Logan Lucky Review (2017)

While watching “Oceans Eleven” back in 2001 did you ever wonder what that heist comedy (directed by prolific auteur Steven Soderbergh) would be like if it was not about glamorous thieves robbing a snazzy Las Vegas casino but about a group blue collar folks from West Virginia and North Carolina who decide to rob a NASCAR track? Well, Soderbergh did, and he’s come out of retirement (from feature filmmaking) to make “Logan Lucky--” the exuberant redneck “Oceans Eleven” remake you didn’t know you wanted.

The film primarily revolves around brothers Jimmy (Channing Tatum, in his fourth collaboration with Soderbergh) and Clyde Logan (Adam Driver) who are down on their luck. Jimmy was a high school football star/failed NFL prospect, while Clyde got his hand blown off in Iraq. Believing that their entire family is cursed, they decide to rob the Charlotte Motor Speedway during a major race. It’s one of those elaborate, outrageous heists that can only be pulled off in the movies. Among other components, the brothers will need to break well-known safe buster Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) out of jail for the job and then sneak him back into jail without anyone noticing. The Logan brothers also enlist the help of Joe’s brothers, Sam (Brian Gleeson) and Fish (Jack Quaid).

Despite how that plot synopsis might read, the dramatic stakes aren’t particularly high in “Logan Lucky.” The picture’s tone is loose and playful, while the pacing is relaxed all the way through. The mechanics of the heist can be confusing and not a lot of things really go wrong, even during the extended heist sequence itself. There are a few minor narrative hiccups the characters run into along the way but overall everything goes very smoothly, perhaps too smoothly for a film about a heist. In this regard,  “Logan Lucky” can feel predictable.

On top of that, the motivation for wanting to rob the racetrack in the first place is hazy and lacking in urgency. Soderbergh and screenwriter Rebecca Blunt (who may or may not be a real person) don’t establish the Logan brothers as desperate people who are caught in a bind and forced to commit a crime. Yes, they’re middle to lower class and Jimmy loses his blue-collar job at the beginning but the decision to execute the heist is treated very casually. That might have been okay, except that the film also doesn’t establish these characters as the career criminal types who would want to pull off such an elaborate crime.

And yet, “Logan Lucky” is still a lot of fun, primarily due to the cast and Blunt’s witty screenplay. In addition to Tatum and Driver, who turn in amusing and earnest performances, Soderbergh assembles a superb ensemble cast made up of young and old talent including: Daniel Craig, Riley Keough, Katie Holmes, Dwight Yoakam, Hilary Swank and Katherine Waterston, among others. Some of these actors only pop in for a scene or two (usually in a nonchalant manner) but they always make a memorably goofy impression. Also, can I say how great it is to see Craig playing a character that isn’t Bond, especially an eccentric, bleach blonde haired safe buster? Mr. Craig, you’ve been missed.

Aside from the cast, what keeps us engaged in “Logan Lucky” are the small comedic moments and details rather than the broad narrative beats. The nutty, bumbling interactions between the Logan and Bang brothers as they painstakingly plan the robbery. Those little quirks that make the characters feel human instead of comedic caricatures (Clyde’s insistence that he lost his hand and not his arm). Those off beat, absurdist scenes that make you forget about the film’s predictable nature.

For example, the Logan brothers meet one of Joe’s contacts nicknamed “The Bear” to acquire some materials for the heist, who turns out to be a man in a bear suit; a delightfully out of left moment that generated a hardy laugh from the audience at my preview screening. On a scene-by-scene basis, “Logan Lucky” is packed with laughs. It may not be great but Soderbergh’s return to filmmaking is a light, entertaining affair.

 B

Silence Review (2017)

“Silence” (Martin Scorsese’s long gestating historical/religious drama) is a long and brutal watch. Those who are accustomed to the kinetic exuberance and black comedy of Scorsese flicks like “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Goodfellas” may be put off by this film’s overly deliberate and dour nature. But for those who are patient, “Silence” is a thought-provoking, deeply rewarding experience.

The setting is seventeenth century Japan. The government, known as the Tokugawa Shogunate, has outlawed Christianity and adherents are persecuted. Thousands have been killed and thousands more have undergone (and are still undergoing) ruthless torture. The only way to be set free is to apostatize, i.e. publically renounce your faith by stepping on a plaque with a mold of The Christ. The central plot concerns two Jesuit Priests, Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Garrape (Adam Driver) who go to Japan looking for their mentor Ferreira (Liam Neeson), who has supposedly apostatized. While there they become immersed in the suffering.

Scorsese doesn’t shy away from depicting the gruesome details of this mass persecution; people are crucified while boiling hot springs water is slowly sprinkled on them, others are burned or drowned, not to mention all the psychological torment. Japan itself is grey and dirty—at times resembling a dystopian landscape. A thick, ominous cloak of fog overtakes the characters time and time again. Scorsese creates an atmosphere of excruciating dread and suffering. The film is often claustrophobic and overbearing, and with a running time clocking in at two hours and forty-one minutes you’ll feel emotionally drained by the end.

Yet, as grueling as “Silence” can be to watch, I couldn’t look away.  The picture is a dense, fascinating exploration of the endurance of personal faith. How strong is your faith? Is your belief in god (specifically the Christian God) worth suffering for? Is it worth watching those you love and care about suffer? If your god exists why does he let this seemingly endless suffering happen? If it’s part of God’s plan (as some religious people like to say) that seems like a lousy plan. Should you live and practice your religion in secrecy and shame or die for your belief? “Silence” is loaded with intriguing theological questions/dilemmas like these and doesn’t provide easy answers.  

Though a more intriguing question “Silence” poses and one that becomes central to the entire film is: what’s the breaking point for a priest? For a person that has dedicated their entire life to god and Christianity, how much suffering is too much?

Gradually, “Silence” emerges as an absorbing psychological character study of Rodrigues and his religious endurance. Garfield is remarkable-- giving an understated, physical performance that gains more power and nuance as the film goes on. At the beginning, Rodrigues is stern and composed— his faith concrete and ready to seemingly take on anything, even a government that opposes everything he stands for. However, as he spends more and more time in Japan, knee deep in suffering, he becomes increasingly unhinged--physically and mentally deteriorating before our eyes, the concrete crumbling. Scorsese and Garfield provide intimate, sometimes painful glimpse inside Rodrigues’ psyche as he interrogates his own faith that’s endlessly fascinating.

Along with this emphasis on endurance and faith, the film thoughtfully examines the nature/purpose of missionary work. The film suggests that perhaps missionary work is partly motivated by the desire for personal glory (on the part of the priests and missionaries). It’s not only about spreading the word of God but also being in a position of influence and superiority. When Rodrigues arrives in Japan he’s immediately sought out by Japanese Christians living underground, becoming a source of spiritual guidance, a beacon of hope in this otherwise dark time… a savior. This sense of power and purpose is intoxicating and slowly gets the better of Rodrigues. At a certain point you become unsure as to whether Rodrigues genuinely cares about these poor, devoted people or if he’s become absorbed in his own fantasy of a “Christian Japan” and messianic complex.

There’s plenty more I could talk about, too much for a single review, so I think I’ll leave it at that. “Silence” isn’t without flaws—it can feel a little too exposition heavy at times especially in the first hour, slowing down an already slow movie. The drawn out torture sequences can feel repetitive and I wish Scorsese had cut down on the voiceover narration. Admittedly, Scorsese does voiceover better than most (see “Goodfellas” or “Casino”) but there are times during “Silence” where I wish he would just let the images speak for themselves.

Even so, “Silence” is a challenging, visceral, multilayered study of faith and missionary service. It’s not easy to watch. It made me uncomfortable and tested my patience. But as soon as I walked out of the theater I wanted to see it again. Scorsese gives you so much to munch on and digest. I have a feeling this will only get better with more viewings.

A-

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens Review (2015)

The arrival of “Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens” (the seventh installment in George Lucas’s global Sci fi phenomenon, directed and co written by J.J. Abrams Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt) brings a combination of excitement and skepticism.

On the one hand, we're getting another freaking "Star Wars" movie! the first one in nine years--something nerds have been dreaming about for years. Yet there’s plenty to be suspicious about; the stench of the prequel trilogy (Episodes One, Two and Three) still lingers. While each picture has a handful of great sequences, overall they are disappointments and while they will always be a part of the “Star Wars” mythos they’re the black sheep of the family. Additionally this latest installment comes with extremely high expectations—everyone has their own ideas about what they want to see from another “Star Wars” film—will the final product live up to those hopes and dreams or be another crushing disappointment?

Fortunately, “The Force Awakens” is a very good film and a strong start for a new trilogy that could potentially be great. As the final words of the introductory scrawl fade off into space Abrams avoids tedious plot exposition and throws us into the midst of the action--moving full speed ahead. The first act is tight, thrilling and more importantly fun. Abrams, Kasdan and Arndt’s screenplay achieves a near perfect balance of comedy and drama. It doesn’t take itself too seriously but it also packs quite the emotional and dramatic punch at crucial moments.

“The Force Awakens” excels the most in its focus on character, (over special effects or action sequences) specifically the new blood. Abrams assembles an array of extremely talented, up and coming actors and wisely situates them front and center. Heading this youthful band is Daisy Ridley playing Rey, a scavenger who lives on the desert planet of Jakku.  In short, Ridley is phenomenal and is in many ways the core of the entire film. Rey is tough, both physically and mentally (she can hold her own against the various figures she encounters along the way) yet raw and vulnerable at the same time, making her a three dimensional character. In a genre that’s still very much dominated by males it’s refreshing that Abrams and co. allow an unknown actress to shine in such a major cinematic event. Ridley also joins the pantheon of badass action heroines in 2015 that also includes Charlize Theron from “Mad Max: Fury Road” and Rebecca Ferguson in “Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol.”

In addition to Ridley there’s also John Boyega (another relatively unknown actor) as Fin, a storm trooper who’s having second thoughts about his line of work and Oscar Isaac as hotshot pilot Poe Dameron. Also strong here is Adam Driver as the picture’s main baddie Kylo Ren--sporting an intimating mask and black cloak, along with a tri bladed light saber. Going into the film, I was worried that Ren would be a one-note villain; cool to look at sure, but hollow. Driver brings a surprising amount of depth and humanity to the role, taking Ren far beyond a simplistic “I’m-evil-and-I-want-to-rule the-world” bad guy, revealing a damaged and insecure man. There are plenty of other supporting characters, (too many to name here) some more fleshed out than others. However the quartet of Rey, Fin, Poe and Ren form a solid base that more than adequately supports the movie for the duration of its running time.

As to be expected “The Force Awakens” contains its fair share of nostalgia-- references to the original films (when we first meet Rey on Jakku she’s scavenging parts from old decaying Galactic Empire ships buried in the sand) as well as the return of “Star Wars” veterans Han Solo, (Harrison Ford) Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew). However--in a year of multiple sequels and reboots of popular movie franchises that bang on the nostalgia drum too much without any good reason--the nostalgic bits in “The Force Awakens” rarely feel forced. Abrams and co. incorporate these various characters and references organically and in some cases they play a rather substantial role in the central storyline.

Is “The Force Awakens” flawless? Of course not. Without nitpicking I think the picture’s biggest issue is redundancy in regards to story. Structurally, the script is a little too reminiscent of the inaugural episode “A New Hope,” which eliminates some tension and surprise. There’s a new galactic empire called the First Order and a rebellion and a droid storing valuable information that both parties want. This issue becomes most problematic in the film’s third act during a lengthy climactic battle. Not only is this particular sequence redundant, it’s flat out boring and feels more like an afterthought. The unfortunate, unavoidable quandary the prequel movies found themselves in was, no matter how many characters, gadgets or exotic planets Lucas introduced the outcome (Anakin Skywalker turning to the dark side and becoming Darth Vader) had to be the same. Meanwhile, this new trilogy has no preset ending and could go in virtually any direction. The possibilities are endless so to see Abrams and Kasdan hit one too many familiar beats is mildly disappointing.

And yet, for all the familiar beats it hits and the occasional underwhelming sequence, “The Force Awakens” has a number of surprising weighty moments scattered throughout. In an age where so many PG-13 action films feel watered down and insubstantial, it’s nice to see that Abrams and co. aren’t afraid to take risks and up the stakes within such a culturally treasured franchise. For the most part, “The Force Awakens” manages to be respectful of the original features while also realizing the need to move away from them, something I hope will continue on in the next two.

There’s more I could discuss but I would be doing a major disservice to readers.  “The Force Awakens” will no doubt play extremely well with fans and should do big business at the box office so its best to let them discover the film’s best moments on their own. As for myself? The former “Star Wars” fan boy, the film lover and the film critic in me walked away satisfied. The picture serves as a great starting point for the new trilogy, featuring a group of fresh and talented faces that will (hopefully) take it in bold new directions.

B