Friday, December 25, 2015

Point Break Review (2015)



For movie so infatuated with extreme sports, Ericson Core’s “Point Break” (a remake of the 1991 Kathryn Bigelow actioner staring Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze) is extremely dull—a stagnant, airless, remake lacking any reason to exist. Some movies can be so bad they’re entertaining. Core’s film strives for so little that there’s no fun to be had in any regard. The picture revolves around Johnny Utah (Luke Bracey filling in for Reeves) a former extreme athlete turned F.B.I agent who infiltrates a gang of extreme athletes led by Bodhi (Edgar Ramirez, filling in for Swayze) trying to achieve total enlightenment with nature while also committing acts of eco terrorism.

Watching this new incarnation it’s as if the producers saw the intense, exhilarating skydiving sequence in the original and said: “Lets do that for every scene!” The movie is one extreme sports spectacle after another—surfing mammoth waves, Wing suit flying, skydiving, and snowboarding. All of these are cool stunts in their own right but in the context of the movie there’s no emotional weight behind them. You’re better off just staying home and watching clips on YouTube.
Within thirty minutes the movie becomes tedious and repetitive; after the third sequence in which the characters snowboard down a mountain slope I wanted to throw things at the screen.

“Point Break” is so eager to the get to the next beat of action that it neglects story and character in the process; who needs three-dimensional characters when we have cliff jumping…or snowboarding…or snowboarding off a cliff! As action driven as the original is the focus remains on character, the bond between Utah and Bodhi takes center stage and develops organically. In the remake, said bond is virtually nonexistent. And Kurt Wimmer’s screenplay doesn’t explore the philosophy of Bodhi and his gang in any real depth beyond surface level platitudes (“you see lines, we see truth”).

The acting ranges from robotic to nonexistent. Instead of having personality or charm, newcomer Bracey stares intensely off into the distance. Meanwhile Ramirez and Ray Winstone, (as Utah’s partner Angelo Pappas) two very talented actors look as though they would rather be doing literally anything else. Both recite their lines without any enthusiasm, as if they’re being held at gunpoint. Meanwhile, Theresa Palmer (as the film’s token female and love interest of Utah) is basically thrown under the bus. Overall, no one looks like they’re having any fun (we’re not having any fun) and that is perhaps the most offensive thing about this remake-- it takes itself far too seriously.  Near the beginning of the film, in a room full of other F.B.I agents Utah says (about the culprits of the eco terrorist acts): “I believe these crimes to be the work of…extreme athletes,” a ridiculous line of dialogue delivered with a straight face. And that's what this movie feels like most of the time: a ridiculous movie presented with a straight face. The original “Point Break” has a prominent streak of humor--recognizing the inherent goofiness in its premise (an F.B.I agent going undercover to catch a gang of surfing bank robbers) and embracing it.

Not long after I attended an advanced screening of “Point Break” (almost a week before its theatrical release) Warner Bro’s announced they would be cancelling all further preview/media screenings around the country, a move that seems fitting due to the quality of the final product. “Point Break” is a bland paint by numbers action movie and a soulless advertisement for extreme sports. The last truly awful movie of 2015. 

D-

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

The Hateful Eight Review (2015)



Quentin Tarantino’s latest picture “The Hateful Eight”--a meticulously crafted Western thriller set in Wyoming and shot on 70mm Panavision*—is an odd duck; both admirable and frustrating. While it contains familiar “Tarantino-isms” it feels very different from his other works. In a lot of ways it’s his darkest, most pessimistic feature and his most politically charged (it’s critique on racism in Post-Civil War America is far more scathing and didactic than it was in “Django Unchained,” his Blaxploitation/Spaghetti Western set in the Antebellum South).  It contains plenty of gratuitous violence and has a dark comedic bite as ferocious as a Grizzly bear’s. Traditional notions of “good” and “evil” are nowhere to be found. In Tarantino movies there are no truly innocent characters but in “The Hateful Eight” they range from kind of bad to just plain vile. And yet, my reaction is mixed; I love certain aspects of the film but it also has flaws, flaws that are too big to overlook.

The film moves at a leisurely but comfortable pace; Tarantino is in no hurry to tell his tale and he shouldn’t be.  After opening with epic wide-angle shots of the gorgeous snow-covered Wyoming landscape we’re taken into the confines of a stagecoach. There, we meet bounty hunter John Ruth (Kurt Russell, doing a John Wayne impersonation of sorts) who’s taking criminal Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to the town of Red Rock to hang. Along the way he picks up fellow bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel Jackson) and Chris Mannix, (Walton Goggins) the new sheriff of Red Rock. Due to an impeding Blizzard the stagecoach has to stop at Minnie’s Haberdashery for the night, currently full of other weary travelers. For this motely crew Tarantino has assembled an impressive cast containing the likes of Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern and Demian Bichir. From here on out the action is confined to Minnie’s. “The Hateful Eight” is Tarantino’s stagiest film—Robert Richardson’s crisp cinematography magnifies the cramped interior of the place, accenting the earthy textures, making it feel more like a theater stage than a real Haberdashery in the West. Meanwhile, the actors give eccentric theatrical performances, taking turns speaking and going on intellectual, articulate Tarantino-esque monologues, monologues that occasionally ramble.



In the first half (before a twelve-minute intermission) Tarantino creates an entertaining, multifaceted atmosphere of intrigue and suspense, partly resembling an Agatha-Christie style murder mystery sans the murder. Deep seeded tensions (between Union and Confederacy, black and white etc.) come screaming to the surface. There’s a persistent lack of trust among the characters---just about everyone has something to hide. Even the characters that know one another still aren’t totally happy to see each other again. The actors look like they’re having a grand old time chewing scenery in their Western getup (Russell can wear the hell out of handlebar mustache). And it’s fun to watch them mingle, trade insults and pass the time while the storm rages on outside. Frequent Tarantino collaborator Jackson is the best of the bunch. Warren is consistently the most compelling character, easy-going but extremely perceptive and intelligent at the same time-- catching on to things long before other characters do and of course, he has plenty to hide.

In terms of screenplay and story structure, the first half of “The Hateful Eight” is close to brilliant. Tarantino has become such a big personality (by his own doing) that I think now we sometimes forget how great of a writer he is. He has an uncanny ability to craft tense sequences that stretch and stretch and stretch like a rubber band before finally snapping. In “The Hateful Eight,” Tarantino’s subtle handling of character dynamics-- the shifts in power among the eight, secret alliances forming on the side (characters who didn’t trust each other initially form a pact under new circumstances) and major character revelations is near flawless and difficult to do when everything takes place in a single location and is primarily driven by talk. Tarantino is renowned for his punchy, energetic dialogue but his precision and dedication to story/scene structure is a crucial component in crafting said dialogue; Details and anecdotes that seem superfluous at the time comeback later on in a major way.



However after the intermission things take a peculiar and not entirely successful turn. The tone darkens considerably and Tarantino hammers home his political agenda. To try and go into all it would take too long but let’s just say said political agenda is hammered a little too hard. The film comes off heavy-handed, almost didactic at times, the dialogue feeling too on the nose. On top of that, in terms of a mystery/thriller the second half is considerably less intriguing; major moments feel more telegraphed than they should, a lengthy flashback sequence depicting what happened at Minnie’s before Ruth’s party showed up lacks the surprise and tension of anything in the first half. And at three hours and seven minutes the movie is too long. Tarantino is one of the privileged few directors who has free reign over his work and this time it hurts him. There’s a lot of excess fat that could be trimmed from this half. Tarantino wants to create an epic Western experience but for a single location narrative three hours is too long. Part of me wishes he had taken advantage of the rugged, beautiful frontier environment more instead of keeping the narrative so contained. That may have justified the length.

There are other issues, like the depiction of violence. In general I think Tarantino uses violence intelligently. He uses a lot of it, which may not be your cup of tea, but he rarely uses it haphazardly and he recognizes the distinction between cartoony genre movie violence (Nazi’s being scalped in “Inglorious Basterds”) and disturbing, realistic violence (a runaway slave being ripped apart by dogs in “Django Unchained”) and he knows when each type should be used and how it should be presented. In the second half of “The Hateful Eight” he goes overboard on the cartoon violence and it doesn’t fit at all. “The Hateful Eight” isn’t revenge fantasy or twisted fairly tale like “Basterds” and “Django” but a very bleak politically charged picture, so the excess of silly cartoon violence (along with slow motion and other stylistic flourishes) feels inappropriate and sloppy and confuses the tone.



And then there’s Domergue, the film’s only primary female character. During the first half she resembles a rabid animal more than a human and spends all her time at Ruth’s side--occasionally getting punched and being laughed at. In the second half I kept waiting for her character to slip out of her captive role and spring into action, make some big power moves. Leigh does the best she can but her character never really takes off. She has a handful of great moments but I wish she had figured more prominently into the homestretch of the narrative. Instead she kind of fizzles out and comes off looking pathetic, which is surprising considering Tarantino has written a number of strong female characters in the past. Furthermore, while Domergue definitely isn’t a saint her treatment at the hands of the male characters comes off a little too mean spirited; often times the violence towards her is played for laughs. Overall, I wanted more from her character.

Tarantino is among my favorite filmmakers working today. I love his enthusiasm for cinema and I love how that enthusiasm figures into his work. He can take pieces from a wide variety of old movies (mainly low budget exploitation pictures) and blend them together to form something boldly original. All of which makes this review somewhat difficult to write. I liked “The Hateful Eight.” In fact there are aspects of it I loved; it’s beautifully shot, the acting is top notch and I think the first half is great. But the movie loses its way in the second half and never fully recovers.

B-



*”The Hateful Eight” is being released in two versions: the first is a one-hundred and eighty seven minute cut that’s being shown in 70mm in select theaters on Christmas Day. It comes complete with an overture and an intermission. The other version is one hundred and sixty seven minutes and will be released wide on January 1st. I saw the 70mm version.


Concussion Review (2015)



Peter Landesman’s “Concussion” tells an important and fascinating story in the most conservative way. It’s a showcase for a talented group of actors more than anything else and while there’s nothing to really dislike about it there isn’t a whole lot to love in terms of structure and presentation.

Based on the GQ article “Game Brain” by Jeanne Marie Laskas, “Concussion” follows pathologist Dr. Bennet Omalu, (Will Smith) a Nigerian immigrant currently based in Pittsburg. It’s established early on that he doesn’t do things the normal way; in fact it’s explicitly stated in dialogue. When he does autopsies he listens to music via headphones and talks to his “clients” to get to know them, which causes him to take his sweet time and annoy his co-workers. It’s through this curious fascination with the dead that leads him to Mike Webster, a hall of fame football Center who died in shame (suffering from dementia and plunging into financial ruin).  

To cut right to the chase Omalu uncovers a shocking truth: playing football long-term can cause serious long-term brain damage. As more former football players die from similar circumstances Omalu, with the help of his superior Dr. Cyril Wecht (Albert Brooks) and former Pittsburg Steelers team doctor Dr. Julian Bailes (Alec Baldwin), works to bring this realization to light, a realization the NFL has been covering up. The picture is a classic “individual-takes-on-a-corrupt-system drama.” Omalu is an outsider both to America and the sport (he doesn’t know a thing about football). Since its inception in nineteen twenty, the NFL has evolved not only into a major business entity but a staple of American society and culture. When Wecht tells Omalu that the NFL “owns a day of the week” there’s something almost staggering about hearing that.



The movie focuses on Omalu and his investigation while the actual NFL stays primarily in the shadows. It could be argued that “Concussion” lets the NFL off a little too easy but at the same time, had the movie been more scathing and critical I don’t think it would be entirely genuine. Omalu isn’t trying to attack or totally vilify the NFL nor is he trying to ban football; instead he simply wants awareness and acknowledgment on their part that concussions are a very serious and real issue.

Smith does his best work here in a while. Based on his past few credits (“After Earth,” “Men in Black 3”) I realize that’s not saying much, but in “Concussion” he gives an assured authentic performance--playing Omalu with humility and humor as well as a slight undertone of arrogance and self-righteousness. Brooks, Baldwin and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Prema Mutiso (Omalu’s girlfriend and eventual wife) also turn in strong work even if they’re not in the movie nearly enough (especially Brooks).

Landesman’s direction is competent and overall the picture is more focused than his debut “Parkland.” Yet “Concussion” never quite pops off the screen the way it should; Landesman’s screenplay is procedural to a fault. For most of the running time I sat and watched from a distance, never getting totally absorbed in the material, never feeling tense or worked up, even as Omalu digs deeper and the N.F.L. gets angrier. There’s very little surprise-- even as someone who knew nothing about Omalu or this story (aside from very basic knowledge that football causes long-term brain damage) I could sense every big turn and revelation well before it arrived. Additionally the film suffers from too much obvious cliché dialogue (at one point Mutiso says to Omalu right before he first discovers the truth about concussions: “Are you afraid of what you will find…or what you wont find?”) that further distances the viewer from the material. All in all, Landesman spells things out a little too clearly, not leaving much for us to think about. The ending is particularly unsatisfying, wrapping things up too neatly.



On top of all that, as good as Mbatha-Raw is, she isn’t given a lot to do. Once Perma becomes Omalu’s wife her role is significantly minimized, showing up every now and then to give him cliché motivational talks. Perma becomes more of a background character, which in turn lessens the impact of a major third act moment involving her character. It’s a moment that should be devastating but instead we’re left cold.


In the end, “Concussion” is a perfectly decent, harmless film; one that you can rent a few months from now and forget about. That being said, due to the importance of the story and subject matter one can’t help but be mildly disappointed with Landesman’s film.

C+

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

The Big Short Review (2015)



Adam McKay’s “The Big Short” tackles a weighty subject through a peculiar blend of comedy and drama—a blend that’s mostly successful. Based on the nonfiction book of the same name by Michael Lewis the film follows several people in the world of high finance who essentially predicted the credit and housing bubble collapse--that caused the 2008 financial crisis—and profited from it. 

Now that doesn’t sound like a laughing matter, does it? Which is why McKay’s (who wrote the screenplay with Charles Randolph) semi comedic approach seems odd at first. However McKay doesn’t trivialize the situation nor does he glorify the people involved. Instead the humor is used to emphasize the sheer ridiculousness and chaos of the situation, the utter stupidity and greed of those involved in this massive financial collapse (in a lot of ways the picture’s black comedic vibes are similar to Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street”). When we laugh, it’s usually out of discomfort or disbelief.

The picture also takes many opportunities to poke fun at its main characters--an eclectic band of smart socially awkward weirdo’s, to say the least. Leading the bunch is hedge fund manager Michael Burry, (Christian Bale using his chameleon like acting abilities to disappear into his role once again) the first one to catch on to this unfortunate trend in housing. As the movie goes on Bale’s presence decreases. He spends the majority of his scenes barricaded in his office like a hermit, listening to heavy metal music on full blast or banging on his own set of drums. Then there’s eccentric money manager Mark Baum (Steve Carell) who appears to have come equipped with a permanent BS detector—not afraid to speak his mind or call other people’s stupidity out during meetings. Also along for the ride is Jared Vennett, (Ryan Gosling, arrogant and with a tan) Vinnie Daniel, (Jeremy Strong) who works with Baum, Charlie Geller, (John Magaro) Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) and Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt, in an effective low key role) among others. While it could be argued that Baum emerges as the main character, “The Big Short” is very much an ensemble film. Each actor carries their respective weight, forming a cohesive unit, and when they cross paths they have an effortless tragi-comedic chemistry.

In terms of style, the picture switches back and forth between realistic hand held cinema Verite style scenes and hectic absurdist asides; sudden flashbacks and flash-forwards, characters breaking the fourth wall, slick montages and cutaways (“Wolf Of Wall Street” actress Margot Robbie in a bathtub explaining what sub prime mortgages are, for example) that contribute to the film’s comedic demeanor. These stylistic and structural flourishes keep the film zipping along at a steady pace and show awareness (on the filmmakers part) of the complexity of the material in relation to a general audience member. “The Big Short” presents a lot of information to the viewer, dry technical terms and concepts pertaining to finance and the housing market (terms that aren’t going to make sense to a novice like myself) in engaging and often humorous ways. At times, the movie plays like an entertaining housing market tutorial video. 


Yet at its core “The Big Short” is very serious, terrifying even and Mckay knows that. During the last third everything slows down and there are no comedic asides. The film sheds its black comedic tone and simply turns black.  The air has been sucked out the room. Our weirdo’s, who up until this point have practically been celebrating their success and insider knowledge, suddenly aren’t so excited anymore; they can’t quite comprehend what’s happened. “The Big Short” is about a group of people who bet against the U.S economy…and win. Could you imagine being in that situation? Could you imagine being one of the few who knew the economy would fall as hard as it did? As much as one may laugh during “The Big Short” you ultimately walk out feeling icky. McKay’s picture may not always work—it loses focus at times and there are a few comedic montages that could be cut out—but it’s an absorbing film nonetheless.

B+