Swiss Army Man Review (2016)

In the current cinematic landscape that’s populated by so many hollow, generic big budget spectacles, sheer eccentricity and audaciousness is greatly appreciated. And “Swiss Army Man” has a lot of that. Though, eccentricity on its own isn’t enough to carry a feature length film. Luckily, “Swiss Army Man” has plenty of heart and charm to go along with its quirkiness.

“Swiss Army Man” (written and directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, known as “The Daniels” in the credits) is the indie darling that took the 2016 Sundance film festival by storm. You know, the one about a farting corpse played by Daniel Radcliffe? A farting corpse that’s befriended by Paul Dano? Yet, while it does contain a farting corpse played by Daniel Radcliffe, the picture is much more than that. It’s a small film that reaches magnificent, sometimes profound heights and manages to pack a lot into its hour and ninety-five minute run time. “Swiss Army Man” is a wildly funny, endearing, beautiful exploration of love, friendship, loneliness and depression.

It’s also features a farting corpse played by Daniel Radcliffe.  

The film opens on a desert island somewhere in the Pacific. Hank (Dano) is stranded and is getting ready to hang himself. That is until he spots said farting corpse (in a dress coat, blue plaited shirt and slacks) lying on the beach, farting like there’s no tomorrow. The flatulent corpse, named Manny, gives Hank a new lease on life. And just when you think “Swiss Army Man” is going to turn into “Castaway” (with a farting corpse instead of a volleyball) Hank rides Manny like a jet ski (as you do) to the mainland, right next to a temperate forest.

Manny slowly begins to take on a life of his own and the two embark on a journey back to civilization. That’s all I’m going to say plot wise because “Swiss Army Man” is perhaps the wildest, most unpredictable film I’ve seen all year. Every time you think you have it figured out it, the movie takes a left turn and gets progressively weirder.

However, “Swiss Army Man” remains coherent and focused from start to finish and its never quirky for the sake of being quirky. The farting corpse gimmick isn’t used simply because its silly and unexpected, it also serves a purpose, which is a ridiculous thing to type but it’s nevertheless true. Going back to the Jet Ski scene, Manny’s flatulence helps get Hank off the island and away from certain death. It literally propels the narrative forward. Additionally, the act of farting takes on a much greater significance in the film overall. As peculiar as “Swiss Army Man” gets that peculiarity either moves the story forward or deepens the characters.

At the same time, The Daniels know when to dial back the strange and allow for genuine, straightforward drama/emotion to play out between Hank and Manny. The film tackles weighty issues like anxiety and depression with delicacy and tenderness. “Swiss Army Man” mixes mundane earnestness and nutty surrealism almost perfectly.

The Daniels script is vibrant and intelligent, full of amusing one-liners (“If you don’t know ‘Jurassic Park’ you don’t know sh-t,”) and simple yet oddly brilliant insights (when you’re first getting to know a romantic partner you go to the movies but when you’re more comfortable with each other you stay in and watch Netflix). It’s also strongly committed to character. Through their interactions, the layers of both Hank and Manny are gradually peeled back.

That being said, The Daniels trust the intelligence of the audience by not over explaining—letting us to fill in the gaps, while also allowing for ambiguity in regards to the overall situation. The uncertainty of the setting gives the picture an otherworldly, at times lyrical feeling. Meanwhile, we’re unsure if the events taking place are real or imaginary, though in the long run it doesn’t really matter. The Daniels convincingly create a world in which a man using another man as a water vehicle seems perfectly plausible.

None of this would be possible without Dano and Radcliffe. With his lanky body structure and boyish face, Dano easily slips into the kind but deeply insecure Hank, giving an understated performance that becomes increasingly vulnerable as the film goes on. It’s almost impossible to feel completely unsympathetic towards him. Radcliffe is also sensational--childlike and introspective in equal measure. He’s simultaneously the comic relief and the voice of reason. Radcliffe brings warmth and dimension to a cold gassy corpse.

“Swiss Army Man” is easily the strangest film I’ve seen all year; it’s also one of the best. Yes, I’m talking about the film with the farting corpse played by Daniel Radcliffe.

A 

The Neon Demon Review (2016)

Nicholas Winding Refn’s “The Neon Demon” tells a twisted version of the cliché story in which the naïve small town girl runs off to L.A. to become a star. In this case, the naïve small town girl is Jesse (Elle Fanning) who goes to L.A. to pursue a modeling career. In no time she begins to climb the ladder of success, getting job after job and becoming the apple of everyone’s eye, making a few of the veteran models, Sarah (Abbey Lee) and Gigi (Bella Heathecote), envious.

“The Neon Demon” is all about the emphasis our culture places on surface level beauty. All the women in the film are obsessed with beauty, solely defined by it and see it as their only means of success/attention. Towards the beginning, Jesse says very blatantly that she’s not talented in any way; all she has is her “looks.” Meanwhile, the men are sleazy pigs who see women as sex objects and are often the ones who force them to try and attain impossible standards of beauty.

Though, what’s more compelling about the “Neon Demon” is that it highlights the ickiness that often accompanies modeling, particularly female modeling. Jesse is successful not just because she’s pretty but also because she’s young (she recently turned sixteen) and innocent. In one scene, an arrogant fashion designer (Alessandro Nivola) auditions women for an upcoming show. After barely acknowledging the slightly older Sarah he’s awestruck by Jesse--captivated by her youth, purity and body language that screams “vulnerable.” There’s an undercurrent of pedophilia and perversion that I found to be deeply unsettling and far more disturbing than some of the more explicit sequences that come later on. 

Refn creates an atmosphere of dread that starts off subdued and gets increasingly unhinged as the film goes on. L.A. is transformed into a nightmarish hellscape (the heavy use of blood red lighting further stresses this hellish state) that chews people up and spits them back out. Danger lurks around every corner and there’s no one you can trust, not even those who pretend to be your friend.

A majority of this atmosphere comes from sheer style. Much like his characters, Refn is also obsessed with surface level beauty and no one can deny that “The Neon Demon” is aesthetically lush. The meticulously staged shots, (the production design is very neat and symmetrical) combined with the red, purple, pink, green and blue lighting give the film a dreamy elegance. At the same, the film contains scenes of intense and gruesome sequences of violence, sequences that look like they were lifted from a cheap exploitation picture. As he did in his last two features “Drive” and “Only God Forgives,” Refn makes brings an art house sensibility to what is essentially a ‘b’ thriller.

Yet, as stylish and unsettling as “The Neon Demon” is, it also feels narratively hollow. It’s often unfocused and meanders frequently. The characters are paper thin and difficult to connect with. The only one I really cared about was Jesse and not because she’s a rich character but because I kept worrying that something really bad was going to happen to her. She constantly looks like she’s in danger. Fanning is soft spoken and graceful, having to do a lot of acting with her body and face, but I wanted more from the character. I kept waiting for Jesse to come alive--transition from innocent and vulnerable to more assertive and in control. While there are flashes, she remains frustratingly frail and two-dimensional.

Bearded Keanu Reeves makes a brief but noticeable impression as a sleazy/rapey motel owner, primarily because he’s playing against type. Lee is also strong as a scheming aging model that will do whatever it takes to retain her youth and beauty. However, she isn’t in the film nearly enough, which prevents a potentially intriguing rivalry between her and Jesse from blossoming into anything substantial. This is a shame considering how big a role she plays in the finale. Everyone else, including Jena Malone as an aspiring makeup artist, are sadly unmemorable.

As for the ending, it’s certainly disturbing and disgusting but I couldn’t help but feel a tad underwhelmed. The film acts as though it’s going build up to some profound and shocking conclusion but that never comes. Instead the outcome feels obvious; in fact the whole movie feels obvious. The film’s overarching themes (the physical and mental costs of fame/beauty for young women and the immense pressure they’re put under) aren’t groundbreaking in the realm of cinema and Refn doesn’t have much to say that’s fresh or innovative. In the end, the film tries to make you think it’s more intricate and deep than it really is through style and window dressing. And some of the more gruesome/disturbing sequences (like one that involves full on necrophilia. Yes, you read that right) are laughable, and come off desperate rather than bold.

“The Neon Demon” isn’t a bad film. It’s aesthetically appealing and it’s bizarre--making it watchable and somewhat intriguing. Additionally, the score by frequent Refn collaborator Cliff Martinez is spectacular, switching between warm and ambient music to pulsing 80’s slasher movie style synthesizer. But overall the film is more style and shock value than substance.

C- 

X-Men: Apocalypse Review (2016)

On the outside, Bryan Singer’s “X-Men Apocalypse” (the third “X-Men” film in a new series, preceded by “X-Men: First Class” and “X-Men: Days of Future Past”) seems unremarkable, especially when compared to the other big budget superhero extravaganzas that have already come out.

 In “Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice” and “Captain America: Civil War” the superheroes fight each other instead of some maniacal villain hell bent on world domination. In theory, it’s a great idea not only because it bucks convention but because most of the recent superhero movie villains have been well, pretty lame. Aside from a few exceptions they are one-dimensional after thoughts--shoehorned into the action because superhero movies need villains.

In contrast, “X-Men Apocalypse” follows the more familiar, tried and true superhero film structure: there’s a new powerful bad guy who wants to destroy the world, so a group of heroes must unite and stop him. To make up for the stale plot structure, Singer’s film has a sense of danger and urgency that the superhero-on-superhero conflicts of “Captain America” and “Batman v Superman” lack.

In “X-Men: Apocalypse,” the threat of world destruction feels more significant and plausible because the bad guy making said threat means business. And the film doesn’t shy away from showing the ugly repercussions of his wrath. To put it in simpler terms, we see people die.

All three films attempt to deal with the heavy themes of collateral damage and the cost of war, in an attempt to ground these often outlandish situations in the real world and raise the stakes. While these superheroes are off fighting evil, causing thousands of dollars worth of city damage, what about the hundreds of innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire? However, “Batman v Superman” and “Captain America” address these issues in a fairly safe and impersonal way.

In the case of “Captain America,” government people and politicians tell the heroes about the damage they’ve caused and the innocent lives lost. A random woman confronts Tony Stark (Robert Downy Jr.) telling him that her son died inadvertently during one of the Avenger’s scuffles. In other words, we’re mainly told about the collateral damage without seeing it.

On the other hand, “X-Men: Apocalypse” explicitly deals with the costs of conflict and terrorism. The film has the courage to show people dying (innocent civilians as well as a few of the supporting mutants) on screen in abrupt and sometimes disturbing ways. During a sequence that takes place on the dusty crowded streets of Cairo, a row of four civilians is instantly decapitated while a fifth guy is grotesquely melded into a cement wall, a moment treated so casually and coldly that it made my eyes widen.

It may seem peculiar to want death in a PG-13 superhero flick but seeing some casualties of war and terrorism (it doesn’t have to be excessive) increases the level of danger; too often the threat of world domination/destruction in these movies feels hollow. In “X-Men,” blood is shed and the cost is felt.

I suppose now is a good time to cover the plot basics. The year is 1983 and the world doesn’t know how to feel about mutants; should we fear them or accept them? Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) is busy running his special mutant school, teaching younger mutants like Cyclops, (Tye Sheridan) Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) and Nightcrawler (Kodie Smit-Mcphee) to control and come to terms with their abilities.

Meanwhile the film’s baddie, Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) has been resurrected after spending well over a thousand years trapped in an ancient Egyptian tomb. Apocalypse isn’t all that different from Xavier; they’re both extremely powerful and influential “super mutants” that want to unite fellow mutants. It’s just that Xavier wants peace and assimilation and Apocalypse wants to…“cleanse” the earth of non-mutants, if you catch his drift.

With his demon-like appearance (smooth bald head and sickly blue-grey skin) and whispery voice, Apocalypse isn’t the most charismatic comic book villain but he’s damned intimidating. From the beginning he’s established as an ominous, substantial presence in the action. He kills people with such calm, taciturn malice that’s slightly bone chilling. In one sequence, set in a Polish factory, he kills about seven or eight innocent factory workers instantly (with his mind) like it’s no big deal. Another moment that made my eyes widen.

The fact that we see people die so casually and abruptly like this makes the character and the film all the more unsettling and alarming. When Apocalypse says he wants to “cleanse” the earth you know he’s fully capable of doing so.

And then there’s Magneto (Michael Fassbender), who turns out to be one of the most compelling and conflicted characters. He spends most of the film walking the line between good guy and bad guy. So much of his life has been characterized by tragedy and anger up to this point that he simply wants to live a normal life. However the world won't let him, so he’s driven back into the realm of vengeance and hatred, vengeance and hatred not towards a single person or even a group of people but rather towards the human race in general. There’s a point in the film where wants to inflict harm on innocent people; he has a withdrawn look of disdain in his eyes that's unnerving.  As usual, Fassbender is in top form—playing Magneto with an understated sense of pain and fury.

Another key area “X-Men: Apocalypse” succeeds in is feeling like a complete and self-sufficient movie that can stand alone outside its franchise. Some many recent super hero flicks feel like extended teasers for future films because they’re part of an expanded, ever-growing cinematic universe. Part of the reason why “Batman v Superman” was so lackluster is because it had to set up characters and plotlines for future films, (“The Justice League” and “Wonder Woman”) which cluttered and trivialized the current narrative.

On the flip side, “X-Men: Apocalypse,” is self-contained. With the exception of one scene, all of the characters and plot strands work in service of the central narrative. Everything is fully realized and instead of looking towards future installments, “X-Men Apocalypse” keeps its feet firmly planted in the here and now.

“X-Men: Apocalypse” suffers from some clunky expository dialogue and the ultra talented Rose Byrne (as a non-mutant C.I.A. agent) is given nothing to do except be a part of a poorly developed romantic side plot between her and Xavier. The picture certainly doesn’t reinvent the superhero movie; the broad strokes of the narrative are familiar and the resolution is what you’d expect. Yet, the heightened sense of danger pulsing throughout elevates this otherwise standard superhero narrative. Had “X-Men” not been constrained by a PG-13 rating and the need to maintain a franchise, it could have gone even further in showing the ugly, darker side of these onscreen superhero squabbles.

B

High Rise Review (2016)

Ben Wheatley’s weird, ambitious new feature “High Rise” (based on the 1975 novel by famed post-modern author JG Ballard) certainly sticks with you long after the end credits. It’s a surrealistic black comedy and a macabre nightmare about urban living rolled into one.

As the title suggests, most of the action takes place at a massive high-rise apartment building. While located in London, the building is nevertheless isolated from the rest of the city. With its slanted and jagged modern art design (inside doorways and archways are mostly triangular in shape), the building is luxurious and welcoming. At the same time, it’s overwhelmingly grey in color (the entire building is made of concrete) and the barren, shabby parking lot surrounding it makes the structure look like an ominous, rundown prison. In fact, as the film goes on, “prison” becomes a more apt term to describe the building rather than “luxury high rise” and both the residents trapped inside the building and the viewer experience an intense feeling of claustrophobia.

In England during the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s, there was a boom in high-rise construction. These structures were meant to exhibit post-war progress and modernity; instead they were a hassle. Often times they were cheaply and hastily made, leading to frequent maintenance problems. There were also issues of security (break ins, vandalism etc.) and an unpleasant feeling of isolation; residents felt cut off from society.  

Ballard’s original novel was clearly addressing this unsavory situation, however, the book (as well as the movie) goes much further by presenting a far more bleak, apocalyptic vision of high-rise living and modern life in general. This state of the art structure, that’s supposed to signal progress, causes societal regression and the de-evolution of our species.  Bleak indeed.

Complementing this apocalyptic viewpoint is the film’s overt themes of class division and warfare. Due to its all-inclusive nature (a shopping mall, swimming pool and even a school are included) the building becomes a microcosm for society, with the wealthier residents living on the top floors and poorer residents near the bottom. In between lies the film’s protagonist Dr. Robert Laing (Tom Hiddelson, equal parts understated and sinister) the building’s newest resident, who makes friends from both the lower and higher floors, most notably Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons) the building’s architect and “ruler” of sorts. The upper floor residents are grotesque caricatures of wealthy people, who frequently throw elaborate parties (involving booze and orgies) that take power away from the lower floor rooms. This tension between the upper and lower floor residents drives the action of the first half.

Can the movie feel a little too blatant and heavy-handed? Yes. Wheatley hits the “building-is-society” and “class divide” themes pretty hard talking down to his audience in the process. The screenplay by Amy Jump contains some stupid, ham-fisted dialogue that tends to over explain and snaps you out of the moment. For example, during a scene where Laing is walking up the stairs, he’s stopped by a wealthy tenant who says, “Social climbing…are we?” And later on Laing tells Royal right out: “you hold the key to the building…symbolically.”

However, “High Rise” remains watchable thanks to its sheer nuttiness and unpredictability. The film is a hypnotic fever dream that becomes more delirious and dislocated from our reality with each passing minute. The focus shifts from class warfare to chaos and anarchy, a trajectory that proves to be far more compelling and terrifying than a simply rich vs. poor conflict because there are no clear-cut good and bad guys.

Everyone, upper floor and lower floor, goes mad-- reverting back to savagery, roaming around in small factions causing damage and mayhem. Socioeconomic status becomes superfluous.   The building itself eventually loses power for good while the hallways and corridors become trashed. The once luxurious, all-inclusive high rise is now a disheveled industrial ruin populated by deranged squatters who seem to have no regard for one another. In this feverish state, the picture inspires both moments of inspired, twisted humor and horror in equal measure. A rape sequence (or rather the moment right before the rape and after) involving two supporting characters that used to be friends is genuinely disturbing and icky.

“High Rise” can be repetitive and tedious; there are too many slow motion party/orgy montages that cause the film to drag every now and then. Additionally, some people may find the movie difficult to enjoy because Laing and the rest of the residents are so emotionally distant as characters. There isn’t anyone you can fully connect or sympathize with mainly because they don’t connect or sympathize with one another, especially when all hell breaks loose.

Even so, Wheatley has crafted a bizarre, thought provoking feature about modernity and urban living gone horribly wrong.

B-