2016: The Year in FIlm: "Arrival" Review

Denis Villenueve is, full stop, one of my 3 or 4 favorite directors working today. His career is all of 5 years old at this point but his films have all, to this point, been distinctive, dark, and compelling enough to mark him as a director to watch. Prisoners and Sicario are two of the most memorable films for me of the last few years and his style - naturalistic yet stylized, artfully shot but relying on natural sounds at the expense of score and soundtrack, make his films intense and intimate feeling. (Oh, and for what it's worth, he's directing the Blade Runner sequel so mark that one down)

So when it was announced that his next project would be a sci-fi film about first contact with extraterrestrial life - I was a little surprised, but immediately on board. Enter, Arrival.

We are placed in an unspecified near-present where mysterious objects obviously of extraterrestrial origin suddenly appear in various spots around the planet. As the world panics, experts are tasked with figuring out just who the visitors are and what they want before the entire situation escalates into a potential war.  Louise (Amy Adams) is a linguistics professor and Ian (Jeremy Renner) is an astrophysicist and the two are brought in to hopefully find a way to communicate with the aliens in the spacecraft currently hovering above Montana.

The Good: like all of Villenueve's films to date this one looks immaculate. He has such a unique and valuable sense of space, of atmosphere, of setting. He uses very little score and soundtrack, relying instead on sounds from the environment and events happening on screen, giving this film a surreal sense of naturalism despite its otherworldly focus. The cast is tremendous. Especially Adams, but Renner and the always great Forrest Whitacker are great too, but Adams truly delivers a tour de force in this role. Her Louise is hyper-competent yet morose, intuitive yet brash, and so much of the film happens within her head that a lesser actor could have made the entire enterprise fall flat from the jump. Paced like a thriller yet at its heart a Contact-style meditation on the nature of communication, language, humanity and the possibilities of extraterrestrial life, the film is equal parts Terrance Malick and Spielberg, and I mean that with the highest possible praise. Villenueve's Blade Runner 2049 simply can't come fast enough.



The Bad: there isn't much here, but if I do have criticisms it's that the entire operation on the ground is run by a colonel - and given that we are dealing with extraterrestrial contact, it seems unlikely that the joint chiefs or POTUS wouldn't be directly involved. Additionally, the film wraps up so quickly that you'll undoubtedly be left with questions - as I was.

Ultimately, in an era of action packed spectacle, an intimate, ultimately optimistic and uplifting meditation on the very nature of communication and understanding itself may be just what the doctor ordered in our dark times. Arrival is intimate, moving, unexpected, shot beautifully, tremendously acted and truly a gorgeous film. My favorite of the year so far.

9/10

2013: The Year in Film: "Her" Review

 

LATE LATE LATE!

Spike Jonze, former music video wunderkind and hipster auteur extraordinaire, is one of the truly unique voices in American film today. His films, of which Her is the fourth, following Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Where the Wild Things Are, are, in a word, different. Even the adaptation of the Maurice Sendak children's book is heartfelt, visually distinctive and features a wholly unique voice. So enters his newest flick, which he both wrote and directed, Her.  

Her is set in an imagined near future Los Angeles where technology and gadgets have continued to advance an isolate us to the point where the newest OS for mobile devices is a sentient artificial intelligence. Our protagonist is a lonely, introspective letter writer (ugh, I know) going through a divorce who decides to buy the new OS... and finds himself drawn into a surprising and confusing relationship with Samantha, his new OS.

The Good: this film is both fanciful and grounded in a very recognizable reality, and that's not easy to do. Jonze's visuals are soothing and bright, evocative of the kind of future we should all hope for. At the same time, the film draws on interesting philosophical questions on the relationship between man and the technology we've created, a line that becomes increasingly blurred with every passing year.  The scenario envisioned in Her is virtually a foregone conclusion at this point, and the speculation on the issue in this film is a unique and emotional one.  All of this is grounded in the quality of the central performance. Joaquin Phoenix, as strange as he is, and as goofy as he looks in this role, is one of our very finest actors, and he imbibes Theo with a tender sadness, sensitivity and humanity.  The film's central relationship, between man and machine, would have fallen flat on its face in the hands of a lesser actor.  Scarlett Johannson's voice work is tremendous as well.



The Bad: Ultimately, I'm not sure that this film rings that true for me on closer examination.  I feel like truly sentient AI as depicted in this film would likely completely revolutionize human existence on a scale that this film ignores. That's most likely my own nerdiness getting in the way of the story at hand, but it seems likely that mega corporations and governments would likely use AI to their own ends before releasing it as a consumer product, and this initial use would render our society unrecognizable.  With that being said, I'm fine with the film as a fable of sorts, but it seems odd that the city of LA is THAT nice in the future. Theo lives in a million dollar loft on... a letter writer's salary? That seems like a cushy gig. Ultimately, these are relatively minor quibbles, but they were very distracting for me.

Ultimately, this is a smart, tender, emotional flick with a lot to say about human relationships with ourselves, with one another and with our technology, and it features a tremendously acted and tender love story at its heart.  It's a little hipsterific, but I don't really mind. I feel like this is a vision of the future and the larger human condition worth sharing, and one of the more unique and worthwhile films of the last few years.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Man of Steel" Review

It seems odd in this present era where comparatively minor superheroes like Iron Man, Thor and Captain America are the stars of hit movies that the original and arguably greatest superhero of them all, Superman, hasn't had a successful film in more than 30 years. Bryan Singer left the X-franchise to make the stinker that was "Superman Returns", which was too concerned with the past to really make any narrative strides with Superman, and in the meantime Batman was the center of one of the best movie trilogies of all time while Marvel built a cinematic dynamo around Robert Downey Jr. and the Avengers properties. Enter Zack Snyder, the guy behind the somewhat disappointing (but visually stunning..) Watchmen and 300. That alone is not all that promising, but when you throw in that the film was produced by Chris Nolan and written by Nolan writing partner David S. Goyer things become a bit more promising. Throw in a potentially great cast: Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Michael Shannon, and a compelling trailer, and this movie became a "must-see".

This film serves as a "Batman Begins"-style origin story and reboot/reinvention of the character of Superman/Kal El/Clark Kent.  We open with a fascinating, innovative and compelling look at Krypton in its dying days and get a powerful look (through a mix of flashbacks) at Clark's childhood and life in Smallville and his quest to become Superman. When a Kryptonian menace threatens life on earth itself, Clark is forced to become Superman, confront his past, and save humanity.

The Good: the cast is spectacular. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are completely believable as Ma and Pa Kent, and all of the flashback scenes to Clark's childhood are simply great. Similarly, Russell Crowe is better than he's been in years as Jor-El.. this is the multiple Oscar nominee we all know and love. (Slimmed down, too!) Henry Cavill as Superman/Clark Kent is tremendous, and really brings an inner turmoil to the character that we haven't seen before. The always good Amy Adams brings a believable journalistic drive to Lois Lane, something that has often been lost in older iterations of the Superman story. Michael Shannon as Zod is suitably menacing and relentless, while not completely evil. By focusing on the character and growth of Clark Kent, the first hour of the film is as good as anything I've ever seen in a superhero movie. I'd really compare it to Batman Begins in that way, but instead of Batman's darkness and obsession we get Clark's sense of wonder and discovery. That's a good thing. The film also wisely (and in stark contrast to Superman Returns) marks a complete break from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeves mythos of the past. New look, new score, new story. A Superman for our time, and that's definitely a good thing. Since it's Zack Snyder, we know that the visuals and the effects are going to be tremendous, and they don't disappoint. There are some spectacular (of course) action sequences, I especially liked the fight on the streets of Smallville, and the villains are sufficiently powerful to challenge Superman on his own terms. In addition, I particularly enjoyed the film's depiction of Krypton. These weren't just humans in funny costumes, this was a foreign feeling culture and society, and the film really does a good job establishing that Superman is indeed a child of two vastly different worlds.

The Bad: the final action sequence is at least 15 minutes too long. The film has a rather relentless final hour, that coupled with Snyder's shaky-cam can be rather exhausting. There's also the issue of the mindless destruction. Yes, Earth is under attack from Kryptonians, but at times it feels like Superman is making no effort to limit the damage. This is troubling, both from the perspective of what Superman has historically been presented to be, and from the implication of a Superman who doesn't care that his actions result in massive destruction. Think back to Avengers, there are multiple scenes of the heroes saving civilians or making an effort to lead the battle away from civilians. Great power, great responsibility, etc. Along the same lines, there is some sketchy, if sensible, advice from Jonathan Kent. While undoubtedly a great man and a great father to Clark, Pa Kent also advises him to keep his power a secret. There seems to some middle ground there. [insert secret identity here]

In all, this is a fine film, and is the best Superman movie ever made. With the strength of the cast, I'm optimistic for the Superman franchise moving forward and hopefully the creation of a wider cinematic DC universe. On the quality of the performances and the greatness of the film's first hour, this is a fine, if ultimately flawed (mostly morally) film. Well worth seeing, but brace yourself for massive and often mindless destruction. 

8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "The Master" Review

Paul Thomas Anderson is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important American directors working today. That's not hyperbole, it's simply fact. When your last film was "There Will Be Blood", a monumnetal work of art that will be studied and beloved decades from now, anything that immediately follows is going to be buzzworthy to say the least, even sight unseen. When you've also written and directed flicks called "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia" and "Punch Drunk Love", needless to say, you're an important filmmaker. Rumors started circulating about "The Master" about a year ago, and the excitement in film nerd circles reached a fever pitch when footage was finally released earlier this year. So needless to say, I was excited for this one. Let's check it out.

First, for a little background, postwar America was a complicated place. On the surface, we had never been richer, more powerful, healthier, or generally better off. Underneath the "American dream" sold to us by advertisers and falsely remembered so fondly by so many today was a general spiritual malaise. A "that's it??!" if you will. (Think: Don Draper at the beginning of Mad Men) This backdrop saw the emergence of pseudo spiritual mystic movements ranging from "new age" and Asian influenced spirituality to pop psychology to a massive rise in cults and new religious movements, one of which being, of course, Scientology. All of these movements sought to prescribe cure-alls to the pittfalls of modern society, and all of them fell far short of their professed goals, and continue to do so in their various incarnations today.  While this flick isn't technically ABOUT Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard, per se, it's certainly inspired, influenced by and based largely upon the charismatic movement L. Ron Hubbard would use to create his bizarre and influential spiritual movement, such that it is.

Freddie Quell is a troubled naval veteran of WW2 who suffers from PTSD, sexual compulsions, possible psychosis, definite nervous tendencies, definite alcoholism and a number of unknown and unstated but clearly present conditions. He finds himself an outcast of sorts, bouncing from menial job to menial job, cooking up batches of hooch that contain such lovely ingrediants as paint thinner and film chemicals when a chance drunken encounter with a pleasure cruise lands him in the orbit of Lancaster Dodd, a self-professed "theoretical philosopher, doctor, nuclear physicist, but most of all, a man" who has gained a dedicated bordering on fanatical following through his writings and teachings. The two men share an odd symbiotic bond of sorts, and Freddie gets drawn into "The Cause", led by Dodd and his group of family and followers, as they traverse the country and wider world, seeking to advance his teachings and movement.

First, this is a strange film.  The narrative, such that it is, is even less present than the narrative in "There Will Be Blood".. it's sort of a thread that meanders about behind vignettes that range from the powerful and profound to the ridiculous.  Rather than a straight evisceration of Scientology or cult-ish mystical/spiritual movements in general, this picture is much more concerned with its characters as people.  As such, we get a pair of absolutely masterful performances from extremely skilled actors at the tops of their games.  Joaquin "I'm probably actually crazy" Phoenix imbues Freddie with an unhinged manic energy and yet odd charm that you at once pity, fear and yet kind of oddly like him, despite everything he's been doing.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman is simply a force of nature in this role.  He's menacing and charming.  Brilliant and vulnerable and manipulative all at once.  Despite the fact that we know that he's a master manipulator manipulating his friends and family and quite possibly (read: definitely) making everything up as he goes along, you can't take your eyes off of him and can see how people would be drawn into his orbit.  Amy Adams turns in a memorable performance as well as Dodd's wife, who may be the biggest manipulator of all.  Any time PSH and Phoenix share the screen, the crackling energy is incredible. 
  


I feel as though this flick is a companion of sorts to There Will Be Blood.  Not explicitly, but thematically.  There's a similar iconoclastic approach to society and traditionally revered institutions.  Maybe a good title for this one would be "There Will Be Nihilism".  Where capitalism and capitalists were eviscerated there, spiritual leaders, philosophies and would be guides are here. Just my $.02.

Ultimately, this is a strange, beautiful flick with some incredible sequences and unbelievable performances.  Joaquin Phoenix would likely win Best Actor if Daniel Day Lewis wasn't playing someone named Abe Lincoln later this year.  It falls short of perfection by virtue of its strangeness (I guarantee you'll leave the theater a little confused), but is no doubt a work of art.

8.5/10