Sunday, November 11, 2018
Story by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan
Screenplay Written by Anthony McCarten
Directed by Bryan Singer/Directed by Dexter Fletcher (uncredited)
** (two stars)
RATED PG 13
Frankly, and yes, I do have to say it...the 1998 VH-1 Behind The Music documentary special was more effective.
Dear readers, for those of you who know me in the real world, then you know. For those of you who do not, you will soon find out. But let me now state upon this site that ever since my childhood, as I was growing up in the 1970's, the music of Queen has been a beloved constant in my life from, I would imagine, that very first listen of "Killer Queen" (released October 21, 1974) on Chicago's WLS AM.
The musical wonderland as created by the collective of John Deacon, Brian May, Roger Taylor and of course, the iconic, immortal Freddie Mercury was a universe unlike any other to bask oneself within and for me, I practically drowned inside of it. Every song that hit the radio airwaves, I latched onto powerfully. The experience of hearing the song "Bohemian Rhapsody" (released October 31, 1975) for instance, was as Earth shifting every single time it was heard just as much as the aural vortex of sound upon the daily schoolbus was utterly silenced every single time "Another One Bites The Dust" (released 1980) appeared on the driver's small transistor radio. I remember being especially obsessed with the band's "News Of The World" (released October 28, 1977) album as it was a record I checked out of the school library constantly, essentially memorizing every single note of the work as I loved it so completely. I remember wanting to see Director Mike Hodges' re-make of "Flash Gordon" (1980) solely because Queen had scored the film--for that matter, the band's music was also the only draw for me to see Director Russell Mulcahy's "Highlander" (1986).
Album after album, song after song, and most certainly, within the band's peerless performance during 1985's Live Aid philanthropic concert event, Queen was a band that seemed to re-define the concept of originality over and again. Their musical aesthetic was uncompromising in its sheer breadth, inventiveness, superlative musicality and recording production as they bridged the gaps between hard rock, prog rock, R&B, soul, crystalline ballads, funk, pop, heavy metal, classical, vaudevillian, jazz, blues and of course, the operatic with an idiosyncratic style that afforded them the rare ability of sounding like no other band other than themselves and somehow being embraced by the world in the process, as Queen means so many different things to generations of listeners from all walks of life. This was a band that constantly broke barriers and Freddie Mercury, the consummate performer, the sky scorching vocalist, was a risk taker and then some.
So, it was a shame to witness just how pedestrian and superficial an experience the new musical rock biopic "Bohemian Rhapsody," as credited to Director Bryan Singer actually was. It is by no means a bad film, so to speak. There are quite a number of sequences in this handsome production, that are considerably thrilling and as Freddie Mercury, a deeply committed Rami Malek certainly works like the devil to honor and almost resurrect this artistic figure, the likes of whom we will never see again. And still, the whole proceedings felt so tame, so toothless and filled with discrepancies that, for me, as a fan of the band and cinematic storytelling itself, I felt to be unforgivable. For a film that dares to bear the name of one of the most jaw dropping and creative rock singles ever made as its title, "Bohemian Rhapsody" was ultimately more than a little banal. Queen, and especially Freddie Mercury deserved exceedingly better than what was delivered.
With a "cradle-to-grave" structure book-ended by the band's appearance at Live Aid, "Bohemian Rhapsody" traces the story of Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek), beginning in 1970 when he was the Indian-British Parsi college student and Heathrow baggage worker under his real name Farrokh Bulsara and fan of the local college band Smile, which housed both guitarist/vocalist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer/vocalist Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy).
When Smile's lead vocalist abruptly quits to join another band, Farrokh quickly convinces May and Taylor to allow him to join the band as lead singer. With bassist John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello) joining soon afterwards, and Farrokh legally changing his name to Freddie Mercury, the band, now re-christened Queen, begin their meteoric rise to stardom. .
From here, "Bohemian Rhapsody" chronicles the odyssey of Freddie Mercury, to global fame and fortune to increased internal isolation, from artistic independence to alienation from his bandmates via the duplicitous personal manager Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), from his marriage to Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton) to his gradual self-realization as being a homosexual, from rampant promiscuity to finding love with Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker) and his ultimate contraction of the AIDS virus, which led to his death in 1991.
For what it is worth, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is unquestionably a glorious looking production, beautifully photographed by Cinematographer Newtom Thomas Sigel, and is certainly impeccably well cast (Gwilym Lee as Brian May especially provided me with some serious double takes and a completely unrecognizable Mike Myers is absolutely terrific as the EMI record executive who refused to release "Bohemian Rhapsody" as a single due to its six minute length) and is unquestionably fueled by one of the most dynamic set of songs that feel designed to be heard blasting in your movie theaters. Sequences of the band recording and most certainly, the film's climactic re-staging of the Live Aid concert performance are absolutely thrilling and deeply effective.
And yet, everything was sort of ho-hum to me...at best! "Bohemian Rhapsody" the film and completely unlike the song itself, was a cinematic experience that felt so restrain ed to the point of being nearly inert. There was simply no momentum to the film, no ascension and in many ways, no real sense of direction or even a perspective.
Now, before the film's release, there was question of how sanitized an experience "Bohemian Rhapsody" would be regarding Freddie Mercury's private life, some fearing the film would be "straight-washed," removing any sense of Mercury's homosexuality. To that, and I guess for a film rated PG 13, the film does not shy away from this aspect of Mercury's life by any means. But I guess, the problem I had was that it never seemed to go beyond the surface of these experiences terribly much, whether by design or disinterest from the filmmakers to ensure that "Bohemian Rhapsody would remain a film that would speak to the masses with the least amount of controversial material.
To that end, here is where I felt that so much of "Bohemian Rhapsody" was a missed opportunity. This is Queen and Freddie Mercury we are dealing with. Figures that defied all of the rules regarding rock music, entertainment, and even the ways in how to live one's life...and to even face death as well. In my mind, a film about Queen would be one to follow suit creatively. One that was decidedly R rated, of course. But artistically some thing more akin to what Writer/Director Todd Haynes achieved with both "Velvet Goldmine" (1998), which took on nothing less than the thinly veiled legacy of David Bowie and the entire glam rock movement, and his truly forward thinking "I'm Not There" (2007), his furiously innovative pastiche of Bob Dylan, which starred no less than seven actors portraying variations of the Dylan persona.
Or even further, perhaps a film like Director Don Cheadle's difficult, impressionistic and criminally underseen "Miles Ahead" (2015), a fully unorthodox look into the psychological world of Miles Davis or even better, Director Bill Pohlad's achingly stunning "Love And Mercy" (2014), which starred both John Cusack and Paul Dano as Brian Wilson at two distinct phases of his life.
In all of those films, challenging as they each are to varying degrees, each filmmaker possessed a specific point of view of their subject matter that allowed audiences to engage with these musical figures in exciting and invigorating new ways that made us re-think what we already may or may not have known about them and the music they created. By contrast, "Bohemian Rhapsody" never really offers us any such insights and as riveting as Rami Malek is in the film, his Freddie Mercury never felt to be as immersive as it could have been because the actual screenplay and direction itself didn't really give Malek any conceivable depth to delve into.
To some degrees, a more traditional approach or a potential crowd pleaser, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Take films like Oliver Stone's "The Doors" (1991) or Taylor Hackford's "Ray" (2004), both of which follow more conventional narrative structures and possess two outstanding leading performances from Val Kilmer as Jim Morrison and Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles, that feverishly burrowed under the skin to the point where you need to blink twice to see if you are regarding the actors or documentary footage. And again, both Stone and Hackford as filmmakers supplied their own perspective about their subjects, therefore giving us in the audience something to cling to, to argue about, to embrace and to ruminate over.
As Freddie Mercury, Rami Malek is often sensational but to a point, the point where it is probably the best Mercury impersonation you will ever witness but it does not necessarily mean that we were given a great performance. Again, Malek was more than committed to the task at hand but it was at the service of a film that didn't seem to have an opinion about Mercury or Queen other than we all loved them...and in some ways, that is not enough to hang onto a full movie.
There is so much material about Freddie Mercury the film could have covered but seemed disinterested in doing so. For instance, did Mercury's heritage hold any impetus in him wanting to be an artist? What of his sexuality as it related to his artistry--especially as this is about a band of four men calling themselves "Queen"? What of the controversial "I Want To Break Free" music video (lovingly re-created in the film) and the rampant homophobia within the rock industry that essentially stalled their success in America? None of that is here whatsoever. And what of the full breadth of Queen's music? Aside from the hits, we hear nothing of anything else they created. Yes, I know that this film is decidedly not a documentary but "Bohemian Rhapsody" felt less like a full cinematic experience and more like a series of highlights and moments strung together with Queen songs as the glue. It all felt to be like a filmed checklist with each sequence being one more thing to cross off the list, and all with no sense of narrative flow.
I am curious if the behind-the-scenes drama of "Bohemian Rhapsody" had anything to do with this level of disconnect as Bryan Singer was fired from the project mid-filming due to excessive, erratic behavior, leaving Dexter Fletcher to enter and finish the film (due to Directors Guild Of America rules, Singer has retained full directorial credit while Fletcher receives an Executive Producer credit). With that in consideration, it is a miracle "Bohemian Rhapsody" turned out as well as it has but even so, the lack of substantive material felt glaring.
Even moreso, were all of the striking inaccuracies, completely inexcusable considering how easy it is to gather all of the true information regarding Queen. and surprisingly so as both Brian May and Roger Taylor were consultants on the film (John Deacon has fully retired from the music business although he reportedly gave his blessings to this film). Now, I am no Queen scholar by any means, and yes, there is always a sense of artistic license with films of this sort. But even with the little that I do know, I was stunned to find this level of fault in a film where this should not have been the case whatsoever.
For instance, we often witness bassist John Deacon contributing vocals to the trademark stacked harmonies of Queen but Deacon, in reality, never sang on any Queen recordings. We have a sequence set in 1980, finding the band writing and recording "We Will Rock You"...a song the band released, in actuality, three years earlier. The ways the band members of Queen first met as well as Freddie's first meeting with Mary did not occur in reality as depicted in the film. The band never even broke up, as implied late in the film, therefore not making their performance at Live Aid a reunion (when in fact, their Live Aid performance arrived after they completed a year long tour, meaning the band was in prime fighting form by the time of Live Aid). And most strikingly, Freddie Mercury was not diagnosed with the AIDS virus until two years after Live Aid, not before, as the film implies being the catalyst to even undertake that performance.
Again, I know, I know, this is not a documentary. But I just did not appreciate all of the re-structuring, embellishments and seemingly intentional errors placed within a story that already contains more then enough inherent drama, pathos, excitement, humor and peaks and valleys of lives being lived in a tremendously bright spotlight. To me, there was no need to create drama and have fallacies in a film like this one, where the truth is indeed more than we could ever need to have. In doing so, it just rubbed me the wrong way and therefore did a disservice to Freddie Mercury's memory and Queen's legacy, as they were fearless artistically and honestly. "Bohemian Rhapsody," on the other hand, hedged its bets too often, resulting in a movie that could attain a mass appeal yet one perhaps rooted in a certain nostalgia rather than via cinematic appreciation or innovation.
But hey, I am just one person and in regards to the audience response to the film, I just may be in the minority as it is indeed a hit. Even so, I do think there is a better film about Queen and Freddie Mercury yet to be made. One that is more courageous, audacious, bodacious, ridiculous, fantastic and definitive than what was presented throughout in "Bohemian Rhapsody."
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Based upon the novel by Angie Thomas
Screenplay Written by Audrey Wells
Directed by George Tillman Jr.
**** (four stars)
RATED PG 13
Not terribly long ago, I heard a statement from comedian/author/activist D.L. Hughley that gave me tremendous pause as I regard the status of race relations in 2018 post Obama/present day Trump America, and it is as follows:
"The most dangerous place for Black people to live in is White people's imagination...We live in an America right now where we have evolved... but we inherently believe that Black people are criminal."
Dear readers, I express the following words to you without hyperbole or melodrama and with the fullness of honesty as I am able to muster at this point in time: I have never been more frightened for my safety as a Back man as I am right now in 2018. No. I am so fearful as to make myself some sort of shut-in. I go about my business every day as I am accustomed to doing. I go to work. I frequent my regular haunts. I see friends. I still look forward to upcoming public events. But even so, when I see police cars, I begin to shudder. Sometimes, as I am going about my business, I do wonder more often than ever if there will come a time when some random White person who inexplicably feels "threatened," solely due to my presence as a Black man will try to eradicate the "monster" by pulling out their conceal and carry ready pistol and shoot me...even as I pull into the driveway of my own home.
The racial disparity and vitriolic turbulence towards African Americans over these past 10 years has been so rapid and and unrepentantly overt in ways that I don't really believe that I ever really imagined them to being in the 21st century. Yes, I know my history. No, I am not naive to the ways of racists and racism in the United States of America but that being said, I am shocked to the point of being almost numbed by all that has occurred during this past decade. Of course, the undercurrent of racist resentment during Barack Obama's Presidency was expected. Yet, the increasing wave of coded dog whistle language from the collective mouths of our Republican public servants deeply unnerved me, as it was fully designed to perpetrate all that occurred concurrently and afterwards towards Black people in this country.
After the murder of then 17 year old Tryavon Martin on February 26, 2012 at the hands of George Zimmerman, who was then fully acquitted of all charges on July 13, 2013, I though to myself that night, "It is now open season on Black people." And so it has only continued...
Every time. Every single time a new installment of our continuing African-American tragedy unfolds, I am left beside myself wondering just how and why this obscene, inhumane level of hatred and fear continues and as of this point in time, only continues to escalate... and furthermore, why the outcry against such intolerance is not louder and larger. Look at where we are now. In addition to all of the murders, we are now witnessing numerous 911 calls by Whites in regards to Black people having a bar-be-que, to napping, to golfing, to attempting to enter one's own apartment, to being attacked via shotgun for simply asking directions, to the preposterous cry of sexual harassment by a 9 year old, which in an of itself elicited terrifying echoes of Emmett Till, whose own lynching and murder in 1955 was based entirely in a lie by his accuser. Again I ask, why is the outcry not louder and larger?
It makes me sometimes feel and fear that this continuing tragedy is being viewed as tragedy only by Black people. That no one outside of my race can or will ever begin to view me and people like me as human beings like themselves and only as the imaginary creatures that fuel their fears and violent retribution. My level of paranoia has been dramatically raised as the lack of understanding, empathy and humanity has only made my spirit descend, all of which threatening to derail my pride and resistance.
In a cinematic year that has already displayed considerable excellence, especially within films that have explored variations of the Black experience within a variety of genres, including Ryan Coogler's "Black Panther," Boots Riley's "Sorry To Bother You," and Spike Lee's "BlacKKKlansman," George Tillman Jr.'s "The Hate U Give" is undeniably an exceptional piece of work and art.
In addition to existing as a letter perfect adaptation of Angie Thomas' wonderfully stirring and sobering young adult novel, Tillman Jr. has delivered a cinematic standout in its own right, as it deftly explores and investigates, with clear astuteness and brutally complex yet fully empathetic honesty, the realities of racial code switching, police brutality, racial profiling, the urgent necessity of the survival of Black communities and Black families, the legacy and continuation of Black activism and even more provocative material.
Miraculously, and especially for modern day mainstream cinema, it was a triumph to witness all of this material through the lens of a fully three dimensional 16 year old female Black leading character who is placed firmly at the film's center stage and is indeed the very protagonist that we would follow absolutely anywhere. With a poignancy and potency that belongs within the same rarefied class as Ryan Coogler's "Fruitvale Station" (2013) and even Spike Lee's peerless "Do The Right Thing" (1989), George Tillman Jr.'s "The Hate U Give" is excellent filmmaking designed for essential viewing.
Fearing for the safety of their children in an environment where gangs, drugs and crime are rampant, Starr and her siblings attend a wealthy, predominantly White prep school named Williamson Prep. Although she is a member of the school girls basketball team, has two best friends in Maya (Megan Lawless) and Hailey (Sabrina Carpenter) and a serious boyfriend in Chris (KJ Apa), who is White, Starr purposefully keeps her life in Garden Heights silent while at school--from her manner of speech and culture to expressions of her temperament--thus referring to her Williamson Prep persona as "Starr Version 2." In turn, she also keeps the entirety of her school life silent back home at Garden Heights, especially her relationship with Chris from Maverick's knowledge.
Both of Starr's worlds begin to converge and ultimately collide on the fateful night at a Garden Heights house party where she is reunited with her childhood best friend and true first love Khalil (a wonderfully charismatic Algee Smith). After a shooting occurs at the party, Khalil begins to drive Starr back home, only to be stopped for an inspection by a White police officer. Despite Starr's protests and warnings, Khalil remains cocky, even while standing outside of his own car, hands upon the hood. When Khalil playfully reaches into the car and emerges with only a hairbrush, he is shot and killed by the officer in full view of Starr.
In the fallout of Khalil's murder of which Starr was the sole witness, a fact she also keeps secret from her friends at school as well as within her own community as to not raise the wrath of the local drug dealer King (Anthony Mackie), for whom Khalil was employed, Starr Carter begins her personal evolution regarding her relationships with racial injustice, community and political activism, as well as a growing sense of racial pride, self-respect and the rise of her voice for the truth.
George Tillman Jr.'s "The Hate U Give" is an absolutely superb presentation with seamless performances from the entire cast, and for my money, the two leading performances from both Amandla Stenberg and Russell Hornsby fully deserve serious attention during awards season...and for that matter, so does the entire film itself.
While for some viewers, the film may wrap itself up too tidily, and to that I can understand that criticism to a degree. But to that, I do offer this as an explanation: "The Hate U Give" is indeed a film designed for a young adult audience based from source material designed for teenagers. That being said, the film does indeed give viewers, from teenagers upwards, an exceeding amount of difficult, provocative material, themes and concepts to unpack, ruminate over, discuss and debate as Tillman Jr. offers no easy answers...and realistically, how could he? Yet, what Tillman Jr. has accomplished with his clear, clean, measured, patient direction is akin to what Spike Lee has achieved throughout his career. The examination of difficult, controversial topics presented with a perspective of profound fair-mindedness and through the unapologetic lens of African-American eyes.
As with Angie Thomas' source material, the character of Starr Carter in the film version of "The Hate U Give" is blessedly multi-layered, with qualities, attributes, foibles, faults and an inner journey that is simultaneously individualistic as it is also universal.
For me, I completely related to Starr as I grew up within a middle class Black neighborhood with two formidable parents, both of whom employed within the Chicago public school system, yet I was sent to a predominantly White, private, college preparatory high school located in Chicago's beautiful Hyde Park and tucked comfortably upon the campus of the University Of Chicago for reasons both educational and also to keep me safe as they each worked long hours.
Most importantly, like Starr, I possessed no real knowledge of what the concept of "code switching" actually was but I did have a fiercely instinctual understanding as it was a means of just...well...living day to day as I traveled back and forth from one environment (Black) into another (White) every single day. Being questioned of perceived "Whiteness" due to where I attended school, to the manner of my diction, to studying habits, to personal likes and dislikes and so on with my Black peers in my neighborhood eventually led me to feeling isolated around my own race. While at school, I know now (and despite my comfort) that I attempted to hide my "Blackness" in order to fully assimilate with my friends and environment.
With "The Hate U Give," Starr Carter is a Black teenager who is a sneaker aficionado, an athlete and Harry Potter devotee (an extremely poignant touch that builds in power along the course of the film) coming to terms with the two versions of herself as she gradually evolves both sides into a unified whole. We meet her as she denies existing as her complete self in both environments through hiding aspects of herself from both her friends and Maverick. At school, emotions are buried so as to not fall into or confirm prevalent racial stereotypes of Black people and Black females in particular while at home, her friends and especially her boyfriend Chris are never mentioned, especially to her Father.
I appreciated how throughout the film, Tillman Jr. takes those aspects of Blackness and Whiteness and forces the characters as well as all of us in the audience to have our own perceptions challenged to a variety of provocative degrees. With regards to Starr and her prep school friends, regard how Starr's emergent embracing of her own Blackness, including the history of violence against Blacks which she explores in the social media open forum of her Tumblr, account affects her relationship with Hailey who reacts with micro-aggressions of increasing resentment.
Even further is her relationship with Chris, who at one point expresses to Starr that he doesn't "see color." We are able to take that statement from Chris' perspective, which is indeed an honest, open-hearted, sincere expression of racial solidarity and love. Yet, to Starr, she rightfully educates that a statement like that is in actuality insulting because if he is unable to "see" her Blackness, then he will never see her for who she is completely.
And so, we are left with a teenage interracial couple forced to make some hard decisions as to how serious they are towards each other as race and class are indeed two barriers they each need to seriously question crossing. Will Chris forsake the comfort and security of his Whiteness to embrace Starr in full and will Starr allow herself to trust that Chris truly loves her and will remain by her side regardless of their respective home environments and now the firestorm surrounding Khalil's murder and her rising sense of activism?
Racial, and again class, perceptions and stereotypes about poor Black neighborhoods are challenged provocatively and with a patient yet purposeful even handedness that explores a variety of angles, forcing characters and audience to think and/or re-think our own prejudices. One of the most striking sequences within this film is a brilliantly conceived, written, acted and directed sequence between Maverick and Starr during which they discuss not only how Khalil could be a drug dealer but WHY, making for a moment where we can see how the noblest intentions could be behind actions one can perceive to be irredeemable.
Another especially powerful sequence occurs later in the film between Starr and her Uncle Carlos (well played by Common), a police officer. As Starr continues to wonder just why the White officer would just shoot and murder the unarmed Khalil, Tillman Jr. allows the character of Carlos to engage us with the police officer's viewpoint about the hows and whys an officer could just shoot someone unarmed. And then, Tillman Jr. gives the floor back to Starr, which then allows the conversation to receive a profoundly sharp pivot into race, for what a White officer would and could do to a young Black male is decidedly not the same if the police officer were Black and the suspect was a White male in a suit driving a Mercedes. In that situation, would that officer shoot first or say "Hands up!"--a question that drives the film deeply into the heart of the story, which is indeed about the value of life placed on Whites and Blacks and which ones happen to possess more of that value.
With Starr's parents, Lisa and Maverick, Tillman Jr. invites us into two sides of an argument in which both sides are correct. Lisa solely wishes for her children to be safe and to have educational possibilities and opportunities they would not receive in their own neighborhood especially as their inner city school is precisely the very type that exists as a pipeline to the prison system.
Yet for Maverick, who wishes for precisely the same as Lisa for their children, just as important to him and what he wishes to impart to his family is the importance of the continued existence of the Black community regardless of economics, as evidenced through the presence of his grocery store and the other Black businesses that exist alongside his. For Maverick, if the Carter family uproots and abandons their community as others before them, not only would they be turning their collective backs upon their own, they would be actively contributing to the death of their own community. Utterly formidable questions with not one easy answer.
I have to take this time to make special mention of Maverick Carter, whose superlative presence is yet another factor in this film that forces us to re-think any possible harbored prejudices, this time the presence of the Black Father. And for that matter, the relationship between Maverick and Starr is yet another high quality depiction of the cinematic rarity that is the Father/daughter relationship and within a year that has showcased several, including Writer/Director Bo Burnham's "Eighth Grade" and Director Brett Haley's "Hearts Beat Loud."
As I have expressed many times upon this site in recent years, representation is everything and to have the opportunity to see a character as powerful as Maverick, and so enormously well portrayed by Russell Hornsby, was truly an exceptional gift, so notable considering the perception that Black Fathers are people that are perceived to be perpetually absent within Black communities nationwide.
For that matter, having a film in which a young Black female is not only front and center but the engine to the entire film is a near miracle. And in actuality, having Starr in the company of the young Black women who propelled the aforementioned "Hearts Beat Loud" as well as Director Ava DuVernay's "A Wrinkle In Time," all in the same cinematic year is a downright revelation and Amandla Stenberg's compelling, complete, compulsively engaging performance is equal to every single aspect, conflict, nuance and moment of this wonderful character and evolution that Author Angie Thomas created.
The greatest wish that I could have for George Tillman Jr.'s "The Hate U Give" is that for everyone who chooses to see this film, they are able to embrace the sheer overwhelming empathy of the work, a level of humanity that makes this film imperative viewing in my mind, especially now as Black people continue to be viewed in the most inhumane extremes. As described in the novel and throughout the film, the title of "The Hate U Give" arrives from a devastating lyric and "THUG LIFE" concept as written by the late Tupac Shakur, which is in full, "The Hate U Give Little Infants Fucks Everybody."
At this specific stage in our collective history in the 21st century, we are all caught within a cyclone of what happens when hate is allowed to lead the way, leaving monuments of damage, pain, fear, recrimination, vitriol and violence in its wake. As I stated at the outset of this posting, I am deeply frightened. For myself. For my family and my people. And to that end, for all of us should we allow all of this hate that surrounds us to fully consume us with taking a stand against it.
George Tillman Jr.'s "The Hate U Give" is absolutely the right film at the right time as it firmly addresses our societal epidemic concerning our racial divide as well as our overall humanity and inhumanity towards each other, with a specialized view into Black and White relations, perceptions, and violence.
Urgent, vital, crucial, impassioned and one of 2018's finest achievements.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Most certainly, and somewhat surprisingly, the film I am possibly most anxious to witness is Director Steven Caple Jr.'s "Creed II," the sequel to Writer/Director Ryan Coogler's outstanding, downright emotionally primal "Creed" (2015).
In addition to this sequel, there is also another highly anticipated new installment that has my interest piqued..
Granted, I was a bit underwhelmed by Writer J.K. Rowling and Director David Yates' "Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them" (2016), the first installment of a planned five film prequel series to the "Harry Potter" films. But I am indeed hoping that this second chapter will help move the larger story forwards in the very fashion that we all know Rowling is able to compose and that Yates is more than imaginatively and dramatically capable of realizing. We shall see....
If you know me in the real world, then you will know how much I adore Queen! That being said, the prospect of a Queen/Freddie Mercury biopic as directed by Bryan Singer,a filmmaker who has completely eluded me from film to film to film, has not made me terribly excited--and then, there is all of the behind the scenes drama as well. Then, the first trailers hits and the apparent transformation Rami Malek has undergone to become Mercury looks exceedingly impressive. Again, we shall see...
Fresh from the beautiful and devastating "Call Me By Your Name" (2017), Director Luca Guadagnino returns with his already divisive remake of the original 1977 Dario Argento horror cult classic. At t his time, I have not seen even one frame of this film and perhaps, that is the way I will wish to keep it as to be surprised completely.
And with that, I will try to leave it here although I am more than certain that other films will make their way into my personal stratosphere. Hopefully, life will allow me to keep pace. So, please my dear readers, wish me luck and good health and as always, I will see you when the house lights go down!!!!!
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Based upon the book First Man: The Life Of Neil A. Armstrong by James R. Hansen
Screenplay by Josh Singer
Directed by Damien Chazelle
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED PG 13
Despite the still vivid memories I hold of the deep fascination I had with the stars and the cosmos when I was a young child, it was enough to completely turn me off from the idea of ever leaving the planet to voyage to outer space. In fact, it was enough to make me forever want to keep my two feet firmly planted upon the ground.
Dear readers, let me express to you that the first sequence contained within Damien Chazelle's "First Man" is a showstopper as it is violently propulsive and superbly volatile to the point of being simultaneously breath taking and anxiety inducing. The set up is as follows: the year is 1961 and astronaut Neil Armstrong (played by Ryan Gosling) is a test pilot riding an X-15 upwards into the clouds and ultimately into space and back down to Earth again.
Chazelle frames every moment from a first person perspective, essentially allowing the audience absolutely no panoramic viewpoints. Solely the extremely limited vantage point of Armstrong himself, his head obviously encased within his helmet, and all peripheral vision essentially robbed. What we are given are the pulse pounding G-Force vibrations, so raging in its turbulence that it feels the ship weighs even less than a tin can and is threatening to shatter in a moment's notice, therefore scattering Armstrong himself to the four winds. What is visible is not much more than what is in front of his eyes with portions of darkness punctuated by aggressive flashes of light. The sound is utterly terrifying in its deafening cacophony, which feels to ascend in its intensity the higher Armstrong climbs.
And before it is even realized...complete silence and the sheer majestic tranquility of outer space. That is, before beginning the hyperbolic descent and ferocious landing. To think, the man only continued to voyage upwards and beyond over and a gain over the next eight years before becoming that first man to set footsteps upon the lunar surface of the moon.
"First Man," the latest feature from Damien Chazelle, further cements his status as one of our most versatile young filmmakers working today. Following his exhausting, incendiary "Whiplash" (2014) and "La La Land" (2016), the lavish, extravagant musical that most of you loved but I was tremendously underwhelmed by, Chazalle's new film is a return to form (for me) as well as an extension of his sharp, complex artistic palate as he has created an experience that is a compelling work of rich juxtapositions, as the epic pursuit of Americans attempting to reach the moon runs concurrently with the piercing, painful intimacy of an interior, psychological drama, making for one of 2018's especially poignant films.
As previously stated, Ryan Gosling stars as Neil Armstrong as "First Man" chronicles, in an episodic docudrama fashion, the eight year journey from the film's opening X-15 sequence to the Apollo 11 mission, which did indeed find revolutionary success upon the moon in 1969. During this same period of time, the film focuses upon Armstrong's private, increasingly melancholic home life with his wife, Janet Shearon (Claire Foy) and their two sons after the illness and death of their 2 year old daughter, Karen (Lucy Stafford).
Damien Chazelle's "First Man," will undoubtedly earn comparisons to both Philip Kaufman's "The Right Stuff" (1983) and Ron Howard's "Apollo 13" (1995), and deservedly so, with its superlative filmmaking, photo realistic special effects that celebrate the realities of Science, Math, and the wellsprings of equal parts inspiration and intelligence that once mined our societal curiosity at what laid beyond our own planet and the ingenuity, plus healthy competition with the Russians in the "space race," that provided us access to travel to the stars.
While Chazelle more than supplies his film with the characteristics that showcase the epic qualities of this story, "First Man" is, in actuality, much more of a hushed chamber piece that demands strict attention from the audience to piece together the motivations and meanings when regarding such an inscrutable figure like Neil Armstrong. Chazelle and Ryan Gosling do not go out of their collaborative ways to tell or even necessarily guide the audience into determining precisely what Armstrong may be thinking or feeling, especially as he continuously attempts to return to space over and again, after so many have failed or even perished trying the same feats.
And truthfully, it is in the nature of mortality that the soul of "First Man" exists. For it is indeed the death of Armstrong daughter that fuels this narrative, giving the film its palpable sadness as we are unquestionably experiencing a film that serves as a meditation upon grief and mourning as it parallels the nature of personal longevity and the pursuit of legacy, much as one could witness in a film like Pablo Larrain's excellent "Jackie" (2016) starring Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy as she struggles to wrestle control of her life and legacy immediately after the 1963 assassination of her husband, President John F. Kennedy.
As I think about both "Jackie" and "First Man," I am now discovering just how similar both films actually are in regards to their respective tones and themes, merging the historical and the psychologically individualistic, both areas equally seismic. As with "Jackie," Damien Chazelle has ensured that "First Man" thrives upon its own juxtapositions and parallels as he has unveiled a film that is often distressing--yet not to melodramatic degrees by any stretches--but one that is, even moreso, decidedly claustrophobic.
Whether inside the rocket cockpits, the Armstrong homestead or within the respective minds of both Neil Armstrong and Janet Shearon, the atmosphere is increasingly stifling and constricting as the loss of Karen Armstrong is seemingly the only element that permeates each specific area. I found it very interesting that Chazelle's film really possesses only scant dialogue. No, it is not a silent movie, so to speak. But it is one where the dialogue is purposefully not designed to advance the narrative or to supply any interior insights. In doing so, Chazelle seems to have found a truly perceptive take upon the individualistic and solitary nature of the grieving process with "First Man."
There is one scene in particular that occurs late in the film and directly before the landmark Apollo 11 mission, during which Neil is confronted by Janet to address their two sons to answer their questions, to either assuage or confirm their fears and to admit that there is indeed a strong possibility that he may never return home, as several of Armstrong's colleagues and friends have perished in previous attempts. Armstrong's answers towards his children are blankly technical and devoid of emotion and empathy, leaving everyone in the household to remain in their respective corners--poetically illustrating that the distance from one person to another, even when living inside of the same space, can feel as far away as the Earth to the moon.
To that end, throughout the course of the film, as Chazelle presents to us the honest, matter-of-fact reality that the ambition to reach the moon is fraught with as much peril and tragedy as inspiration and determination, I often questioned just why precisely would Neil Armstrong challenge and cheat death repeatedly. Yet, it is indeed with in the film's scenes upon the surface of the moon, when Neil Armstrong is able to take in the meaning of his journey--both inner and outer--the parallel tracks of his professional aspirations and the mourning over his daughter feel to converge, beautifully displaying some sense of understanding or peacefulness at the tip of infinity. Undeniably Kubrick-ian or akin to Terrence Malick's "The Tree Of Life" (2011) in its scope and profundity.
As Neil Armstrong, Ryan Gosling has again presented another accomplished, mature, difficult, and quietly intense performance. In a career that has found Gosling often portraying taciturn men, from films like Ryan Fleck's "Half Nelson" (2006), Craig Gillespie's "Lars And The Real Girl" (2007), and Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" (2011) for instance, his portrayal of Armstrong feels even more inscrutable than the performance he delivered in Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" (2017)! But, to find the soul of the performance, I suggest that you just watch Gosling's eyes throughout because they speak nearly all you need to know in order to find your way into this portrayal. Again, those juxtapositions are at work as Ryan Gosling's severe focus and minimalism.in actuality unearths a wide emotional and psychological terrain that creates an existential trauma that is fully accessible to us in the audience...even when he is not uttering a single word.
Can the pain and stranglehold of grief and mourning serve as an engine for inspiration, drive and discovery? Damien Chazelle's "First Man," while not necessarily answering that philosophical quandary, does indeed provide an often riveting, disquieting, visceral, aching, exquisitely filmed and acted exploration that makes for one of 2018's most compelling films.
Friday, October 12, 2018
Based upon "A Star Is Born" (1937)
Story by William A. Wellman & Robert Carson and Screenplay Written by Alan Campbell & Robert Carson & Dorothy Parker
Screenplay Written by Eric Roth and Bradley Cooper & Will Fetters
Directed by Bradley Cooper
**** (four stars)
It is rare to ever witness a movie that announces itself so grandly, so rapturously and so confidently that it feels as if it has already swept the Academy Awards. I am now here to express to you that Bradley Cooper's "A Star Is Born" is indeed one of those rare films.
With all of the cinematic greatness that I have already experienced this year so far--a year that has already included Spike Lee's "BlaKKKlansman," Boots Rileys "Sorry To Bother You," and Wes Anderson's "Isle Of Dogs" just to name three-- and to the films not yet released that will also undoubtedly prove their greatness, what Bradley Cooper has achieved in his outstanding directorial debut is an uncontested triumph, the type of which that nearly dares any other film to come and swipe the grand prize from its cinematic hands.
It is the type of film that we tend to not see anymore as it is an updated version of an old fashioned Hollywood star driven event, as well as existing as the fourth remake of the now iconic showbiz based love story starring its rise and fall protagonists. That being said, and for all of its inherent nostalgia, Bradley Cooper has delivered a film that honors its legacy tremendously while also crafting a film that perfectly exists within our 21st century landscape as he weaves in potent and poignant themes regarding the explorations of fame and celebrity, a piercing addiction narrative in addition to providing layers of sequences designed to explore fading male dominance and rising female empowerment.
And yes, Lady Gaga, in her film debut, is a powerhouse, an explosively natural acting talent capable of unveiling nuance and depth as well as being able to hit those high notes. to that end, as well as Ms. Gaga can act, Bradley Cooper has not only unleashed his finest acting work to date, his skills as a filmmaker and as a singer/musician are superlative. Multi-layered and masterful, Bradley Cooper's "A Star Is Born" is a bounty of riches that never once strikes one false note.
"A Star Is Born" stars Bradley Cooper as Jackson Maine, a forty-ish music legend whose musical aesthetic falls somewhere in the alt-country/stadium rock/fragile blues realm of Willie Nelson, Ryan Adams and Neil Young, as his consistently sold out stadium concerts display his heartfelt and thunderous confessionals augmented by is crack band and his white lightning guitar heroics.
Despite the adoration and legacy status, Jackson is suffering from decades long tinnitus plus an increasingly fractured relationship with his older brother and manager Bobby Maine (the treasure that is Sam Elliott). Most crucially, Jackson is spiraling deeper into artistic disenchantment and personal depression which is further fueled by his rampant alcoholism and drug addictions.
And then, along comes Ally...
Lady Gaga stars as Ally, a waitress and aspiring singer/songwriter who often performs as a singer at a drag bar. Ally meets Jackson one fateful evening as he arrives at the bar to drink the night away privately yet he is fully swept away by Ally's performance of "La Vie En Rose." The twosome meet, share drinks, one long night and songs together and soon, begin a whirlwind romantic and professional relationship.
Jackson strongly encourages Ally to pursue her songwriting and most definitely, her singing, which she is reluctant due to the negative pushback she has received due to her unconventional appearance. Yet, on one night during Jackson's tour, as she watches from the wings, Jackson further encourages her to step into the spotlight and perform a song they wrote together. The crowd is enraptured and Ally quickly becomes a social media sensation and quicker still, Jackson's muse, and songwriting and performing partner.
As with the previous versions of this story, Ally's star continues its ascension while Jackson's celebrity and life descends further into his addictions, creating a devastating turbulence and tragedy that threatens the art and love they have so rapturously shared.
Bradley Cooper's "A Star Is Born" is splashy, splendidly spectacular filmmaking and storytelling filled end to end with dynamic musical performances (which, if I am correct, were all filmed LIVE on set and location-no lip syncing whatsoever), outstandingly urgent Cinematography by Matthew Libatique and swing for the fences acting work from the entire cast top to bottom. It is a film that unapologetically embraces the melodrama and magical, mythical qualities of its own cinematic legacy with its past three filmed versions, most notably, Frank Pierson's 1976 rock musical version starring Kris Kristofferson and Barbara Streisand.
For those who will undoubtedly complain that this film knows not a whit about the music industry (you know they are out there), to those people I offer the following: this movie is not a documentary! There is more than enough elements of fantasy weaved through the narrative, which is indeed self-aware enough to know that it is the latest re-telling of a showbiz soap rock opera. But, what made me appreciate the film even more than its own sense of grandness was how beautifully multi-layered the whole experience actually was, making for a much more complex film that it needed to be and frankly, we should be more than thankful that Bradley Cooper's cinematic vision possessed such a splendid reach as well as depth.
What I am primarily speaking about is the sheer authenticity that Bradley Cooper placed into "A Star Is Born," for as grandiose as the film is, he also provided an emotional and psychological weight that keeps the proceedings grounded in the most humanistic fashion even as the songs and intensity takes flight. The film opens with a veritable roar as Cooper gives us Jackson Maine and his band in full rock and roll outdoor festival glory and even though we first witness Lady Gaga's character of Ally as the hard working waitress taking out the trash as the restaurant at which she is employed, her first moments of glory are set during her show stopping performance of "La Vie En Rose."
Yet, the initial courtship between Jackson and Ally in remarkably unhurried as Cooper allows his scenes and their relationship to play out in an almost meandering quality, much like what one would see in an independent film, or more truthfully, the ways sometimes real people act and behave during those magical long nights when interpersonal connections, romantic and otherwise, find their specific moments to play out luxuriously.
Furthermore, Cooper could have easily taken Jackson Maine's addiction and played them for histrionics and yet, he also grounded this aspect of the film through his gritty, aching performance. I wish for you to really witness how Cooper drops his voice an octave or so, eliciting a throaty speaking growl, therefore sounding almost exactly (to an eerie effect) like his on-screen sibling Sam Elliott, which again, lends the film overall a specific gravity, as we are given Jackson's family history, the origins of his addictions as well as the cycle of abuse that he suffers from and which fuels his demons--all of which then, informs all of the musical performances, that are presented as if he is routinely attempting to chase away or is succumbing to the ocean of his inner torments.
Cooper also frames this quality of Jackson Maine to perhaps explore the fragility of the male ego and a supposed sense of dominance, especially as Ally's star begins to rise while his falls. Again, while not necessarily dialing down a certain melodrama, Cooper stages some of the truly disturbing battles between Jackson and Ally (including one fight set in a bathroom as Ally soaks in a tub) with the sort of raw brutality that is akin to a Martin Scorsese film. Yes, we see not only the melodramatic aspects of professional jealousy and resentment but the raucous unleashing of a man's internalized cycle of abuse towards the woman he loves and fears will eclipse him romantically and artistically as well as towards himself.
In a strange way, "A Star Is Born" also takes its multi-layered approach in to the character of Ally and Lady Gaga's performance of her in a style that could possibly make the film work as "The Origin Story Of Lady Gaga." I do think that it is telling that the screen credit is given to "Lady Gaga" instead of her given name, which is Stefani Germanotta, as this film feels to be the next (and carefully staged) sequence in the artistic odyssey and shape shifting that this larger than life performer has adopted for herself--especially as this film follows upon the heels of Lady Gaga's most and soft-rock styled recent album entitled "Joanne" (released October 21, 2016), which is incidentally her real life middle name.
For Lady Gaga in the real world and Ally within "A Star Is Born," we are witness to a "rages-to-riches" story that feels purposeful in the ways that the two mirror each other. Maybe more truthfully, what we are witnessing in the film is Lady Gaga almost speaking in character within a character directly to us about how she has tried to create her own career in our fame obsessed society and how she has persistently attempted to claim her path for herself and with the very drive and integrity that has since inspired legions of fans to embrace and believe in her. But of course, that path in maintaining one's integrity in a word that cares nothing about such things possesses a powerful struggle that I would feel certain Lady Gaga has struggled with from time to time and what we do witness Ally confronting...and possibly not always succeeding.
After one incredible concert performance together Ally is accosted by Rez (Rafi Gavron), a record producer and would be Svengali who wishes to sign Ally and mold her career--much to Jackson's chagrin and jealousy and at times, to Ally's consternation, which does place her inside of a inner quandary about achieving her wildest dreams but how much of herself would she compromise to do so and furthermore, how does this affect her reaching her own levels of female empowerment?
For Ally, changing her hair color leads to having a team of back up dancers which leads to a more processed, synthetic sound which leads to the concert tour-new album-concert tour treadmill, all of which provides her with inner conflict, does indeed lead to appearances upon "Saturday Night Live" and winning Grammy Awards. We have seen all of this with the real Lady Gaga yet within this film, it really felt to me that she, through Ally, was giving us a "behind the scenes" peek at the machine at work and the difficulties of monkey wrenching art and honest soulfulness into the gears.
Yet Ally is nobody's fool and I loved how Lady Gaga portrayed this character with such earned street smarts and with such a strong perceptiveness into human nature that we can easily see not only what attracts her to Jackson Maine (which really has nothing to do with his celebrity, which attracts him in turn) but also how she knows at their first meeting that he is an addict, yet she is willingly gets herself into a relationship with him. Even moreso, Ally is presented as someone who is also but is more than willing to walk away if need be, consequences be damned. Ally gives as good as she gets, making her a formidable partner in love and in music.
Again, the authenticity at work grounded every single moment of this story, which does fly into fairy tale dreams of super-stardom, yet Lady Gaga's performance is a study in effortless naturalism. No artifice. No prefabricated emotions. Not one moment at any point felt remotely false and therefore, unrealistic. She delivered the goods in ways that I had not imagined that she even contained within herself. And when she sings, merging, character, lyrics, emotion and psychology together, the effect is stupendous. Her final scene in the film, which Cooper brilliantly and beautifully films in a (mostly) unbroken, unedited close up will lay you flat in its power for certain, but for all of the honestly earned emotions that Lady Gaga conjured in her stellar acting from her first moment on screen. A Best Actress nomination for her is as inevitable as it is fully deserved.
Bradley Cooper's "A Star Is Born" is a passion project in every meaning of the expression. By combining elements of reality and fantasy, music and drama, authenticity and myth-making, Cooper has marvelously delivered a film that sits within the rare cinematic universe that houses not only something like Scott Cooper's "Crazy Heart" (2009), but more perfectly, Albert Magnoli's "Purple Rain" (1984) and Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous" (2000)!!
Yes, Bradley Cooper hit a cinematic grand slam on that level and ensuring that everyone within his cast--which includes both Andrew Dice Clay and Dave Chappelle, who each elicited astoundingly beautiful performances in just a few short scenes--and his crew operated at the very same peaks. There was noting that I could have wanted that Bradley Cooper did not give to me at any moment in the film and to accomplish a feat that heroically, is nothing less than movie magic to me.
Bradley Cooper's "A Star Is Born" is easily one of the very best films of 2018.
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Based upon characters and situations created by Michael Crichton
Screenplay Written by Derek Connolly & Colin Trevorrow
Directed by J.A. Bayona
* (one star)
RATED PG 13
Steven Spielberg's original "Jurassic Park" (1993) is beginning to look more and more like Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941), with each passing new installment of this increasingly stupefying series.
Dear readers, I have to say that I have never really been that enamored with the "Jurassic Park" series. Yes, the original film was certainly a visual milestone and an event experience that only someone on the level of Steven Spielberg could deliver. But even as thrilling and as entertaining as it was (and remains), I was a tad underwhelmed due to two elements: my lifelong lack of interest in dinosaurs as they have never effectively captured my imagination and even moreso, the paper thin quality of the human characters. I do realize that the dinosaurs are the true stars of these films but even so, how much stomping and chomping does one need to see?
Obviously, I am in the minority, as now we have the arrival of Director J.A. Bayona's "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom," the fifth installment--itself the middle chapter of a proposed trilogy, which are sequels or something to the first three films, oh I just cannot follow it--in this series and good Lord, somehow, someway, they have made yet another dynamic, bombastic visual feast that is preposterously dumber than the previous installments, including the Director Colin Trevorrow's downright and numbingly awful "Jurassic World" (2015).
Despite some well executed set pieces and action sequences and of course, the seamless special effects, "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" is an inexcusably boneheaded and sloppily conceived film so terrible that I am at the point where I will have to begin to root for the dinosaurs to ravenously devour us so as to stop any filmmakers from making another painfully stupid chapter.
Picking up three years after the events of "Jurassic World," our latest episode again stars Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard (this time, sans high heels) as Owen Grady and Claire Dearing, former Velociraptor handler and Operations Manager for the now destroyed Jurassic World theme park.
As the island of Isla Nublar's remaining dinosaur population faces new extinction due to volcano eruptions, Claire, now a dinosaur rights activist (?!) and founder of the Dinosaur Protection Group (?!?!), is rapidly convinced by the wealthy Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), himself the former business partner of the original Jurassic Park's creator John Hammond, and his unsurprisingly duplicitous aide Eli Mills (Rafe Spall), to return to the island to rescue all of the dinosaurs and release them to live freely in a new private sanctuary. And to do so, of course, she would have to enlist the aid of Owen to retrieve the personally trained and raised Blue, the last surviving Velociraptor.
And so, about less than three seconds after you've figured out that Claire and Owen have been duped (which is incidentally about an hour before the characters have figured out the very same thing), our heroes have returned to the island thus beginning the latest feeding frenzy which stretches from the ashes of Jurassic World to Benjamin Lockwood's massive isolated compound ,all the while and once again ignoring the prophetic warnings from this entire series' smartest character Dr Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum in a cameo appearance) in order to justify one more overlong and and painfully under-thought entry in a series that truly needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
Look, even for fans of this series, I just have to believe that even this installment just had to be more than enough as J.A. Bayona's "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" truly adds nothing new and is just drowning in an ocean of sheer stupidity and a profound lack of inspiration regardless of how terrific the special effects continue to be. Yes indeed, I did like the sequence with the erupting volcanoes and our human and dinosaur characters racing away from the lava filled fireball fallout but beyond that and overall, the suspension of disbelief I was asked to undertake was just too much for the filmmakers to ask of me, and even moreso, I ask a gain, is it just too much to have any intelligent characters to populate this series?
Oh where do I even begin? OK...first of all there is the entire premise of this thing, which again is one of the cardinal sins of the "Jurassic Park" film series: How and why is it possible that these films, which are direct sequels to each other, somehow operate as if they have no knowledge whatsoever of what has happened in previous installments...even though we in the audience are given more than enough signposts to the contrary?
Case in point: If the general public within this series is now fully aware of the events that occurred at both Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, why would anyone ever wish to return to the island, let alone any of the main characters? Of course, if they did not, there would not be a movie but aside from that, what is the motivation to go back again? To that end, WHY for the love of Mike is Claire now a dinosaur rights activist?! Why are there dinosaur rights advocacy groups? There is not one conceivable notion, piece of information or stitch of character motivation that would even allow me to buy this part of this specific fantasy and frankly, it was downright laughable.
Even worse is the brevity at which our dispassionately underwritten heroes do indeed return to the island. It was as if the filmmakers themselves did not care a whit about how it would happen but just so that they get there so we can again see the stars of the movie do that thing they do: eat stupid people doing stupid things solely to find themselves getting eaten.
As with the previous two episodes in this series especially, "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" offers no real sense of suspense, terror, awe or anything remotely visceral regarding all of the predicaments these characters find themselves entangled with, so of course, the entire proceedings unfold as a loud, bombastic, belligerent bore.
Once again, would it really kill the filmmakers to make that valiant attempt to apply themselves and create characters, situations and dialogue that showcased even a modicum of intelligence, therefore making the fight for human survival something to give a damn about?! Nope! It's just the same prehistoric same prehistoric. Characters roam unprotected in environments where the most vicious dinosaurs are hiding. Greedy businessmen and foolhardy mercenaries continue to think that they are able to tame and control what has ravenously shown an inability of being controlled--over four previous films, no less!
Not even a preposterous and nearly random seeming late film plot twist which itself leads to a faux "dark" yet undeniably credibility shattering climax thus setting up yet another potentially apocalyptic chapter can save this mess. People scream, they get themselves chomped and again, I yawned and shifted in my seat with an incredulity and gradually incensed temperament that I am again wasting precious time in my life watching another glistening piece of cinematic trash. Yes trash because if the filmmakers treat their own work as disposable, then why should I hold it up to any higher esteem?
With that, I feel compelled to express my utter distaste of the character of Franklin, a hacker, as portrayed by Justice Smith. Aside from being as underwritten as all of the film's characters, it more than disturbed me to see this young African-American male being served to mass audiences as the most fearful of all of the film's characters, heroes and villains alike. Yes, I get it. He is the tech geek thrust into an impossible situation and he would be scared. Sure. But a little of, "Was that a T-Rex?" goes a long way, especially when his constant screaming is literally pitched at a higher frequency than even Bryce Dallas Howard's.
Whether by accident or design on the part of the filmmakers, it was a presentation that was emasculating and even mildly racist to regard, as I felt witness to yet another stereotypical depiction of an ancient cinematic trope regarding the presentation of Black people, a shameful sight in a year in which we have already been given several rich and complex explorations of Black people and therefore, Black excellence in films like Ryan Coogler's "Black Panther," Ava DuVernay's "A Wrinkle In Time," Boots Riley's "Sorry To Bother You" and Spike Lee's "BlacKKKlansman." Yes, it is great to see a young, Black male computer genius/Scientist but it is all profoundly undercut when he is the sole character in the film who is used as comic relief while being a Screaming Mimi throughout. Just disheartening, to say the least.
Dear readers, I elicit the deepest of exhausted sighs. I wish for you to understand that I am not expecting something from the "Jurassic Park" series that it does not need to deliver, so to speak. I am not wishing for them to be things that they are not. I wish for them to be the finest of popcorn entertainment but of course, as we are still able to witness, from films like the aforementioned "Black Panther," plus Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War," Ron Howard's "Solo: A Star Wars Story" and most certainly, Christopher McQuarrie's "Mission:Impossible-Fallout," popcorn movies do not need to be artless and forgettable while they entertain. At their very finest, popcorn movies can still be examples of the reasons we all even go to the movies in the first place.
That is what makes "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" such a resounding failure as well as existing as a perfect example of its own title. A dumb, lumbering beast of a movie crashing and bellowing its way in and out of multi-plexes nationwide leaving absolutely nothing of value in the rubble of everything laid to waste.
J.A. Bayona's "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" is easily one of 2018's worst films.
Monday, October 1, 2018
In addition to one review I have in the hopper plus another feature that I still have not found the proper time to devote to it properly, here is what I am looking forward to seeing this month.
1. Yes indeed, "A Star Is Born," Bradley Cooper's directorial debut starring himself and the inimitable Lady Gaga in the fourth remake of the classic rise and fall musical drama is opening this coming weekend and I am hoping that I am able to find the time to get into the theater to see this one. I have to say that the film really was not upon my radar whatsoever until the first trailers impressed me and then, the subsequent rave reviews from the film festival circuit arrived. So, now I am ready to check it out for myself.
2. "Whiplash" (2014) utterly blew me away while "La La Land" (2016) profoundly underwhelmed me. With "First Man," I am curious to see how the latest from Writer/Director Damien Chazelle affects me.
3. The Hate U Give, Angie Thomas' 2017 novel is, without question, worthy of all of the rave attention that it has received. Now that the film adaptation from Director George Tillman Jr. is ready to be released, itself already having received rave early reviews, again I am more than ready.
So...we'll see what occurs as I seriously wish to get to and write about them all. Wish me luck and as always, I'll see you when the house lights go down!!!
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Based upon the memoir Red Sky In Mourning: A True Story Of Love, Loss and Survival At Sea by Tami Oldham Ashcraft and Susea McGearhart
Screenplay Written by Aaron Kandell & Jordan Kandell and David Branson Smith
Directed by Balthasar Kormakur
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED PG 13
Ahh...the dreaded "surprise" plot twist.
Dear readers, there is something I feel the need to confess to you. Now, take it with a grain of salt and believe me, this is not something that I am remotely frothing at the mouth over but it is something that does need to be said. I am getting a bit tired of the so-called "surprise" plot twist.
My feelings do not reflect any sort of a hard and fast rule but it is something that feels the need to be addressed because it is something that runs the risk of becoming nothing more than a cheap trick, a lazy sort of storytelling that will allow screenwriters and directors to be let off of the hook should the story they are attempting to construct fails and they ultimately need an escape hatch rather than take the ample time to do some serious re-conceptualizing and reconstruction.
Granted, when those surprise twists work well--as evidenced of course in Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan's ingenious work in "The Sixth Sense" (1999), "Unbreakable (2000) and "Split" (2017) and most recently, in the rapaciously brutal and literally final moments in Director Jean-Marc Vallee's HBO mini-series adaptation of author Gillian Flynn's Sharp Objects (2006)--you have a narrative that has been simultaneously upended, deepened and enhanced. When those sorts of twists are unsuccessful, we end up with films that house elements that are superfluous at best and sloppy at worst, therefore creating the impression that there was MORE when there was already enough, or there was MORE to justify the lack of what was already there.
Earlier this year, Director Jason Reitman and Writer Diablo Cody's fine "Tully" succumbed to a surprise plot twist, while making logical sense, was indeed nothing the film needed and therefore lessened the film's overall impact as far as I am concerned. And now, with Director Balthasar Kormakur's "Adrift," we are treated with the same conception that, while making logical sense, did nothing to advance the narrative, ultimately lessening the film's intended effect. NO SPOILERS from me, of course, but I can say that once their film's surprise twist occurred, my heart sank, as what had preceded this moment was undeniably compelling if not anything revolutionary.
"Adrift" stars Shailene Woodley as Tami Oldham, a young wanderer originally from San Diego who has taken up an indefinite port of residence in Tahiti when she meets a slightly older man named Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin) and the two soon begin a courtship which blossoms into a full romance. With their shared love of travel and sailing, the twosome agree to sail and deliver a yacht from Tahiti to San Diego with the promise of two first class tickets back to Tahiti as payment.
Soon, Tami and Richard find themselves trapped within the brutal storm of Hurricane Raymond and in the aftermath, Tami awakens after 27 hours adrift and somehow, has to rescue the missing Richard and navigate the damaged boat to Hawaii with only a meager amount of drinkable water, canned goods and supplies in order to survive.
In many ways, there is essentially nothing within Balthasar Kormakur's "Adrift" that you have not already seen in any survivalist thriller, especially one set upon the high seas including Director Steven Spielberg's"Jaws" (1975), Director Wolfgang Petersen's "The Perfect Storm" (2000), Director Chris Kentis' "Open Water" (2003) to most recently, Writer/Director J.C. Chandor's "All Is Lost" (2013) starring Robert Redford. Therefore, there is an over-familiarity to the proceedings that does indeed dull the overall sense of terror that is necessary for a film like this one to carry any significant weight. That being said, what does indeed keep this film afloat, so to speak are the performances and the non-linear narrative Kormakur applies to the story to keep things a tad off-kilter, as well as being emotionally effective.
Honestly, there was truly not one moment upon the former ABC Family channel's "The Secret Life Of The American Teenager" series (2008-2013) that would have ever suggested that program's leading figure Shailene Woodley would become an actress to watch. Now while she has not quite yet delivered that breakthrough performance, Woodley has unquestionably and consistently showcased herself as being a solid, and purely naturalistic actress, capable of conveying rich, emotional and psychological depth that has made her more than captivating to regard in films like Writer/Director Alexander Payne's "The Descendants" (2011), Director James Ponsoldt's "The Spectacular Now" (2013), Director Josh Boone's "The Fault In Our Stars" (2014) as well as her work upon Jean-Marc Vallee's HBO series of "Big Little Lies" (2017).
With "Adrift," Woodley continues her streak with a performance that adds a vibrant, harrowing physicality alongside some dramatic work that is as times quite searing in its force, as her tale of survival is one as much of the spirit and mind as well as the body. In some ways, I could easily see how some viewers may feel that the film could serve as a feminist drama, as I deeply appreciated how Kormakur and Woodley focused heavily upon the strength and ingenuity of Tami Oldham as she is never at any point the proverbial "damsel in distress" that needs to be saved by Richard.
On the contrary, Richard, for much of the film, is incapable of helping Tami whatsoever, leaving her to keep the ship repaired as best as able, to keep tabs upon food and drink rations, provide crucial medical assistance and care, navigate, sail and all other tasks necessary to attempt complete survival, all the while battling increased malnourishment, extreme fatigue, crippling despair and even hallucinations. Shailene Woodley is equal to every moment that she has been given in this film and she nearly keeps the film above water single-handedly.
At its most effective, "Adrift" does indeed work as a love story and I liked how Kormakur used the non-linear format to keep shifting time from the hurricane aftermath to the romance of Tami and Richard, ultimately weaving them together effortlessly as their survival is indeed based in the love they have found within each other. Woodley and Sam Claflin establish fine, and again, natural chemistry that makes the love story believable and grounded, thus giving the survival aspect of the story some real grit and anguish.
But then, let us return to that "surprise"plot twist, shall we? I will say, that as this film is based upon the real life events and memoir of Tami Oldham Ashcraft, what occurs near the conclusion of the film does indeed make logical sense. My problem in entirely within the execution and presentation, which for me, was completely unnecessary as it felt as if Kormakur did not trust the inherent drama of the piece enough to just let it stand upon its own storytelling feet and he felt the need to "juice" the narrative.
This was highly unfortunate because I truly believe that the very same information could have been delivered differently to allow the film to have a stronger emotional and psychological power that would have undoubtedly set it apart from films similar to itself. What we have in the resulting film felt like a false revelation, a "shocking" moment uncomfortably shoe-horned into a film that never needed it, giving "Adrift" enough of a sheen of prefabrication in and otherwise honest yet unremarkable film.
Look Bathasar Kormakr's "Adrift" is a good enough diversion. It is beautifully filmed, it possesses more then enough strong notions concerning the unforgiving power of our world's natural elements and with Shailene Woodley and Sam Claflin, the film is (ahem) anchored by two very good, effective performances. If all of those pieces had been honed just a tad sharper, would we have ever needed the "surprise" plot twist? I think not.
And for that matter, these days, the biggest "surprise" plot twist nowadays would be the film that never felt the need to forcefully insert one.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
Based upon the novel by Nick Hornby
Screenplay Written by Evgenia Peretz and Jim Taylor & Tamara Jenkins
Directed by Jesse Peretz
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
What is it about the concept of a love triangle that is so compelling? Or at least, why is it so compelling to me?
As I have written times before upon this blogsite, movie romances do not typically engage me that much. Now that is not to say that I have never been swept away or remotely affected by an on-screen romance. Quite the contrary, there are several that can count themselves as being some of the finest films I have ever seen within my life time. But typically, love stories in the movies fall into cliches, melodrama or other prefabricated situations and emotions, often in movies that just are not well written or acted enough to feel properly lived in, heartfelt, recognizable or remotely earned.
Yet, within the context of a love triangle, there is something precarious built-into the proceedings that provides a certain urgency, heartache, turbulence and yes, the full knowledge that one third of this triangle will undoubtedly have their feelings unrequited, therefore providing that exquisite romantic pain that so many love stories lack.
With "Juliet, Naked," Director Jesse Peretz's pitch perfect adaptation of one of Author Nick Hornby's finest novels, we are given a love triangle that delves further and deeper beyond the romantic constraints of the three main principals as well as even further than the music and melancholia as presented within Hornby's seminal High Fidelity (1995), and Director Stephen Frears' outstanding film adaptation from 2000. What Peretz has delivered is a deeply perceptive ode to middle aged malaise, arrested development and the ruts we find surprisingly find ourselves. Again, 2018 has given us another "small" film with an enormous reach and all we have to do is reach back towards it and just embrace, for this film unquestionably deserves your attention and affection.
Set primarily within a dreary, British coastal town of Sandcliff, "Juliet, Naked" stars a positively glowing Rose Byrne as the low spirited Annie Platt, who runs the Sandcliff Seaside Museum and is currently ensconced in the preparation for a "Summer Of '64" exhibit. Yet, most dispiritedly for Annie is her longtime relationship with her live-in boyfriend Duncan Thomson (an excellent Chris O'Dowd), a teacher of film and television studies at a local community college setting. Duncan is consumed with an unhealthy obsession over the cult alternative rock artist from the 1990's named Tucker Crowe, the singer/songwriter who released one critically celebrated yet publicly ignored album entitled "Juliet" and has disappeared from public view ever since walking out midway through a club show in Minneapolis 25 years prior.
While the relationship of Annie and Duncan began with not only promise but a mutual attraction and compatibility, especially concerning their pop cultural interests and discussions, what it has shifted into over the ensuing years, has proven itself deeply disheartening for Annie. Night after night, Duncan retires to his room, which has become a hybrid of a college dorm room/Tucker Crowe shrine, logs into the on-line Tucker Crowe fansite/archive he created and chats for hours upon end with other (male) Tucker Crowe devotees about the endless virtues and hidden meanings of "Juliet" plus the even more endless conspiracy theories about his supposed whereabouts since his disappearance.
Meanwhile, Annie grows increasingly more isolated, ignored, resentful and despondent.
On one fateful day, the lives of both Annie and Duncan begins to change upon the arrival of a mysterious package for Duncan, one which contains a CD entitled "Juliet, Naked," previously unreleased demo versions of the album that became "Juliet." Annie, who retrieved the mail before Duncan's return home from work, listens to the "new" album first, angering Duncan who feel sit is his right to hear it first as he feels he is the bigger, and therefore, more rightful fan in this particular household who will appreciate and understand it more deeply.
Out of spite, Annie, under an internet chat room, composes a scathing review of "Juliet, Naked," thus angering Duncan further...yet surprisingly attracting one on-line visitor to her corner and in full agreement: the elusive Tucker Crowe himself!
Based in America, we meet former rock star Tucker Crowe (Ethan Hawke), long retired, long out of money and consumed with a seemingly bottomless sea of regrets concerning the direction his life has taken since his one-time level of fame and attention. Currently living rent free in the garage of his ex, Tucker tries, as best as he is able, to attend to the raising of his young son Jackson (played Azhy Robertson) while also mentally preparing himself for becoming a Grandfather, by his daughter Lizzie (Ayoola Smart), one of several children from former lovers.
Reaching out, Tucker and Annie begin a transatlantic e-mail correspondence that will soon offer themselves and all of the major players in each of their lives much needed second chances.
As another film released this year that could easily be perceived as being "small," Jesse Peretz's "Juliet, Naked" is towering in its perceptiveness, empathy, understanding, and meticulous attention to character and behaviors within an experience that is as remarkably "slice-of-life" as anything we have already seen this year in Brett Haley's superb "Hearts Beat Loud" and Bo Burnham's outstanding "Eighth Grade."
As a romantic comedy, a genre that essentially has all but disappeared from the mainstream multiplexes lately, the film is a strong reminder of what the very best films of this genre could be as the characters are engaging and relatable, the situations they discover themselves within are tangible and the emotions are grounded inside of a reality that is palpable and honest, making the romance something worthy to experience and even root for.
With "Juliet, Naked," you are bound to find elements that would remind you, of course, from both "High Fidelity" and Nick Hornby's beautiful novel About A Boy (1998) as well as the Chris and Paul Weitz film adaptation from 2002. But, I would also point to films as varied as Nora Ephron's "You've Got Mail" (1998) and Sofia Coppola's "Lost In Translation" (2003), as Peretz presents to us deeply lonely, increasingly isolated people who miraculously find each other at the most opportune time. But instead of simply presenting us with a quandary and wrapping everything up inside of a pretty bow, I greatly appreciated just how Peretz took his time to create a delicate, often fragile palate as the pain within the romantic comedy was rightfully given center stage, thus providing the proceedings with an anchor, albeit one that aches.
"Juliet, Naked" is less about the hoped for happy ending and more about the ruts we all find ourselves trapped inside of, sometimes longer than we have ever even realized for ourselves. With this film we are witness to the collective ruts of Annie, Duncan, Tucker, and even the town of Sandcliff itself, all just existing, never moving forwards even one step.
With regards to the concept of the love triangle, we can see how Tucker Crowe invaded the romance of Annie and Duncan long before he and Annie met in the virtual world. In fact, since Crowe was essentially brought into the relationship by Duncan in the first place, we could even perceive that Crowe was Duncan's first love, as he had been consumed by adoration over the "Juliet" album long before Annie ever entered the picture.
With that, Peretz is able to add considerable layers to the film that explore not only our relationship with art, in this case, music, but also how the internet culture amplifies and validates our feelings, therefore isolating ourselves from those who do not share the same opinions over the art we cherish.
Yes, we see Duncan finding his nightly solace among his internet friends instead of Annie, who retires to bed alone again and again. But the one extremely telling moment within the film occurs right after Duncan angrily discovers that Annie has listened to the demo version of "Juliet" before him and he frantically searches for batteries to place into his portable disc player to listen, only to grow angrier at being unable to locate any...until Annie takes batteries from her vibrator and tosses them Duncan's way, making Tucker Crowe the victor.
In a sequence that could have strictly been played for laughs, Peretz (who does indeed deliver those laughs) mines the sequence for something deeper than comedy. He mines for the truth of the situation. For Annie's loneliness, which then delves into depressed resignation and for Duncan, a sense of obsession and fandom that runs towards romantic neglect and even dangerously close to addiction, as his need for self-validation outweighs the relationship he possesses with Annie.
Later in the film, as Duncan is confronted with Tucker Crowe in the flesh, Peretz delves even deeper as we explore the fan's relationship with the art in question as compared and contrasted with the artist and their relationship with their own creations. In this case, both men are correct about their opinions and feelings and neither of them are necessarily wrong about any opposing viewpoints because each men's life experiences have informed the art and what it means to each of them.
As for Tucker, the work represents an experienced pain that has only continued and reverberated through the years, and in ways Duncan could not even begin to comprehend. For Duncan, the pain within the work is one where he can apply to his own life experiences and in doing so, he finds comfort and beauty--such is the nature of art. And yet, Duncan, regardless of anyone else's opinion, including Tucker Crowe himself, has claimed a certain ownership over the art, leaving him isolated within the vacuum of his own interpretations, casting out anyone else who disagrees with him.
And what of Annie and "Juliet, Naked"? Well, having read the novel, it is clear that while Annie writes her negative review of the demo album as a means of retribution to Duncan she honestly hates the work, the very reaction that attracts Tucker to reach out to her in the first place. Yet for the film version, Peretz performs something quite subtle by injecting the possibility that Annie may secretly love the demos, regardless of what she says publicly and on-line. This possibility does indeed inject even more complex layers to her budding relationship with Tucker in regards to her intentions and desires.
For Annie and Tucker's on-line relationship, we have two emotionally lost figures who essentially have noting else left to lose, so why not divulge everything about themselves to each other with a reckless, romantic abandon--especially if they never meet in the real world anyway? Yet, once they do eventually meet each other in the real world, emotional complexities grow more entangled as their respective pasts, mistakes, fears, foibles, and of course, the life and responsibilities concerning Tucker's son Jackson replace any sense of fantasy, and for that matter, the fantastical nature of romance itself. Annie and especially Tucker are therefore forced to ask extremely hard questions of themselves before they can honestly pursue each other and that level of honestly allows "Juliet, Naked" to ascend to levels of grace that are indeed are within the romantic comedy genre.
Rose Byrne is positively sparkling in the leading role of Annie, as she conveys an intelligence, elegance, warmth and frisky spunk that equals her inner dismay, making her a character that we only wish for her ultimate happiness--yet not necessarily with Duncan or even Tucker, but a happiness found within self-discovery and serious attention towards herself.
Ethan Hawke is unquestionably on a creative roll this year as we have already seen what has to be his career best performance in Paul Schrader's wrenching "First Reformed." While the character of Tucker Crowe feels not too far removed from Hawke's past shaggy dog figures as witnessed in Ben Stiller's "Reality Bites" (1994) and in his collaborations with Richard Linklater, most notably as the divorced Dad in "Boyhood" (2014), what Hawk has achieved in "Juliet, Naked" is nothing short of remarkable.
Throughout his career, Ethan Hawke has always showcased a certain authenticity and as Tucker Crowe, he continues this essential quality, especially as he performs all of his own singing on the soundtrack's expertly crafted songs of this fictional reclusive rock star. Beyond the music, Hawke performs this character from the inside out, unearthing a certain soulfulness that I do not think that I have experienced before from him. Yes, he has always carried a certain swagger, a self-aware intelligence. Yet, this time, with his graying beard, a paunch and the growl in his voice suggesting someone like say, Kris Kristofferson, Ethan Hawke's infuses Tucker Crowe with such earned sadness, a stirring remorse with the litany of his life's errors, especially towards his children, that sometimes feels like melancholic resignation and other times feels like existential paralysis.
Where Annie is bruised, Tucker is all but broken yet both are in need of healing and just may find it in each other. But, with Hawke's richly beautiful performance, we have a character where he, as well as all of us in the audience, wonder if he even deserves someone as lovely as Annie--again a quality that makes "Juliet, Naked" a much deeper experience that it ever needed to be and believe me, we are the better for it.
Jesse Peretz's "Juliet, Naked" gives a tender, knowing and poignant romantic comedy that wisely houses a sincere and pointed commentary about hero worship, fan culture and our relationships with the art we not only love, but the art that shapes us, especially within the internet age. And just maybe that is the true third side of this particular love triangle as presented in this film because when given the choice to exist with someone who can challenge us or within the echo chambers of our own making, what might you choose and what might make you feel more stagnated?
And to that, this warm, lovely, insightful, and sophisticated film just may provide some essential perspectives while also proving itself to being an enormously entertaining time at the movies.