LIBERATED: THE NEW SEXUAL REVOLUTION (2018)

Summary

In this documentary, filmmaker Benjamin Nolot, goes to Florida over Spring Break to learn from College students how they see sex differently than other generations before them and question the consequences and causes of new sexual liberation.

My Thoughts

There really isn’t much of a plot to this film, but that probably doesn’t surprise you. While certain college students do go on a small journey over the course of the film, the focus is really on an analysis of the psychology and sociological realities that shape adolescents as the grow into sexual awareness and involvement in their college years.

The film can be broken down into 4 main sections.

1. What does the current hook up culture look like?

2. How does this affect Men?

3. How does this affect Women?

4. What should we do about it?

I’m going to address each of these sections separately since they each have distinct feels, positive moments, and negative moments.

Hook Up Culture

In the first section, the film argues that the concept of love is absent in most young people’s experiences with sex. The act has become utilitarian in order to protect ones heart from the hurt that seem to invariably follow romantic involvement of any kind. We see lots of scenes of the partners over spring break, hooking up, dancing, and drinking. Most of the guys can’t even remember the names of the girls they sleep with but they revel in showing of how they can introduce themselves to a girl and have her in bed within 15 min.

On the one hand it is shocking to many people, I am sure, to see what the atmosphere at these huge beach parties is like but to anyone who has watched any MTV or gone to college past 2001, it won’t really surprise at all. It certainly sets the scene for the interviews and arguments that we are going to here over the rest of the movie but at times it seems to go a bit far.

One of the things that is argued in this section is that the hook-up culture has so permeated the high school and college cultures that sex based in love is a thing of the past to these kids, but I just don’t quite buy it. Sure, if you wander up and down the Florida beaches over spring break it is going to look like that, or even if you go to a party school over the weekend, but that isn’t the whole picture. The lack of scope in the sample size simply seems a little suspect.

Men

This section sets out to begin answering the films’s main question, “how did we get here?” Basically, it posits that men are raised and conditioned to see sexual conquest as a way of expressing their manhood. Whether this comes from the media or from the reinforcement of friends, adolescents mainly see sexual activity as a way of proclaiming “I AM A MAN.” Thus, bedding women becomes an issue of identity, leading men to believe that they are somehow broken or deficient if they don’t lose their virginity early or don’t have a high body count when they are in college.

It also makes the case that if they were given the chance to operate without pressure provided by society, most boys would be content to leave sexual activity as an activity between people who care about each other rather than just a tally of people they have seen naked.

This section is one of the stronger ones. The testimony of psychologists and professors back up the personal stories nicely. The one weakness in it is that the case for what boys would do without pressure is not especially well made. It is mostly made through a couple personal stories rather than any serious explanation or psychology.

Women

This section focuses on women and the part they play in this hook up culture. While men seek to exert their masculinity by pursuing and conquering, women also want to be valued. As they look around, all the examples they see are thin, beautiful, sexually available women. The boys they like seem to be drawn to sexually available girls, and they learn that if they want to be accepted, it means, playing the sexual game, whether they want to or not. In time, the game itself becomes so engrained that similar to a boy feeling good about being a man when he has sex with a girl, a girl feels the same thrill when a man desires her, not because she feels valued as a person, but because she is desired as a sexual object.

This section, is probably the strongest in the film. The personal stories of the girls they interview are especially moving as we see girls almost instantly regretting their actions and wondering how they got caught up in the moment. It is especially painful as one girl walks the audience through how she felt during the various stages of a wet t-shirt contest.

What Can Be Done

This is the weakest section of the film. Unfortunately the movie has no answer to the question of how to undo what has been done. It sort of suggests that we try to see people as having dignity but gives us no practical way to do that. Telling a person who sees people as objects to stop seeing people as objects doesn’t help them anymore than telling someone addicted to heroine to stop taking heroine. How?

This film has no answers. Instead it simply has more horrific stories of what the future may hold if we do not get ahold of ourselves and learn to see sex differently. Ironically, this film which posits that men and women are thrashing about in the night looking for any thing that feels good even for a moment simply because they don’t believe in anything lasting, offers no lasting solution to their longings.

Verdict

Overall, this film is ok. I do have a couple issues with it though.

The first is that it seems to criticize old mentalities of gender roles like the Male Pursuer and the Female Object, but at the end of the day, it seems to suggest that the onus is mainly on men to be less of a pursuer. This relegates women, once again, to a position of relying on men for their safekeeping and source of meaning. As if men suddenly being more respectful would fix everything even though the film has already argued that it is both boys thinking they are Men by sexual activity, and girls thinking they are Women by sexual activity that are jointly to blame.

Another failure is the opening and closing sequences of the film. Arguably the most “cinematic” scenes they are a great example of why beautiful cinematography without real story behind it is not true cinema. They seem completely disconnected from the rest of the film and could, and I argue should, be cut from the film entirely.

One thing I thought was a wise choice was that even though this film is put out by a Christian organization (exoduscry.com) it isn't a Jesus film. No one gets saved. There is no altar call. Instead it begins a conversation that could lead you down that road but it focuses first on showing the problem rather than distracting people with the religion of the people making the film. It understands Millennial distrust of religion and chooses not to invalidate their message by leading with religion. Even their website focuses on solutions and activities that people can engage in, regardless of religious affiliation.

As I think over how I feel about this film, I do think it is a decent conversation starter but certainly not a definitive word on the subject. Watch it and talk about with your friends or significant others but I wouldn’t take it as a guide to sexual health anymore than I would “I Kissed Dating Goodbye.”

*****CONTENT WARNING*****

This film, while restrained and remarkably respectful, considering its subject, is more graphic in terms of its sexual content that what most sheltered Christians may be used to. Although I would argue most people born after 1985 will find the content tame, one should use discretion and know what each of us can handle without sinning.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

Summary:

A team of scientists, working with volatile material in a space station orbiting the Earth, performs an experiment that could potentially solve Earth’s energy crisis. But when the experiment goes awry, the scientists are put in a grave situation.

My Thoughts:

The original “Cloverfield” turns ten this year, and that film was fine. Not good. Not bad. Fine. Just fine.

There was nothing utterly remarkable about it, though it was a fun, albeit disorienting, found footage thriller. Perhaps the best thing about the first movie was probably it’s clandestine approach to marketing. Before “Cloverfield” was released, the only thing we knew about the movie was from the very vague teaser trailer and the poster featuring a headless Lady Liberty. When I first heard about the sequel, “10 Cloverfield Lane”, I believed it to be completely unnecessary, but upon seeing it, I was pleased to find it was superior to its predecessor. Ditching the found footage gimmick worked wonders for them, the script was tight and tense, and I thought John Goodman completely reinvented himself for his role in that film. The film had resuscitated a franchise that had lay cold and abandoned for the better part of a decade. So when I heard that they were doing a third Cloverfield movie, my ears perked up; I was intrigued. I wondered if they could top the second film, or if, perhaps, this film would be a sign that Hollywood should let this beast die in peace.

My verdict after watching: maybe let the franchise die. It deserves some dignity.

That is not to say that there isn’t some good here; there is. The special effects won’t win any awards, but they don’t look as bad as some things I’ve seen of late; the acting, done by an A- and B-list cast, is absolutely fine (there’s that word again: fine). Chris O'Dowd is the most likeable character, though his comic relief is frequently out of  place. That’s about the extent of the good, however. There are many, many problems with “Paradox”, but the biggest issues are the writing, which is repetitive and sophomoric, and the story, which is utterly ridiculous, and filled with plot and loopholes. I thought about tagging spoilers throughout, but really there are so many ludicrous twists that it’d be hard to write a review without spoiling some things. In lieu of spoiler tags, I’m just letting you know that spoilers follow. You’ve been warned.

Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw, “Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) and her husband Michael (Roger Davies) wait in a long line at a gas station. There is an energy crisis on earth, and several countries, specifically Russia and Germany, are on the brink of war. It’s revealed that Hamilton is going to head up into space to be part of a team that will experiment with the Sheppard Particle Accelerator, which, if successful, could provide energy for the world indefinitely. Flash forward two years, and Hamilton is up in the space station with other scientists, still trying to figure out how to make this particle accelerator work. Among the crew are Schmidt (Daniel Bruhl, “Captain America: Civil War”), Mundy (Chris O’Dowd, “Bridesmaids”), Kiel (David Oyelowo, “Gringo”), Volkov (Aksel Hennie, “The Martian”), and Monk (John Ortiz, “Kong: Skull Island”). Plenty of fodder for the slaughter to come…

Hamilton talks to her husband on Earth through a telecom channel, telling him they only have enough fuel for a few more tests. It’s a bittersweet predicament. Hamilton misses her husband, but knows the work they’re doing in space could be important. The crewmembers go about preparing the next experiment while the news plays in the background. A harbinger warns, in lengthy expositional dialogue, that the experiments could open portals to different dimensions. The man warns that aliens, monster, or demons could come through this portal, but it could also rupture the space-time continuum, meaning that what they’re doing could not only affect the present, but the past and future as well… Perhaps the greatest part of the Cloverfield franchise was that the origin of the creature was shrouded in secrecy. The beast was like Lovecraft’s Cthulhu and the Great Old Ones; terrifying because we could not truly grasp what they were. By explaining where the monster comes from, the creators of the monster have effectively killed that murky mythos, and they’ve done so in a way that makes the beast seem cheesy. This was also the first place I laughed out loud, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other far-fetched ideas to come.

They crew members start the experiment and the ship shudders as the particle accelerator actually begins to work, but then there is a surge of power and crew members have to rush around to put out fires. After this is done, the crewmembers try to get their bearings but are shocked to discover they are no longer orbiting Earth. They hear screaming coming from behind a wall, and without a logical explanation, they open the wall panel to reveal a woman (Elizabeth Debicki, “Widows”) trapped inside, skewered by the inner wires and metal workings. She looks directly at Hamilton and says her name; the delivery is dripping with melodrama, and instead of bringing tension it instead prompted more laughs from my roommates and myself.

Meanwhile, Hamilton’s husband Michael awakens back on Earth to an explosion. He checks his phone and realizes that something horrible has happened, but nobody has an explanation as to what it is specifically. He decides to go to help the victims. How is he going to help the victims? Why is he charging headfirst into a danger zone like a deranged Kenny Loggins? Who knows, but it progresses the plot, so who really cares, right? Michael’s subplot is crudely stitched in throughout the film; every time we break from the space station to rejoin him on Earth, the scenes feel completely unnecessary and out of place. His storyline added nothing, in my personal opinion; they could’ve cut twenty minutes from the film and saved us all some time.

Eventually we learn that the space station has been transported across the galaxy, and not only that, but they’re also, somehow, in an alternate dimension. Cool, thought I, drinking up this tiny bit of goodness like a forgotten houseplant that’s gotten its first taste of water in weeks. I wanted this movie to be good, or at least watchable, so I had retained a bit of hope throughout the first forty-five minutes. There haven’t been a ton of multiverse movies, and none of them have been very good. Maybe this could redeem the rest of the film. Nope. The way the writers approach multiverse theory is silly; even Adult Swim’s “Rick and Morty” provides a more compelling, comprehensive picture of the theory.

The characters in this story continuously make bad decisions for seemingly no reason throughout the film. Why? Because it puts the characters in peril and the producers seemed to want a body count. These people are supposed to be the best of the best; the scientists that all of Earth has put their trust in. Many of the choices they make don’t make any sense at all. It’s frustrating but also unintentionally hilarious. I can’t say I was bored during the movie, but I can also guarantee I’ll never watch it again.

Another major issue I had with the film was the unimaginative production design- particularly the interior of the ship. The set looked like it was a repurposed or forgotten “Alien” setpiece. The hallways were claustrophobic and cramped, the lighting, mostly florescent, made the characters look pale and gaunt. This film looked like any other space-travesty movie you’ve seen: “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “Sunshine”, “Solaris”, even “Event Horizon”… If you’ve seen any of those, then you know what to expect as far as design.

As real scientific theories are introduced and then wildly broken into mumbo-jumbo to fit the purpose film, people on the ship start to die or befall accidents in horrible, but (sometimes) funny ways; worms exploding from faces, arms disappearing through wormholes. During one scene, Chris O’Dowd’s character says that he “Doesn’t know the rules anymore.” Neither do we. There are no discernable rules. The writers seemed to enjoy making stuff up as they went in an attempt to keep the viewer off-guard. We’ll I was caught off-guard by what they had to offer, but it wasn’t in the way they’d have liked. I found myself laughing, rolling my eyes, and making jokes more and more frequently as the film went on. As the risible final shot came onscreen, I said that I prayed they wouldn’t make a fourth Cloverfield movie. But hey, there’s money to be made, and Netflix will apparently greenlight anything.

Verdict:

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is easily the best of the three Cloverfield movies, but the interesting thing about this franchise is that it is an anthology series; none of the characters from previous films appear in the others. Potentially, a fourth film could once again reinvigorate the franchise, but “Paradox” has created a multitude of problems for any future follow-ups in this universe. “Paradox” is not the worst movie I’ve seen this year, but it is a galaxy away from the best (at least it’s better than Netflix’s “Bright”). 2.5 stars out of 5 is the best rating that I can give it, and that’s being generous.

Edit: One day after posting this review I learned that Cloverfield 4 (AKA “Overlord”) is already in post production, and is expected to release later this year. This time, they're opting out of Netflix for a theatrical release. Apparently the film will be set during the WW2 era, so it will play off this film in that the spacetime continuum has been permanently ruptured. JJ Abrams, the producer, has apparently already seen the film, and been quoted saying that Overlord is a "Crazy movie." D-Day paratroopers will fight Nazi's allied with supernatural powers. Well... I can't say that doesn't pique my interest. Watch for my thoughts on that later this year. EDIT EDIT: The Cloverfield tie-in was scrapped, but “Overlord” was alright.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

MARY AND THE WITCH'S FLOWER (2018)

SUMMARY

Staying in the country with her Great Aunt in the country is boring little Mary to tears. With no one to play with really, she follows a couple of neighborhood cats into the woods and finds a blue flower and a broomstick. The rare flower Mary has found gives her magical powers and the broom whisks her off to a magical school with a magical and terrifying secret.

MY THOUGHTS

To be honest, I was i bit disappointed in this film. Maybe it's just that I have been spoiled by Studio Ghibli movies but this first offering from new Studio Ponoc felt like well trod territory to me. If you have never seen Studio Ghibli films like “Spirited Away,” then I suppose this movie would seem extremely innovative. However, I feel about this film the way I felt about Pixar’s “Good Dinosaur”. It’s alright. In fact for an extremely young child it would be preferable to “Spirited Away” since that film is more intense.

That is the problem though. This film seems like a movie a kid might outgrow and certainly I felt like an adult in a kid’s movie as I watched.

That being said, the animation is beautiful. On par with Studio Ghibli movies you can certainly see the roots of the director in that company. Some of the flying sequences are squeal worthy, they are so fun.

But that is really the extent of it. I felt it was too slow, especially when the characters are as simple as these are. Even the story seems very derivative of “Spirited Away,” Narnia, and Harry Potter. What a unique idea. A kid has magical powers and ends up going to a magic school where she finds out that she holds the secret to destroying some great darkness.

Yup. No big twists here guys.

VERDICT

The simplicity of this film is the simplicity of a children’s book. It isn’t bad and even, I think, has its place. If you have young kids and tire of the latest Dreamworks drek and cash grab, this film will be quite refreshing, but if you are just and adult fan of anime, you can probably skip this one.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

Ingrid Goes West (2017)

Summary:

A darkly comedic story revolving around Ingrid Thorburn, a young woman whom becomes obsessed with Instagram star Taylor Sloane, and moves to Los Angeles in order to become part of her life, no matter what the cost.

My Thoughts:

Ingrid (Aubrey Plaza, “Safety Not Guaranteed”) sits crying in her car, scrolling through Instagram, looking at the photos posted by a woman named Charlotte (Meredith Hanger). It’s Charlotte’s wedding day. “#perfect”, the photo is captioned, “#blessed.” Ingrid is furious. She gets out of her car, mascara streaming down her face. We realize she’s been sitting directly outside of the wedding she’s been social-media stalking. She charges at the bride and pepper sprays her for not inviting her to her wedding. Shortly after she’s tackled.

After getting out of a mental institution Ingrid runs into Charlotte at the grocery store. Charlotte, on the phone, speaks loudly, saying that she and Ingrid were never really friends. Ingrid leaves the store and keys Charlotte’s car. Shortly after, Ingrid is looking through a magazine and comes across an article detailing the life of Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen, “Captain America: Civil War”), an Insta-icon living in LA.

Intrigued, Ingrid investigates her Instagram, and comments on a photo. Taylor responds not long after and Ingrid lights up with joy. This little bit of recognition is all Ingrid needs- it’s a piece of floating driftwood for her to cling to after her ship has been battered to bits by a storm. Cling to it, she does. Ingrid withdraws $62,000, an inheritance from her mother, and immediately moves to Los Angeles.

Ingrid rents a house from a friendly landlord, Dan Pinto, (O’Shea Jackson, Jr., “Straight Outta Compton”) before scoping out all of Taylor's favorite spots. Eventually, Ingrid runs into Taylor at a bookstore, but after a brutally awkward attempt at conversation, she leaves unnoticed, feeling unimportant. She decides that more drastic measures need to taken, so she steals Taylor’s dog and holds it until she finds a flyer offering a reward. Ecstatic, Ingrid calls the number listed, and speaks to Taylor's husband (played by Wyatt Russell, “Cold in July”), saying that she found their dog. After bringing the dog to Taylor's home, Ingrid refuses the reward and is instead asked to stay for dinner. From there, Taylor and Ingrid form a tenuous relationship.

As the story goes on, Ingrid becomes closer to Taylor, but her jealous need for attention slowly eats away at her. Any attention Taylor gives to anyone else becomes poison to Ingrid. As the story progresses it’s darkly humorous tone shifts into something more sinister, but it still retains it’s fun disposition. This movie is first and foremost a comedy, but a very dark comedy at that; there are some tense moments, but it never takes itself too seriously. It’s this balance that makes the movie stand out; walking the fine line of creepy and funny is hard to do, but “Ingrid” succeeds admirably.

Plaza and Olsen do great jobs of bringing to light different views and takes on social media. Olsen’s character has an established Instagram following, and to an extent, she lets the following rule her life. She forces her husband, and sometimes even strangers, to retake pictures. She even makes Plaza pose in different ways to make her look better. And while Plaza has virtually no online audience, she still allows social media to dictate her every move- she drops everything at the slightest hint of acknowledgment. This film takes a very real look at what kind of power social media can have over people.

Both of them are incredibly talented actresses, but it’s Plaza who really steals the scene here; her creepy-but-still-likeable portrayal of Ingrid is probably one of the best roles I’ve personally seen her in. Olsen does a great job as well, but her character wasn’t given as much depth as Plaza; though it is interesting to watch Olsen carefully cultivate her public Instagram personality.

The film is extraordinarily entertaining, though at times, it's slightly predictable. For me, it was a fresh take on the tried and true ‘stalker’ story. We know Ingrid is unhinged from the beginning; it’s only a matter of time before something goes awry. The commentary on social media’s affect on modern society was well done, though this concept has become rather worn over the past couple of years. I feel like we’ve plenty of ‘social media = bad’ films popping up in genres across the board.

Verdict:

I think that perhaps the thing that makes this film stand out the most is its ability to walk the line of funny and creepy. Many dark comedies try to toe this line and either end up loosing their humor and becoming too serious, or loosing their bite and becoming rather bland. As a result, some dark comedies end up feeling like an awkward conglomerate of two movies messily shoved under one roof, rather than a beautifully blended marriage of two genres. This movie succeeds where other dark comedies don’t. It’s a movie well worth your time; it’ll make you laugh, it’ll make you feel for both Ingrid and Taylor, and it might even make you look at social media a little differently.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Super Dark Times (2017)

Summary

After a horrible accident and subsequent cover up, three high school students wander down a dark path of paranoia and violence.

My Thoughts

This film is all about awakenings. It is a coming of age story, but not one along the lines of “Superbad” or “Breakfast Club”. “Super Dark Times”. As the title suggests, “Super Dark Times” is a much grimmer coming of age story, but it is one that examines teenage years in a very true, honest light. Super Dark features a cast of relative unknowns, and it was also Kevin Phillips’s directorial debut, but the film is an incredibly polished, well-made thriller. While the film starts off slowly, it builds to an incredibly tense finale, one that will linger in the minds of the viewers days after the credits roll.

“Super Dark Times” takes place in the 1990’s upstate New York. Zach (Owen Campbell, “The Miseducation of Cameron Post”) and Josh (Charlie Tahan, “I Am Legend”) have been friends since childhood; they have inside jokes, they know each other’s parents, they like to play video games, and swear a little too much. They’re typical teenage boys, insecure in themselves, just trying to figure out who they are and how they fit into the world. After a brief, ominous prelude, the film begins with the two friends in a basement, looking over a yearbook, talking about the girls (and teachers) they fantasize about. They find they both have a thing for Allison (Elizabeth Cappuccino, “Jessica Jones”) a girl whose home they walk by later that afternoon. The boys tease each other about going up to the door to talk to her, but in the end, in true teenage boy fashion, they instead scream “Penis” at the top of their lungs and ride off on their bikes, guffawing maniacally.

Later, after bonding with Charlie (Sawyer Barth, “Bridge of Spies”) and Daryl (Max Talisman), two younger, eighth grade boys bond over eating freeze-dried squid from a gas station. Zack and Josh invite them back to Josh’s house where the boys wander unattended, as Josh’s mom works late. In Josh’s brother’s room they find a katana and marijuana. Daryl asks if they can smoke the pot; Josh refuses, but he offers something better- a chance to cut milk cartons in half with the sword.

(Some Spoilers Follow)

The boys venture into the woods to violently bifurcate their cardboard victims, and soon the katana glistens with the liquids of the cartons. The boys continue hacking and slashing the cartons, until they notice that Daryl has stolen the marijuana from Josh’s brothers room. He smokes it, angering the rest of the boys. Irritated, Daryl agrees to return the pot, but out of frustration he strikes Josh while his back is turned. The two boys fight and fall to the ground. In the process Daryl is impaled by the katana and killed.

The remaining boys- best friends, Zack and Josh, and eighth grader, Charlie- panic and hide the body and katana. They vow never to speak of this again, and they all go there separate ways. We follow Zack as he goes to return Daryl’s bike to his home, en route he stops to take out the frustrations on a cement wall, breaking his hand in the process. When Zack arrives home, to his complete and utter surprise, Allison is waiting on his couch. Too stunned to speak, Zack migrates to his room. Allison follows and mentions that she heard him screaming outside her home earlier. Zack is in shell shock; Allison takes a hint and asks if he wants her to leave. Zack says that he really just hurt his han.  He looks like he might cry. Allison sits beside him and Zack leans his head on her.

As the days go by, Zack becomes more and more paranoid about Daryl’s body in the woods. After the initial accident, we follow Zack’s character more than the others, taking an in depth look at him as he succumbs to his guilt-ridden conscious. He has vivid dreams with prophetic but muddled meanings. I wont reveal too much more of the plot, as to do so would be to spoil the whole movie, but know that the film becomes increasingly claustrophobic, and the characters, volatile and unstable.

The Good

Philips does a great job of easing us into the plot. The pacing is slow and methodical, and in the process it builds a great atmosphere. We get to know and like the characters before Daryl is killed off, and then we can immediately see the difference the incident has made in their lives. The violence is jarring when compared with the life the boys led before. He likes to hide symbols throughout the film, too, and one dream sequence in particular, while confusing during the initial viewing, should make an incredible amount of sense in retrospect.

As stated before, the film is about awakenings- and that is an evident theme throughout the film. Sexual awakening is a major theme as Zack becomes more and more interested in Allison, though the only sex scene is actually quite mild, and during a very trippy, but meaningful, dream sequence- (the same one mentioned above.) The theme is never far from our minds, and it’s established straight away; Phillips goes so far as to point out the phallic nature of a fence post in one of the opening scenes, and from there the theme is woven sporadically into the background. Another, darker awakening is hinted at throughout the film as well, one that is hard to pick up on, if you aren’t looking for it.

The Bad

I like movies with a slower pace, but some people find them boring. This film takes a while to get going, and then once it does get going, it takes a while to really hit the same level of intensity again. After the initial shocking accident, the pace wanes, before the paranoia begins to build again. For those who don’t mind wading through the middle, the finale will be well worth the wait.

Verdict

“Super Dark Times” is a good suburban thriller that looks at the nature of awakenings, accidents, and growing up and apart from friends we knew, or thought we knew. Though it may not be for everyone, “Super Dark” is a methodical journey into paranoia that pays off for those who wait.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Last Flag Flying (2018)

SUMMARY

Bryan Cranston (“Isle of Dogs”) is an aging bar owner, alcoholic, Vietnam vet. He gets a visit from an old friend/soldier, Steve Carell (“Vice”), who he hasn’t seen since the war. They reminisce and drink and eventually seek out another old friend/soldier, Laurence Fishburne (“Ant-Man and the Wasp”), now a preacher. Cranston’s rough exterior, rude manners, and sour outlook, rub Fishburne’s preacher sensibilities raw so he really has to be convinced when Carell asks the two of them to drive to Arlington to bury his son, a Marine, killed in Iraq.

As the three pilgrims make their way to and escort Carell’s son to his final resting place, the three come to grips with their service to the country and the country they served.

MY THOUGHTS

There are filmmakers who we, as film lovers, watch with as much interest as the films themselves. Linklater is one of them (PT Anderson, Terrence Malick, Wes Anderson, Nicolas Winding Refn.) When their films are released, we know we want to see them, regardless of subject or review, simply because the director has a point of view we wish to see, on any given subject.

The worst of Linklater’s films are still interesting character studies. This is where this film shines. The plot is simple enough, but what changes over the course of the film is how the characters interact and come to grips with political realities, military service, and sacrifice all through the abrasive nature of their friendship.

Steve Carell is an especially interesting character in this film. He is more subdued than the other two, he is processing the loss of his son, and you can see his thoughts grinding and whirring behind his eyes, and his angel and devil friends present their views and try to help him find his way through the darkest days he could imagine. He is the main reason to see this film. I love serious Steve Carell.

Unfortunately, that is the extent of what I love about this movie. Don’t get me wrong, it is a solid film, but it didn’t wrap me up in all of it’s characters the way that some of Linklater’s other films did (The Before Trilogy, Boyhood.)

At times even the dialogue felt really forced and teachy. One of my dead horses is Show, don’t tell. And this movie tells a lot. Linklater is always a dialogue heavy director but here, with discussions of war, time in prison, drug use and whoring, there is something empty about the long scenes of talking in a diner or at a bus stop. It just doesn’t work for me.

Overall I thought the movie was ok. I actually really liked the focus of the story being on these three guys. It gave a unique perspective to the film. It isn’t about a young soldier, or a company wash out, or a conscientious objector. It’s about three old vets, still reeling from their time in the thick of it, 35 years on.

That 20/20 hindsight gives everything they say more weight, and ultimately helps it connect in a way less ephemerol than the imagined film about the three of them in their younger days in the corps, detailing the events they are looking back on, would have been.

VERDICT

So maybe show, don’t tell, isn’t a universal truth. This is one director who, though the dialogue is weak sometimes and a bit preachy at others, let’s his characters share their thoughts about their lives and learn from the perspectives of those others who are sharing their own. At times, you feel like you are sitting at the VFW Hall, listening to real vets, talk about their real experiences in all their glory or lack thereof. It is that peek in the window of their thoughts which makes this film worth the watching.  

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

Call Me By Your Name (2017)

Summary:

Somewhere in Northern Italy, during the summer of 1983, seventeen-year-old Elio begins a relationship with his father’s research assistant, Oliver.

My Thoughts:

AUTHOR's NOTE: I find it very ironic that this film is nominated for Best Picture this year. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this film deserves the nomination; it is beautifully shot, incredibly acted, and wonderfully written. But it also comes at a time when all of Hollywood is up in arms against sexual misconduct, and this film is about a twenty-four-year-old man beginning a relationship with a seventeen-year-old boy. The moral ambiguity is something that Armie Hammer’s character wrestles with throughout, and that pseudo-Nabokovian moral gray area is something that gives this film quite a bit of depth. As a work of art, it is quite exquisite, but if this subject matter offends you, don’t watch it.

Every summer, Mr. Perlman (Michael Stuhlbarg, “The Shape of Water”, “The Post”) invites a student to his villa in Northern Italy to assist with his research; this summer, it’s Oliver (Armie Hammer, “The Social Network”, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.”). Elio, (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird”, “Interstellar”) Mr. Perlman’s son, watches Oliver from his room with his sort-of girlfriend Marzia (Esther Garrel). Elio goes down to meet Oliver, and then brings him up to his room, informing him that they share a bathroom. While Elio is talking, Oliver lies down on the bed and passes out immediately. Elio shakes his head and goes into his own room.

At breakfast the next morning, Elio offers to show Oliver around the town, and Oliver accepts. They ride bikes through the wildflower-blanketed countryside, past streams (water is a recurring theme between Elio and Oliver, more on that later), and past antiquated villas boasting gorgeous architecture. Shortly after they reach the town, however, Oliver ditches Elio. Disheartened, Elio returns home, where he complains to his parents about how Oliver blew him off. His parents smile and tell him not to worry too much about it.

As the story goes on, Elio comes to bond with Oliver over their Jewish heritage, and appreciations for language, literature, music, and history. Elio also continues his relationship with Marzia, but both of them seem to realize that the relationship is mostly unilateral. Eventually, Elio tells Oliver that he has feelings for him, and the two of them engage in a relationship.

The Good:

There isn’t much of a conventional plot here, but that’s what makes this movie stand out. The whole of it feels like a warm-regarded memory of a lazy, sunny holiday in the heavenly Italian countryside. It’s a refreshing dip into a different type of culture; one that is rich in history and etymology and music. The cinematography lends itself to the scenery and architecture; everything is so bright, so alive. The fleeting nature of beauty and thirst for life seems to be constant themes in this film. Mr. Perlman says it wonderfully: “How you live your life is your business, just remember, our hearts and our bodies are given to us only once. And before you know it, your heart is worn out, and, as for your body, there comes a point when no one looks at it, much less wants to come near it.“

The appreciation for the life captured in each frame becomes a sort of shared bond between the boys. Water becomes a symbol of their love for each other. At first, before their relationship truly begins, they sit round the edges of a small pool, dangling their feet in the water. But as the story progresses, the boys go swimming; when their relationship begins to progress they visit the ocean; right after Elio comes out to Oliver, Elio shows Oliver a secret swimming place. But beyond the water metaphor, there are some very power symbols woven into the background and even in the blocking. There is a very prominent shot of Elio picking a peach, and this becomes a reminiscent of the religious icon- Eve taking the fruit and committing the first sin. The scene where Elio comes out to Oliver is staged by a memorial for a particularly arduous battle during World War One; the boys start on one side of the monument, and as Elio reveals his feelings they pass the monument- the symbolism the biggest battle for Elio was coming out. On the other side of the monument, Elio looks up and sees a cross- his faith for coming out has been rewarded and he is given a kind of salvation in his relationship with Oliver.

Chalamet was nominated for his performance, and he absolutely earned it. He switches seamlessly between three languages - English, French, and Italian- he plays Bach in three, distinct styles, and there are many scenes that are composed of nothing more than him emoting his feelings and woes, but he does so with elegant grace. Hammer does a great job of showing the inner qualms Oliver has about starting a relationship with someone younger- the moral ambiguity here is honestly what makes the film interesting, and Hammer does a great job subtlety and silently wrestling with this. The ever-underappreciated Michael Stuhlbarg is wonderful as Elio’s father. I would actually say the best scene in the whole film is between Stuhlbarg and Chalamet (the scene near the end on the couch, for those who have seen it). Stuhlbarg is in three of this year’s Best Picture Nominees- “The Shape of Water” and “The Post” being the other two.

The Bad:

This is one of the most expertly executed films I’ve seen this year; it is a gorgeous journey to witness, but it is a journey across questionable moral grounds. As I said above, I find it strange that in a year with the academy up in arms against sexual deviants, one of the best films of the year is about a questionable relationship. I’m not saying that what Oliver and Elio engaged in was anywhere near as bad as the things of which Harvey Weinstein is accused, but the film does come at a strange time. Their relationship, while borderline inappropriate, was also indisputably founded on love, not lust.

Verdict:

This film is definitely not for everyone. I enjoyed it as a work of art, in the same way that I enjoyed Lolita by Nabokov as a work of art (or “Lolita” by Stanley Kubrick) (though Elio and Oliver's relationship is not nearly as disturbing as the relationship between Humbert Humbert and Lolita). I believe in order to truly appreciate art like this one really needs to be willing to try to see things from the character’s perspectives. If you can do that, then this film does a wonderful job of showing us an unforgettable summer in Italy; it is a culturally rich masterpiece, one I’d be happy to dive into again.

Minor Spoilers: Elio and Oliver’s story is not yet done. The film ends on a semi-cliffhanger. The director, Luca Guadagnino (“Suspiria”), has spoken about how the next film will be set a little later in the 1980s, and will check in on Elio and Oliver’s relationship much like Richard Linklater’s “Before Trilogy” checks in on Jesse and Celine’s relationship. I, for one, am quite interested to see where the story progresses from here.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

PHANTOM THREAD (2017)

SUMMARY

Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis, “There Will Be Blood”) is a dressmaker whose house is renowned in 1950’s London. An auteur, eccentric, and man of particularity, Reynolds is taken with young Alma (Vicky Krieps) whose admiration of his craft and person are inexhaustible. As their relationship is strained by eccentricity, artistic striving, and personal dissimilarities, the couple is pressed to make the most difficult decisions and commitments of their lives.

MY THOUGHTS

I am not of that school which believes that Paul Thomas Anderson (PTA) does no wrong. His oeuvre is full of movies I find sublime (a word I reserve for only the best films) and films which I find boring and inscrutable. I have seen approximately half of them, and while I am inclined to watch them all at some point, they are among those movies that get pushed further and further back into the queue by whatever pressing works are being currently released.

I regard “There Will Be Blood” among one of the truly great modern classics and am usually intrigued when his films appear, knowing they will be of a caliber only matched by the finest directors, telling stories the likes of which are seldom told.

As such, I was looking forward to “Phantom Thread” perhaps more that any other film of the year, save “Shape of Water.” In “Phantom Thread,” all of these expectations were met in such a pleasantly satisfying way.

Of course, the most notable thing about this film at first is the acting. Day-Lewis and Krieps give portrayals of characters whose complexities are intriguing and tantalizing. This is a film which mainly consists of conversations and glances held across rooms, breakfast tables, and sewing stations, and yet, never did I feel bored. Reynolds and Alma were people I did not so much feel endeared to as fascinated by. Watching them watch each other, work together, and grasp after each other’s affections was like parsing poetry for its secret subtext.

THEME

Saying this film has a plot is like saying a marriage has a plot. There are, of course, events that transpire but the thing you are watching here is the unfolding of a relationship. What matters in the world of this film is not the events attended, the dresses made, or the kisses given, but the feelings that attend every action, glance, or tea.

The theme which emerges over the course of the film is one seldom seen in movies today. In a media culture obsessed with hormonal passion firing bursts of excitement across every screen there is little time for the slow long sacrifice of a relationship built upon love, respect, and common ground. The expression it finds is peculiar to say the least, in this film, but ultimately each (Alma and Reynolds) find that they are willing to endure tremendous hardship for the other’s sake and thus, both, unwilling to abandon the other or succumb ultimately to self absorption.

SCORE

A relationship, strong to weather storms, is an ancient story told with such delicate ingenuity that one may easily miss either its ancient roots or its fresh vision of that theme. Similarly, “Phantom Thread’s” score is stunning in its classical overtones which obfuscate its thoroughly modern face. As I watched the film I found myself thinking I would have to look up what this piece of music was, convinced that it was some bit of classical music I had simply not heard before, or at the least, of which I had not learned the name. To find upon searching that it was a wholly original score and composed by lead guitarist of Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood, was surprising to say the least. It is a score which lives in and beyond the film. While many scores may transport me to a place as I watch, few seem to inhabit the film as this one does.

I am reasonably certain that I could visit Dunkirk and be moved by the sacrifice made there, or stand outside of Churchill’s chambers and reflect upon the words he would dictate and address a nation with, but if I were to spend an afternoon in the sitting room of Reynolds Woodcock, i think I would hear Jonny Greenwood’s score in my mind.

WEAKNESSES

I hesitate to call the pacing of this movie a weakness as I find its deliberation an essential aspect of the film and one of the things I enjoyed about it but I do at the same time understand why some would find it dull. I would say the same is true of the cinematography. Visually it is a quiet film of stillness, and so the camera seldom moves. This minimalism was a breath of fresh air in my opinion but again, might seem dull to some.

Rather than calling them true weaknesses, I would simply caution those who see it to prepare for a quiet evening rather than a boisterous one and hope that they are able to tune their expectations.

VERDICT

Can you tell I loved this film? I truly did. I’d watch it again this second. Though I do not think it will win many Academy Awards as so many of its principle players have won them before but when a movie won’t win much because it’s actor and director/writer have won so many, perhaps the film itself can be enough.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

The Post (2017)

Summary:

As Kay Graham preps the Washington Post to go public, a large government cover up story revolving around the outcome of the Vietnam War breaks, and she is forced to choose whether or not to publish material that Nixon is trying to conceal. Publishing could mean major backlash from investors and possible jail time, but not publishing could bring about the death of the First Amendment and possibly prolong the fighting in Vietnam.

My Thoughts

Seeing Streep and Hanks lead an all-star cast while Spielberg works his magic behind the camera should be enough to get any cinephile to the theatre. This movie, while slow and somewhat convoluted at the beginning, is one of the most important movies of the year. Why? The answer lies in the first scene Streep and Hanks have ever shared together. At a luncheon meeting, Hanks is justifiably upset that Nixon is refusing to let a reporter from the Post cover Nixon’s daughter’s wedding, because of the coverage they put out on another article a few years ago. He says: (I’m paraphrasing slightly here- the exact wording escapes me) “Just because the president doesn’t like the coverage we give him doesn’t mean he gets to dictate what we publish.”

In the dark corner of the small, sparsely populated theatre, I couldn’t help but smile.

The film starts in Vietnam with a brief but chaotic battle scene. Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys, “Burnt”), a military analyst, types up his thoughts on the progress made. On Air Force One, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek (2009)”), asks Ellsberg for his opinion on the war, and disheartened, Ellsberg says that nothing has really changed. McNamara, frustrated, turns to H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff, and says that they’ve been deploying more soldiers to Vietnam, and the lack of progress despite more troops effectively means the war is getting worse. Immediately after landing however, McNamara smiles at the press and tells them the war is going well. Ellsberg wont stand for this, so he begins to covertly sneak classified documents from the Pentagon, making copies with his coconspirators. Upon reading the documents, he discovers the government’s lie stretches further than Nixon’s presidency; the cover-up was known by the four previous presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

While the film starts off with a (literal) bang, the next half hour of the film takes a noticeable loll as it tries to find its footing. Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”) nervously discusses plans for the company to go public with Fritz Beebe (Tracy Letts, “Lady Bird”), a trusted friend and board member for the Post. He reassures her that everything will go fine, but she is determined to memorize her talking points. She meets with the Post’s Chief Editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Saving Private Ryan”) to discuss how to attract a wider demographic. Graham then goes to a board meeting, wearing a greyish suit but surrounded by a sea of men in black; she is a woman, desperately floundering to stay afloat and relevant in a business run predominantly by men. During a board meeting, when Arthur Parsons (Bradley Whitford, Get Out) asks a question regarding the budget, she answers, but the answer is ignored until a Beebe parrots her. Throughout the film, there are dozens of shots where Streep is literally surrounded by men that loom over her, almost claustrophobically so. The recurring theme of woman being forced to the back of the workplace is impressively subtle, but also incredibly important. Streep is looked on as a type of stoic, silent role model for women.

For a while we are a fly on the wall of the Post, watching as Bradlee scrambles around the office trying to put together the next paper with his reporters, while simultaneously keeping a close eye on his rival competitors: The Times. Bradlee sends an intern to the Times to try to find out what the Time’s best reporter, Neil Sheehan, is working on. The intern is unable to find out what the piece is on, but he does find out that Sheehan’s article will be on the front page the next day. Meanwhile, Graham receives a visit from McNamara, who is a lifelong friend, and he tells her that the Times will be printing something about him on the front page. The next day, the Times publish their first story on the Panama Papers and it takes the country by storm. During a dinner Graham the Times editor, Abe Rosenthal (Michael Stuhlbarg, “Call Me By Your Name”), Rosenthal receives word that Nixon intends to take the Times to court over the published documents.

Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk, “Incredibles 2”), a reporter with the Post, after hours of cold calling, finally makes contact with Ellsberg. Ellsberg meets Bagdikian in a motel; documents are spread round the cheap room in thick, incriminating piles. Ellsberg asks if Bagdikian would go to jail to stop the Vietnam War, and Bagdikian answers, “Hypothetically, yeah.” Ellsberg shakes his head. “You’re going to publish, right? Then this isn’t hypothetical.” As the story progresses, and the Post’s reporters diligently comb through the thousands of pages to find a story, the question of whether or not Graham will allow the story to go to press garners more and more implications. Should Graham publish, not only will the Post be going directly against an order of the courts, but she may also be putting her freedom, and the freedom of those she works with, at risk.

The Good:

Spielberg is in fine form here; though his subject matter isn’t as intense as some of his well-known Blockbusters, he still manages to build a surprising amount of tension throughout the film. There are plenty of long takes with expertly choreographed deep staging. He provides plenty of background humor with minor characters, and he conveys the hectic nature of a newsroom with beautiful precision. The writing of Liz Hannah and Josh Singer (“Spotlight”) brilliantly touches on many issues of the era and also succeeds in drawing many comparisons to modern times. I would honestly be surprised if this didn’t receive a nomination for writing.

Streep is fantastic as the meek-mannered but firm Graham; she does an amazing job making us feel her constant insecurity but desire to prove herself. The real scene-stealer was Hanks, whom I thought gave his best performance in years. “Captain Phillips” (2013) was the last time Hanks really generated Oscar buzz, but I would not be at all surprised if we see him on the docket this year. But though Hanks and Streep were the standouts, everyone else in the A-list cast provided commendable performances as well; particularly Odenkirk, who really shines as the nervous but tenacious Bagdikian.

The Bad:

As I said before, the beginning of this movie is a little convoluted and slow. There are so many characters wrapped up in all of this, all of which are important; but at the start, the viewer almost feels like a person on their first day at a new job, being introduced to everyone in the office and expected to remember names. It’s overwhelming. But soon, as the pacing picks up, you get caught up in the story and the drama, and the movie sweeps you right along with it.

Verdict:

(MINOR SPOILERS)

Towards the end of the film, a portion of Justice Hugo Black’s statement is read: “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” That quote drew some small applause from the people in my theatre. Whatever your stance on the whole Fake News hullabaloo that's permeating current daily news, this statement by Black is extremely important, and I believe the entire reason Spielberg made this film. As Americans, its our inalienable right to be informed and speak our minds; it’s why freedom of speech is our first amendment. No, the government might not always like what the media says, but tough luck. Grow a spine and take it. You asked for power; deal with the byproduct. The people in charge need to be okay with their power being questioned, because, in the words of Terry Pratchett: “Authority that cannot be questioned is tyranny. And I will not stand for tyranny.”

Review Written By:

Seth Steele