for the full impact.

It is a fantasy film, after all.

Verdict

It’s rare that a fantasy film is made this well, and rarer still that the characters are so relatable and the themes are so relevant today. Del Toro has proven time and again that he knows how to create magical worlds with real emotional impact, and though this film doesn’t quite live up to “Pan’s Labyrinth” (a movie I consider to be very close to perfect), it does create a world that is unforgettable, beautiful, and, most importantly, magical. The ancient theme of love conquers all, while well-worn, still has a place in today’s world, and this film does a wonderful job of addressing the fragility and nature of misunderstood love. Fans of fantasy would be hard pressed to find a better genre film this year.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

The Tenant (1976)

Summary:

Trelkovsky is a young bachelor renting an apartment in Paris which had previously belonged to a woman who’d committed suicide. The longer he stays at the apartment, the more paranoid he becomes about the intentions of his callous neighbors.

My Thoughts:

Reader’s Note: Before diving into the claustrophobic world of The Tenant I’d like to address the inevitable elephant in the room that unfortunately comes with every Polanski film. No, I do not approve of Polanski’s personal choices in life, but I do find his work compelling. It also does not escape me that this was the last film Polanski made before becoming a fugitive from the US following the Samantha Geimer incident. Now more than ever, as the #MeToo movement erupts across Hollywood, the question of whether or not we can judge art separately from the artist hangs in the air. I don’t have an answer for that question; you must make that choice yourself. If you’d like to hear more of my thoughts the Polanski /Geimer incident, I urge you to check out my review for “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”.

This film is the final and often forgotten about entry in Polanski’s Apartment Trilogy (following “Repulsion” and “Rosemary’s Baby”). The apartment trilogy is not being a conventional trilogy with a continuing storyline, instead the films center round similar themes of claustrophobia, sexual repression, paranoia and slow descent into madness. These are themes around which Polanski has built a career.

“Filthy little brat!”

When looking for an apartment to rent in Paris, Trelkovsky (Polanski, “The Fearless Vampire Killers”) wanders into a tall, narrow, gothic building where there is a room for rent on one of the upper floors. The vacancy is good news for Trelkovsky, but the reason for the opening, he soon learns, is because the previous tenant threw herself out the window (when touring the room he peers curiously out the window and sees the exact spot where she fell). Before moving in, Trelkovsky meets a curmudgeonly old neighbor (Melvyn Douglas, ”Being There” ) who complains about the woman who’d committed suicide, and all the racket she made. Trelkovsky reassures the man that he’s a quiet bachelor; the neighbor retorts, “Bachelors can be a problem, too.”

So begins the standoff.

One night, soon after moving in, Trelkovsky has a few friends over for a housewarming party, including a young woman named Stella (Isabelle Adjani, “Possession”). They drink, put on a few records, and talk quietly amongst themselves, but apparently, not quietly enough, for soon the neighbors are rapping on the door and calling for the music to be shut off and his friends to leave. Desperate to make a good impression, Trelkovsky decides he’ll keep to himself when he’s home, so as to make as little noise as possible, but in doing so he retreats into isolation. Paranoia sets in. Was there someone watching him from the dark apartment across the road? Is there someone waiting in the stairway outside his door? Who were the people wandering down in the shadows of the street? Is he being too loud as he walks about? Are his neighbors in on some malevolent plot together? What really happened to the woman who lived in the apartment before him?

Many horror films today shy away from the psychological reasons of why things scare us, instead opting for blood, gore and nudity (look at half the films included in 31 Nights of Thrills). Those films are fine if you’re looking to kill some time on a rainy afternoon. By the time you go to bed, you’ll have forgotten about the horrors you saw earlier that day. Not so with Polanski’s films. Polanski shies away from gore and guts, and instead he likes to linger on the terror of confusion. He likes to play with your emotions and make you wonder what’s gathering in the dark corners. Many times the viewer isn’t sure what is real and what isn’t. Even after the credits roll there are some questions left unanswered, or answered ambiguously. The confusion that Polanski creates for the character bleeds from the screen into the viewer’s mind, seeping deeper and lingering longer than any splatterfest today.

Fans of Polanski’s work will recognize the deliberate pacing associated with his other films (“Rosemary’s Baby” in particular); the film starts off slowly before building to its shocking, horrific climax. Polanski dazzles in taking the reins as director, lead actor, and co-writer of this brilliant piece of cinema. As his character sinks further into madness, his performance never slips. He lingers on the things that make us uncomfortable, and delights in shocking us with a disturbing ending. The viewer never really knows what is going to happen next, and even when we think we’ve figured it out, there always seems to be something else we hadn’t expected. As a horror film it succeeds in shocking, exhilarating and disturbing the audience.

Verdict

While I cannot recommend “The Tenant” to everyone, there are certainly people who will see it for the masterful work of art that it is. The film is slow but it is very rewarding for those who stick it out to the end. For fans of 70’s cinema, claustrophobic thrillers and twisty plots this film will be a delight… maybe not a delight- but certainly a thrill.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Ben-hur (1959)

SUMMARY

Judah Ben Hur is a Jewish Prince. When his boyhood friend, a Roman named Messala, is named Tribune of Jerusalem, Judah refuses to betray his people to him. Messala frames Judah for an assassination attempt to advance his career, condemning Judah to death and imprisoning his entire family. Judah swears revenge and will stop at nothing to destroy the man who destroyed his family.

MY THOUGHTS

I’m gonna get this out of the way. This is my favorite movie of all time. That’s not to say it doesn’t have it’s flaws but this is a biased review. This is a film I grew up with and the only real reason I am doing a review of it is because the remake came out this year and I want to do a review of that and maybe an article on it and our culture of remakes.

Why is this my favorite film? I can only get into it so deeply. I could talk for hours, and have, about why I love this film, so everything I am about to say should be taken as a sort of cliff notes version of my opinion.

STORY IS KING

The story of “Ben-Hur” is simply phenomenal. Granted it is an epic with a running time to match its grandeur and with that comes a lot of time to tell the story, but that story is told in a classic style that just isn’t seen much anymore. It is content to let you get to know the characters and not rush through their introductions and conversations, which explore deep motivations. These motivations drive the emotion and action of the film, so even though some of the stylings of the movie seem old fashioned compared to flashier films, the emotion of those scenes land more forcefully than almost any blockbuster you’ll see in the theaters this year.

It may be a long film, but it isn’t a boring one. The story is huge and when the story is big, so is the run time, because in great films, story is king.

IGNORED THEMES

The theme of “Ben-Hur” is another stand out success for me. It’s a theme largely ignored today and especially for the Christian looking for a movie with themes in line with their worldview, it’s a theme more artistically and fairly treated than in most Christian films today.

The theme of this film can be spoken of in two ways for me. The first, is that revenge, even once truly accomplished, can never satisfy the longing the wronged party feels. The second, is that only Christ can heal that which justice can only punish.

These are themes which Hollywood largely ignores today. Most art ignores them. We see plenty of revenge films where a man swears revenge, gets at the bad guy, refuses to take revenge, then is forced to kill the bad guy when they are attacked, but this is not the same. At the end of the day, the bad guy is dead and the good guy gets closure for the wrong that was done.

The problem is that this is not how life really works. This is how stories work but in real life, revenge does not heal. It punishes.

In “Ben-Hur,” the hero kills the villain only to find out that the wound his family has suffered will not heal. The villain dies with forty-five minutes left in the film! What could possibly be left to accomplish in that last act? The director shows that when all of man’s efforts to put things right have failed, the power of Christ is what heals those wounds, by restoring to Judah all that had been taken from him. Revenge could never do that.

This theme, that revenge, even justice, cannot assuage humanity’s desire for resolution and healing is almost completely ignored today and it is a powerful and needed message.

SET PIECES, ACTING, AND EPICS

These three I lump together because they work together to give this film a scale that few others accomplish. “The Ten Commandments”, “Spartacus”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, and “Ran” are all epics on a grand scale, appreciated by critics for their massive accomplishments. “Ben-Hur” belongs on that list.

The set pieces are masterfully done, especially the chariot race, where you never lose track of the action, who is in what place, why they are doing what they are doing, or the emotion that they are feeling at any given moment. The sea battle is terror inducing as you watch dozens of men scramble for their lives as their ship goes down. A ship they have been locked and chained to.

The direction does not shy away from long wide shots and would rather show you the world the characters live in than hide it from you to save money. In fact, it revels in showing you the slow lap of a field of chariots around the Great Circus, just to show you the stage these men will be required to race upon and its epic size and audience.

The acting is from a forgotten and unappreciated age for most audiences but I love it. There is something about the way lines are delivered and even written that gives them a weight which I find myself devouring as it is spoken. While they make pronouncements and speak in every room like they are performing to the back walls, it seems almost natural that they would. The scale of their speech is not so much realistic as it is matching of their surroundings. I see the remake and I think, this man doesn’t talk like a prince, and I have a hard time imagining him talking to an emperor and doing anything but cowering, but Charlton Heston (“The Agony and the Ecstasy”) and Stephen Boyd (“Fantastic Voyage”) speak with authority and power, which befits their station and the scale of this epic.

WEAKNESSES

That’s not to say this film is perfect. It’s not. The acting while many times fittingly large and grand, is sometimes too large and grand. No one will probably ever accuse Charlton Heston of being too subtle an actor.

The treatment of Christ in the film is heavy handed, though I would argue not nearly so heavy handed as in the remake. Luckily, in the day this film was made, people restrained themselves when depicting Christ and this practice saves the movie from making Jesus more of a character than he should have been. Like explosions, films best use Jesus sparingly, rather than splashing him on the screen every chance they get.

Lastly, the film is long. There are definitely sections that could be trimmed and even cut completely (I’m looking at you opening nativity scene and narration.) It was made for an audience with attention spans and youtube has unfortunately put this film out of reach for many.

FINAL THOUGHTS

It’s the greatest. What can I say? I love this film. I recommend it to all of my film friends and none of them watch it. I recommend it to all of my Christian friends and none of them watch it. I recommend it to my in-laws, and wife, and none of them watch it.

I hope someday they do. I hope you do. So here is my final plea.

If you like classic films, watch Ben Hur,

or

If you like epic films, watch Ben Hur,

Or

If you like Christian films, watch Ben Hur.

Just Watch Ben Hur.

On a side note:

Since whitewashing of casts is a current topic in film communities, yes this film whitewashes. However, I would like to point out that one of the main characters, the main love interest and female lead in the film, Esther, is actually played by a Palestinian, Haya Harareet. I just find that to be some interesting casting in an age when no one would have batted an eye.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald