Review – Page 201 – We Are Movie Geeks

ANOMALISA – The Review

So, you’ve enjoyed most of last year’s animated feature films? Yes, 2015 was a pretty good year, but doesn’t match up to the gold standard of 1999 (TOY STORY 2, THE IRON GIANT, DISNEY’S TARZAN, and SOUTH PARK: BIGGER LONGER & UNCUT). Still Pixar had its best work in years with INSIDE OUT and that SHAUN THE SHEEP was a loving tribute to classic silent comedies, but the other major hits like MINIONS and THE GOOD DINOSAUR were geared toward the small fry (not that OUT and THE PEANUTS MOVIE didn’t appeal to all ages). For this new film, definitely leave the kiddos at home. Yes we did have an “R” rated animated film last year with HELL AND BACK, but that flick was chocked full of sophomoric sex jokes and “gross-out” gags. This holdover from ’15 (now getting a wide release) is truly adult in subject matter and graphics, understandable since the story springs from the mind of celebrated screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. Really, the same fella’ that gave us BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND wrote and co-directed (along with Duke Johnson) one of the most off-beat, original animated motion pictures ever, the unforgettable ANOMALISA. Oh, and don’t worry, the unusual title is explained.

This modern fable begins on an airliner descending into Cincinnati, Ohio circa 2005. We zoom in on one sad passenger, Michael Stone (voiced by David Thewlis). He’s an author (“How May I Help You Help Them?”) and a motivational speaker, a featured attraction at a customer service conference in town. Michael is distracted and uncomfortable because everyone on board seems to be the exact same person: men, women, kids (all voiced by Tom Noonan). It doesn’t help when he reads an old disparaging letter from his wife (also with that same face and voice). After the plane lands, he endures an awkward cab ride to the Hotel Fregoli. Ordering a room service dinner, Michael then looks up an old acquaintance via the phonebook. He calls up Bella, and they decide to meet for a drink in the hotel lounge. They’ve not seen each other after a brief “fling” many years ago. But things don’t go well and she storms out of the bar area (much to the surprise of the other patrons). Returning to his room, Michael takes a brief shower. As he towels off, he’s stunned to hear a very different voice emanating from the hallway. He hurriedly dresses and charges out in search of that unique sound. After pounding on several doors (telling the guests that he’s looking for a “friend”), he finds the source of that “voice”- Lisa (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who is attending the conference with her co-worker pal Emily. The ladies are fans of his book, so they quickly agree to join Michael at the bar. Over cocktails, he is mesmerized by Lisa’s every word. As the tipsy trio return to their rooms, Michael implores Lisa to join her (and only her) in his room for a “nightcap”. The shy Lisa agrees and thus begins a most intimate encounter that may be Michael’s last chance for love and happiness.

ANOMALISA is unlike almost any movie-going experience in recent memory. The first thing that registers is its approach to animation. It is not the computer generated movement that services nearly every other recent animated feature, nor is it a return to the classically hand-drawn (“cell”) work of those “golden age” Disney features (BAMBI, DUMBO, etc.). It harkens back to stop-motion animation, a technique nearly as old as cinema itself. Some just refer to it as “claymation”, a term made famous by artist Will Vinton in the 70’s with his short “Closed Mondays” (and later on TV with the “California Raisins”). Those characters (and later ones like Aardman Animation’s “Shaun the Sheep”) are shaped with colored, pliable modeling clay, while this new film features figures closer to puppets, often made with wood and plastic with a bendable metal “ball and joint” skeleton, much like the recent films of Laika (PARANORMAN, CORALINE) Studios. The superb work of Starburns Industries (TV’s “Moral Oral” and “Franken-hole”) propels this story to new artistic heights. Squint your eyes and you may think you’re watching footage of real, human actors. This adds to the dream-like feel of the film, as if we’ve drifted into another dimension. The amount of skill and patience is astounding. There’s none of the “herky-jerky” action that added to the odd charm of Gumby or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Particularly amazing are the scenes set at the hotel bar in which nearly twenty figures are all moving, drinking, and talking (each had to be positioned by an animator’s hand) at once. The strands of hair and clothing respond naturally to the actions. Plus the faces have an eerie design with a break (allowing the lower faces to be changed for lip-syncing dialogue) across the eyes and the bridge of the nose. Ah, but that also is essential to the story. This upscale Ohio hotel is turned into a wonderland with each corner revealing another part of Michael Stone’s twisted psyche. It’s truly a remarkable achievement.

But it’s not just the look and movement that captures the viewer. A trio of wonderful actors makes all those animated figures come to life, with real emotions. Noonan often employs a “sing-songy” tone to the different guests, staff, and strangers that plants us firmly in this unique dimension. Thewlis conveys a man at a crossroads, but still somewhat lost, nearly drowning in sadness and frustration. The biggest treat may be the delightful Jason Leigh who gives Lisa a delicate, fragile persona. She’s truly puzzled by Michael’s attention especially after her quiet, halting rendition of an 80’s pop music standard (a riveting, magical scene). All three do great justice to the terrific script by Charlie Kaufman (based on his radio play). He’s exploring themes from other works (MALKOVICH springs to mind), but he’s giving us a truly original story and, with Johnson and Starburns, a very adult (yes, Michael and Lisa…well.. with real folks it’d be rated NC-17) motion picture. If you’re wanting a very, very different film, unlike any of the usual studio fare, then take a chance and spend 90 minutes with ANOMALISA.

4.5 Out of 5

ANOMALISA opens everywhere and screens exclusively in St. Louis at Landmark’s Tivoli Theatre

THE REVENANT – The Review

Acclaimed Mexican director Alejandro Iñárritu has stepped out from the canned stage lights and into the natural light. Going from the backstage existential crisis of BIRDMAN to the frigid survival in the wild of THE REVENANT is quite a change of scenery. In the months leading up to the film, it seemed that that was what everyone was talking about. Iñárritu and DiCaprio were teaming up and filming a raw and intense movie out in the middle of nowhere. What a drastic change of pace for them both. In interviews and featurettes, the physical and mental hardships surrounding the production were highlighted, occupying the spotlight more than anything else.

THE REVENANT truly is breathtaking. The snowy landscapes are awe-inspiring. The performances are palpable. The action is gritty and fierce. Emmanuel Lubezki’s camerawork catches every heavy breath on camera. Iñárritu rubs your nose in the mud for over 2 and a half hours. Take that as a warning if you will. To me, I say warning, not because most people can’t handle the violence or “the gritty realism” – because I think most absolutely can – but because that’s what you’re getting for 156 minutes. Is it well done? Yes. Is it a brutish film that revels in its wolfish journey? Yes; perhaps even a little too much.

While on an exhibition out West, American Explorer Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) is nearly killed by a bear and left for dead by members of his team of fur trappers. Led by John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), the team deserts Glass in a shallow grave and ventures forth on their journey home. Injured but alive, Glass awakens and struggles to crawl, climb, and fight his way through the hostile wilderness, blanketed in a harsh winter. All this, in the pursuit of vengeance and redemption.

DiCaprio and Hardy could be sitting across from each other doing crossword puzzles and they would still be captivating to watch. Unfortunately for the two of them, THE REVENANT doesn’t give them as easy of a job as that. But as you would expect, both of these extremely talented actors are up to the challenge. You might need subtitles to understand some of what Hardy and his fellow fur trappers are saying, however, you can understand their sentiments through their facial expressions and actions.

The film’s intensity is astounding, but also, a smidge distracting. This is mostly due to the camerawork. Lubezki jumps between extreme close-ups of faces and upward camera shots (practically looking up the actors’ noses) to long takes that at times adds a heightened reality to the action, while other times it feels like a director and a cinematographer showing their hand too much. Some of it even becomes dizzying as some shots go on for several minutes at a time. I suspect some of this camera trickery is used to distract from the laborious affair of watching poor, injured Leo slowly trek across the landscape. Especially in the middle section, slow is the keyword. Leo’s journey across the icy landscape was so long that Morgan Freeman should have narrated it (and maybe adding a penguin or two couldn’t have hurt).

Mostly though, THE REVENANT is a revenge film masked as a deeper Terrence Malick character study. There’s no deep internal revelations or subtext at work, even though at times it makes you think there is. Long shots of our tragic hero are shown looking out into the distance, intercut with allusions of a past life. Moments like these attempt to add depth to his mission, but fail to add weight to the story. It’s a revenge film, but Iñárritu tries so, so hard to make it appear and feel like more than that. I could see this story as a Charles Bronson film from the 70s, but it wouldn’t have been over 2 and a half hours. Just call the film what it is. Don’t try to dress it up as something it’s not. Don’t attempt to recall Malick when you made a borderline exploitation revenge flick – complete with an unnecessary aftermath shot of a woman’s vengeful scorn on a male’s genitals and other gratuitous bloody shots.

There’s a Buster Keaton film from 1925 called SEVEN CHANCES. At the end of the film, the director/star tumbles down long dusty hills, jumps off a cliff into a tree, and is chased by an avalanche of boulders. He gets put through the ringer as “nature” almost stands in the way of our affable hero’s goal. You will most likely be slack-jawed at the physical exertion Keaton must have gone through to film it. That being said, the sequence is only 4 minutes long. THE REVENANT is a similar sequence but for much longer. Drawing out the thrills and spills for that long begins to feel tiresome. It’s visceral cinema done excruciatingly well. However, it’s a “B-movie” setup struggling with all its might to get in the “A-movie” spotlight.

Overall rating: 3.5 out of 5

THE REVENANT is now in theaters everywhere

THE FOREST – The Review

Something bad…..evil, happens in Japan’s Aokigahara Forest, a (real) destination popular for those looking for a scenic place to commit suicide. The sheer bad vibes of those woods have trapped its many victims inside as moldy ghosts that haunt people who dare enter. Such ghost stories are common in every storytelling culture, of course, but the Japanese have a long tradition of taking vengeful spirits seriously, in life as well as in art. THE FOREST, a new Hollywood film set in this foggy Japanese woodland is basically a haunted house film, replacing the house with a forest, but despite one or two mild scares, it never generates much tension and is only notable for being the first lousy horror film of 2016 (I’m sure there will be more).

THE FOREST tells the story of young American Sara Price (Natalie Dormer) who receives word that her identical twin sister Jess (also played by Miss Dormer, but with darker hair), a teacher working in Japan, has disappeared after a visit to the Aokigahara Forest. Convinced Jess is still alive, Sara travels to the land of the rising sun alone to search for her. After a disturbing visit to the forest’s visitor’s center, she meets hunky Aiden (Taylor Kinney), an American writer for an Australian travel magazine, who just happens to be touring Aokigahara with a guide (Yukiyoshi Ozawa) the next day so Sara offers to tag along. Distrust, screaming ghosts, paranormal shenanigans, and boredom ensue.

THE FOREST doesn’t add up to much. The story is underdeveloped, and the characters underwritten. The film doesn’t know what to do once it lays out its initial premise, falling back to the clichés of most PG-13 horror flicks – rotting specters suddenly appearing where there was just open space, ghostly whispering, loads of cheesy jump-scare shocks, and it all ends on a lazy, unresolved note. Sara and Liam spend long stretches trekking through the woods talking about themselves and reciting by-the-numbers dialog like “If we keep walking in this direction, we’ll come to the path before too long” and “I’m here to find my sister and I’m not leaving without her!” and “That’s weird! Why is that happening?” They walk and hike and walk some more, stumbling across the occasional dead body that may or may not really be there while the viewer waits for something to happen, like a bear attack or a naked Nick Nolte, to liven things up. First-time director Jason Zada fails to create any atmosphere or sense of dread and there’s rarely any payoff to the build-up – just when the movie seems on the verge of becoming truly scary, Zada cuts away to a new scene and begins the process over again. The movie is so full of inconsistencies and plot holes that I stumbled out of THE FOREST with few answers, and many questions: Are there really so many suicides in Aokigahara that the visitor’s center there needs its own morgue? How did Sara’s boyfriend Rob (Eoin Macken) suddenly arrive in Japan (a 20-hour flight from the US) to join the rescue party? Do identical twins really have identical facial moles? Is this the first horror film with a haunted Viewmaster?

THE FOREST doesn’t even work as a travelogue of Japanese spiritual beliefs. Instead of opening the film by showing a suicide there, the background on Aokigahara Forest is described by dialog in a phone call (how cinematic!). By having a bunch of Americans in the cast, led by Miss Dormer (who does her best), THE FOREST could have taken the opportunity to educate us ignorant gaijin more about, say, yūrei (angry spirits) or Ubasute (taking the elderly to a remote place to die), or the noble history of spirits in religion and art. Instead, the visually uninteresting story might as well be set in Denver, though it adds the weird subtext of Americans being terrified by wet-haired teenage Japanese girls – a theme exhausted a decade ago in films like THE GRUDGE and RING. THE FOREST plays like one of those American remakes of a better Japanese horror film even though it’s not, which is too bad. At least then we’d have the superior original.

1 1/2 of 5 Stars

MAGICIAN: THE ASTONISHING LIFE AND WORK OF ORSON WELLES – The Review

$orsonMagician-CMG-website-header-HV_{52801a40-0204-e511-a207-d4ae527c3b65}$

Not so very long ago I had a co-worker who described himself as a movie geek, film fan, cinema addict, what have you. He talked about film as if he knew all about it. I asked him one day what he thought of Orson Welles. His reply?

“I don’t think about Orson Welles, he was old and fat, now he’s dead, what am I supposed to think about him?”

Needless to say I never really talked to this person again, who shall remain nameless. Of course the fact that he was an egocentric, arrogant, narcissistic weasel didn’t help matters. (He claimed to have a small part in Tombstone, I have seen that movie several times, never spotted him, by the way…)

I simply cannot fathom the arrogance of someone dismissing, so casually one of the greatest film makers who ever lived. I have been fascinated, obsessed even, with Orson Welles since about the age of 12. I’ve been told I resemble Welles, at least in size, wish I had one tenth of one per cent of his talent!

It was not Citizen Kane that got me started, I recall seeing that on television at about the age of 16, nor was it Lady From Shanghai although I recall seeing that on television at a young age as well. (And it wasn’t the shootout in the hall of mirrors that captivated me, it was “I woke up in the crazy house!” What a great sequence!

No, Welles got under my skin when I saw, late night on Channel 11, KPLR-TV in St. Louis, a historical melodrama called Black Magic. Based on a novel by Alexander Dumas peres it tells the tale of a charlatan and a mountebank named Cagliostro who got perilously close to the throne of France, namely King Louis XV, much as Rasputin came to dominate the Russian royal family.

Made in 1949 Welles, who allegedly partly directed the film, and it looks it, plays Cagliostro as no other actor could. Still young and thin and energetic Welles towers over the other cast members and moves through the film like some force of nature, charismatic, hypnotic, egocentric and lusting for…everything, power, money, women, whatever. Cagliostro wears all black clothes, decorated with every occult and religious symbol you can imagine. He repeatedly does magic tricks, sleight of hand, which Welles always loved to do at every opportunity, hence the title of this amazing documentary.

I obtained a copy of Black Magic recently, from the now defunct Atlas Films (thanks Rob!) I’m pleased to report it is actually better than I remembered!

Chuck Workman, (who created some of the greatest short films for The Academy Awards annual presentation, several of them are on Youtube) has put together one of the greatest documentaries about a film maker that you could ever hope to see.

Apparently I am not the only Movie Geek obsessed with Orson Welles. The subject of no less than 5 biographies (I have read four of them, I especially can recommend Barbara Leaming’s book) we now have this marvelous film that charts the rise and fall and rise again of a man described as both a genius and a failure (anyone else see any problem with that?) Welles, in his lifetime, revolutionized no less than three art forms; theater, radio and motion pictures. Given half a chance he would have done the same with television.

Raised to be a genius (a label he was not fond of) he lost both parents at a young age. Magician charts every part of his life, raised by a family lawyer, staging Shakespeare while still a teen ager. A walking tour of Ireland at 17 and presenting himself at the Gate Theater in Dublin, proclaiming himself an accomplished actor, when he was no such thing.

He revolutionized theater presentation on the New York stage, with the help of John Houseman and many others in the Mercury Theater, did the same on radio, again with the Mercury Theater. And of course the infamous War of the Worlds broadcast, which allegedly caused a panic on the East Coast (apparently an urban legend concocted by the newspapers to try and discredit radio news, check it out on Snopes.com.)

Blessed with one of the most distinctive voices in acting history Welles was all over the place in the 1930s, doing as many as 3 or 4 radio shows in one day, theater at night and carousing around town with many women and drinking buddies.

After the War of the Worlds broadcast on October 30, 1938 Hollywood came calling. Welles himself said he didn’t think he could make a movie, kept turning down every offer and asking for the kind of contract no one in Hollywood had at the time, complete control as to projects, editing, distribution, all that and much more than he thought he could obtain. RKO finally made an offer he couldn’t refuse and the rest is motion picture history, namely Citizen Kane, called by many the greatest and/or most important movie ever made.

Welles didn’t know it at the time but he would never have that kind of control again and complete very few movies after that. Considering who Citizen Kane was based on, William Randolph Hearst and his girl friend Marion Davies, it’s a miracle Welles wasn’t shot dead.

We hear all about his disastrous marriage to Rita Hayworth and Lady From Shanghai. His adventure in Brazil to try and make It’s All True while his follow-up to Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, was being taken out of his hands. Welles never forgave Robert Wise for shooting new footage and reediting Ambersons, although Wise was only doing what the RKO management requested that he do.

Before the 1940s were over Welles would start a new pattern of making movies with his own money. He did a very interesting version of Macbeth for Republic Studios, a company more famous for B Westerns and serials than Shakespeare.

Othello, Mr. Arkadin, The Trial, Chimes at Midnight, Welles’ self financed projects were few and far between. Touch of Evil was his last film made with Hollywood financing. One bit of information about Touch of Evil has always fascinated me; Welles got the job of directing the movie at the insistence of Charlton Heston, a lifelong Republican, Welles was a New Deal Democrat who never lost his love for Franklin Roosevelt. Heston is seen in archival footage relating what he said many times,” why hire Welles as an actor and not give him a chance to direct the movie?” Touch of Evil, either the theatrical version or the restored “director’s cut” ended up being one of Welles’ best. But, man is that movie depressing!

He constantly worked as an actor, both on camera and voice work, especially for commercials. He channeled that money into his own projects, many of which never got near completion. There is a version of Don Quixote available on dvd for instance, but it is not what Welles had in mind, allegedly. In fact according to an article in Filmfax Welles never intended to finish Don Quixote!

Magician has clips from both The Trial and Chimes at Midnight that look better than any version I have ever seen. Both films have come and gone in grey market versions; neither has had a proper dvd or blu ray release. A deluxe version of Mr. Arkadin was released a few years ago with no less than 4 versions of that film! Part of the problem with Welles’ self financed projects is they exist in a legal tangle, along with his unfinished projects such as The Other Side of the Wind, The Deep and Merchant of Venice.

I would love to see a complete blu ray box set of everything Welles ever did, finished or not. I would rather watch two minutes of an unfinished Welles film than some director’s entire resumes.

And descriptions of Welles are all over the map. In Magician and in several interviews I have read over the years, actors, directors, writers who worked with Welles give very conflicting stories. Some say he was a monstrous egomaniac who terrorized crews and tried to take over every film he ever acted in. Others said he was laid back and quiet, reading and minding his own business until he was called on to heave himself in front of the camera and earn a paycheck.

Some of the Welles haters claimed he ended up like Charles Foster Kane, except with no money, sitting alone and friendless and broke. Gary Graver who worked with Welles for years as a camera man tells a very different story, he had plenty of money, checks came in the mail every day. He was surrounded by young people more than willing to work for little or no money on his self funded projects just so they could put an internship with Orson Welles on their resume. That sounds good to me, in fact I can’t think of a better internship!

Fortunately for Magician and for us, Welles was a staple on television talk shows and specials like the Dean Martin Roasts. Much of the footage in Magician is Welles himself telling his own story that he told many times.

He considered Peter Bogdanovich a trusted friend and granted many hours of interviews that Bogdanovich captured on audio tape. One of the best stories about Welles I can think of, not included in Magician by the way, was told to Welles by Bogdanovich in one of these interviews. He quoted John Barrymore who was asked what it felt like to be the greatest living actor of his generation. Barrymore called the interviewer a dirty name and told him there were only two really great actors working at that time, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles. Welles reaction? He grew very quiet, stared into the distance for a while, smoking his ever present cigar, finally realized the tape was still running and said “Jack was always full of shit!”

So for me, Magician is just about a perfect celebration of one of the greatest film makers who ever lived. A role model and idol of all the independent film makers working now Welles went his own way, made his own films the way he wanted, never was heard to complain and show any bitterness at being locked out of the studio system. Welles himself stated the film he was most proud of, that turned out exactly the way he wanted, was The Trial. Citizen Kane will always be on that pedestal, like a fly frozen in amber, although it still works beautifully as what it was made for, a motion picture to entertain and astonish. But for me Welles will always be the man who made Lady From Shanghai, one of the first and best of the classic film noirs. I could listen to Welles tell that shark story one hundred and fifty times and never get tired of it.

Jeanne Moreau who worked for Welles in one of his last projects, a television special called Immortal Story, has the last word on Orson Welles. She calls him “a king without a country!” But I disagree, Orson Welles ruled over a kingdom of the imagination, anything he ever did as a director, actor or a raconteur is worth seeing. He was more, so much more than a “fat old man who died.”

JOY – The Review

So, you consider yourself a very talented film maker, a very creative director with major skills? Okay, are you up for a test of your talents? Well, can you make an entertaining film out of any subject? Hmm, no prob, you say? Alright, how about a feature-length movie about a household cleaning device? A mop, that floor maintenance essential. Not just any mop, but the “Miracle Mop”. The mop’s essential to the tale, but the real focus is its origin story (that superhero trope). And the person who came up with this special tool. This was the test one of our quirkiest directors has set up for himself. Only a couple of years after the 70’s set, “abscam”-inspired AMERICAN HUSTLE, David O Russell has gathered many of the same actors (he seems to be assembling a modern repertory company) to tell the true-life fable of the woman who transformed that sloppy pantry staple. It’s the story of a woman named JOY.

Mimi (Diane Ladd), the adoring grandmother of the film’s title character narrates. We see her with preteen Joy and her step sister Peggy immersed in late 70’s TV soap operas, watching quietly along with Joy’s mother Terry (Virginia Madsen). Away from the tube Joy constructs fantasy doll dioramas as Peggy looks on with dead-eyed annoyance. Then the girls are rocked when pappa Rudy (Robert DeNiro) divorces Terry. Cut to the late 1980’s as the now nearly thirty-something Joy Mangano (Jennifer Lawrence) must deal with a load of adult problems. And I mean a mountain-sized load. She’s holding down a grueling job, taking lots of verbal abuse behind an airline counter. The long hours are warranted as the divorced mother of three is trying to keep their modest, rented Long Island home. A home that she and the kids share with Mimi. And Terry, who never leaves her bedroom as she runs TV soaps on a myriad of VHS tapes. Oh, and living in the basement is Joy’s ex-husband, aspiring singer Tony (Edgar Ramirez). And now Rudy’s latest marriage is kaput, so he must share the basement with his former son-in-law. But Rudy’s soon back on the dating scene with pre-internet dating services (classifieds and 900 numbers). Through them he begins seeing wealthy widow Trudy (Isabella Rossellini). An accident (wine spillage on the deck) on a family outing on Trudy’s boat gives Joy an idea. The still inventive lady draws up a design for a self-wringing mop. She works up a prototype, but can’t raise any interest from the retail chains or the local hardware shops. Joy then hears of the new TV fad, cable channels devoted solely to selling items directly to consumers. She travels to the headquarters of QVC (Quality Value Channel) and convinces an ambitious exec, Neil Walker (Bradley Cooper) to give her a shot. But when one of the on-camera hosts bungles the mop segment, Joy doesn’t quit. She insists Neil give her invention another try, but this time she will demonstrate it live on the air. She’s a sensation, and the phone lines are jammed with orders. Her success is not the happy ending she hoped to get as family infighting, patent lawyers, and sleazy parts suppliers scuttle the “Miracle Mop” rocket just as it leaves the launch pad. Has Joy gotten in over her head?

Showcasing her astounding versatility, Lawrence gives us a character quite different from her franchise roles in X-Men and the recently concluded Hunger Games series (in addition to her Oscar-winning part in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK). She projects dogged determination, intelligence, and vulnerability as the single mom vowing not to back down and settle for scraps. Even as forces conspire and plot against her, Lawrence shows us, in her eyes and body language, a woman resisting the urge to fold, to give in and give up. The supporting cast is more than up to her formidable skills. DeNiro is both endearing and aggravating as the gruff and gregarious Rudy as he turns on the charm for Trudy and tosses up roadblocks to Joy’s plans. He’s not relying on familiar acting tricks, instead giving a fresh spin on an untraditional patriarch. The marketing may be a tad misleading by suggesting that this new film is another romance with Cooper, as with PLAYBOOK. Instead he’s really part mentor and wizard to Joy as he introduces her to a new world (that of TV commerce). As she gains her confidence, we do see a twinkle in his eyes, perhaps pride, maybe attraction, but those film goers hoping for a last act clinch will be left wanting. Madsen also goes against type as a timid, sheltered soul who finally begins to rejoin the world, even turning off her soaps and leaving her bedroom. Ladd is warm and nurturing as the grandmother of everyone’s dreams. The biggest surprise may be Rossellini who is ferocious as an exotic pit bull zealously guarding her fortune. She’s charmed by Rudy, but not enough to give her daughter the keys to her kingdom. Elizabeth Rohm is terrific as the grown-up Peggy, partner and sneaky, jealous saboteur. Plus, in a delightful cameo, Melissa Rivers pays tribute to her beloved mother with her performance as QVC’s most popular celebrity saleswoman.

As with Lawrence, this project is a change for the usual hard-edged Russell. His penchant for coarse language is severely toned down, which accounts for the more family friendly PG-13 rating. There’s only one “f-bomb” (tossed off by DeNiro, of course). I did have some concern for the film’s first act that seems to play to the “wacky” exploits of another dysfunctional family. But I don’t think Russell’s losing his edge, as this story is a great tale of empowerment, especially for young woman. Hopefully all audiences will be inspired as Joy knocks down all the walls formed by the chants of “no, you can’t”. You can say it’s “Russell lite”, but the script he co-wrote with Annie (BRIDESMAIDS) Mumolo still packs an emotional wallop (and some real suspense as Joy confronts those who would cheat her). The period sets, fashions, and hairstyles are right on the mark, particularly in the use of actual TV soap stars in fantasy sequences that have them speaking to the real Long Island folks. The film’s strongest asset may be the collaboration of star and director (this is their third film in a row), harkening back to Josef von Sternberg/ Marlene Dietrich and William Wyler/Bette Davis (the only other such team today may be Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy, who just finished their fourth flick). When Russell and Lawrence join forces, the creative sparks really fly. These two talents really make this true story, a true JOY.

4 Out of 5

CAROL – The Review

In a landmark year for gays and gay-themed films CAROL, a period romance with a twist, stands out. As in his films FAR FROM HEAVEN, POISON, and VELVET GOLDMINE, director Todd Haynes revisits themes of taboo romance set against the backdrop of a more restrictive era. CAROL is a terrific film.

CAROL tells the story of Therese (Rooney Mara), an aspiring photographer with a devoted fiancé named Richard (Jake Lacy) who works in the toy department of a large Manhattan store in the early 1950s. There she encounters Carol (Cate Blanchett), an elegant older woman looking for a Christmas present for her daughter. The two women seem to have an instant love connection. Carol, though still married, is recently out of a scandalous lesbian relationship, but she knows what she wants and what she wants is Therese. The younger woman is confused and slow to understand her feelings, but the pair begins an affair that is challenged by more than the societal pressures of that era. As the two embark on a road trip to get away, Carol’s angry husband, Harge (Kyle Chandler), has the lovers followed by a private eye and takes steps to gain full custody of their daughter. As the custody battle intensifies, Carol finds herself having to choose between her new-found love, her daughter, and her freedom.

This convincing evocation of 1950s tear-jerkers is gorgeously designed, stunningly photographed by Edward Lachman, ravishingly scored by Carter Burwell, and directed with great gay style by Haines. He gets awards-worthy work from his cast. Rooney Mara is appropriately naïve as Therese, a nice gal who at first keeps her opinions and feelings to herself. Her relationship with Carol changes everything from her looks to her attitude. Maybe her romance with this older woman is no healthier than her relationship with the somewhat possessive Richard but it definitely transforms her. It’s Cate Blanchett, however, who runs away with CAROL. The two-time Oscar winner has always carried herself like a classic movie star: assured, bold, and always ready for her close-up. Carol is wrung through the ringer emotionally. She must make the choice to give up something important to her, her sexuality or her daughter, and Blanchett is great in a challenging role. As good as these two actresses are, let’s not overlook a pair of outstanding performances from the actors playing the two men in these women’s lives. Jake Lacy makes up for his involvement in LOVE THE COOPERS portraying of a decent guy who may be a bit controlling, but only wants what he thinks is best for Therese. Even better is Kyle Chandler as Harge, frustrated and angrily lashing out at the wife he really wants back. These two characters are just as essential to the story as Ann Hathaway and Michelle Williams were to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and the actors deserve to be recognized.

CAROL combines so many timely topics and ideas into a film that feels like it could have been made in the period in which it takes place (except for the naked Rooney Mara) and manages to be thought-provoking and satisfying without feeling overstuffed or unfocused. Cate Blanchett’s performance alone guarantees that CAROL will be an award season contender and I highly recommend it.

5 of 5 Stars

MUSTANG – The Review

Review by Stephen Tronicek

You don’t just watch MUSTANG. You watch it slowly unfold in front of you as it pulls no punches. MUSTANG is an emotional juggernaut that through its simple story, and the best direction of the year makes for one of the most intense and heartbreaking experiences of the year.

MUSTANG begins with five sisters playing a game with some boys on a beach. They return to their home only to be viciously attacked by the adults in their lives, and threats are thrown at them. We soon realize that they are all part of arranged marriages. The smallest of the sisters, Lale, starts to question this, and sees the oppression of the tradition.

The girls almost seem to be “picked off” as they get married, and go live with men that they don’t want to live with, much less be married to. Near the beginning of the film as we see the girls bonding, there’s the impending doom feeling to the futures ahead of them. But there is also happiness to the weddings, and this combined with the more sinister aspects of the productions make for an almost creepy tone that keeps you right on the edge of your seat.

The nuances found between the direction and screenplay in the piece are the most interesting, though. The house that the girls live in physically becomes more and more like a prison to them everyday, but it is also a metaphor for the free spirit that they had as women being caged. That is only one example, but understanding these touches are paramount to understanding what makes MUSTANG a great movie. Each one of these simple nuances show up telling you “They have to get out. They have to get out,” creating a rush of dramatic tension. The only way for the film to relieve that tension is to allow the girls to escape. Whether or not they do would make for a good film either way.

It is a triumph that the young actresses don’t let these nuances become too unsubtle. The naturalistic way they bond, and grow as women is conveyed beautifully. Güenes Sensoy is revolutionary as Lale, and the heart she brings to the film becomes one of its driving engines.

The cinematography is another driving engine. A more harsh filming style may have ruined the film, bringing everything that shouldn’t be to the surface, and burning out the audience. But director Deniz Gamze Erüven and cinematographers David Chizallet and Ersin Gok took their time to make every frame of the film as rich as the characters. This pays off allowing the softer aspects of the film to shine, and better encapsulates times when everything is more frightening boosting the film to even greater heights.

MUSTANG is a special film. It’s an almost perfect combination of compassion, intensity, and joy that blends into one of the most satisfying films of the year.

5 of 5 Stars

MUSTANG opens in St. Louis December 25th exclusively at Landmark’s The Tivoli Theater

THE HATEFUL EIGHT – The Review

For the last couple of decades film fans have been bemoaning the lack of flicks set in the old wild West. Many even remarked that the “horse opera” or “oater” was a dead genre, that its heydays were nearly twenty five years ago (Clint Eastwood’s UNFORGIVEN took Oscar gold in 1992). At the end of 2015, the corpse of the Western, seems to have been revived. And who are the “mad scientists”, well “mad movie makers” perhaps, shocking this corpse back to life via their electrifying talents? Well, Oscar winner Alejandro Inarritu, fresh off his BIRDMAN triumph, puts Leonardo DiCaprio through the wringer (emotional and physical) in THE REVENANT, which we’ll discuss in length when it gallops into theatres in a couple of weeks. The film that’s out on Christmas Day (in a very special limited release) comes from the ultimate movie fanatic turned film maker Quentin Tarantino. Now it was almost three years ago to the day that he first tried on his Stetson with DJANGO UNCHAINED, an ode to one of his beloved “grindhouse” staples, the “blackspoitation” action flick mixed with the old-fashioned “sagebrush” story. Now QT is hitting the trail once more, this time attempting to recreate the “road show” film releases of the 1950’s and 60’s with a “saddle saga” more epic in scope, eschewing digital projection and presenting it in select theatres in 70 mm (excuse me, Super Panavision 70 mm), even filming it with the same lenses that created many of those revered 60’s spectacles. And to give it the proper 60’s Western polish, he’s actually recruited the man responsible for the signature scores of that genre in that era, Ennio Morricone, to provide the music (including an overture prior to the opening titles). All this to accompany the thundering hoofbeats and exploding six guns of THE HATEFUL EIGHT. Giddyup!

As the strains of the “maestro’s” theme builds, the film opens up on the cold, snowy trails of Wyoming, not long after the end of the Civil War. A solitary figure waves down a lone stagecoach. Only two passengers are inside: bounty hunter John “the Hangman” Ruth (Kurt Russell) and his prisoner, the notorious Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh). After reminding Ruth of a previous meeting, the man who flagged them down, another bounty hunter, Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L Jackson), is allowed to join them (after lots of negotiations). Soon the coach is full when Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins) emerges from the woods and pleads for the last seat, telling the men that he is also headed to Red Rock to become the town’s new Sheriff (the men are very skeptical of this “wild card”). The coach’s driver soon realizes that they won’t outrun the approaching blizzard and must wait it out at the nearby “stage stop”, Minnie’s Haberdashery. Ruth and Warren are surprised to discover that owners Minnie and “Sweet Dave” are nowhere to be found. According to one of their new staff, Bob (Demian Bichir), the couple are visiting relatives, over the ridge. Once again, the bounty hunters are skeptical. But they’re not the only ones stranded. Trying to keep warm are the stoic cowboy Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), gregarious Englishman Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), and former Confederate officer General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern). As the storm rages, Ruth and Warren soon believe that these men are not who they say they are. Could one of them, or all of them, be in “cahoots” with the dangerous, desperate Daisy?

Pretty impressive octet, eh? Actually there’s a few more cast members (including a very hot, young Hollywood hunk not seen ij the film’s ads) who are also very impressive. As you see, the majority of the eight are QT vets. The most frequent member, Jackson, really becomes the story’s main protagonist, deducing and dishing out justice. There’s more than a touch of Jules (his breakout role in PULP FICTION) in Warren, the man who must deftly manuever through the still wounded by war America. Jackson still projects that fierce determination and intelligence we’ve seen in his very best work, making him a most memorable Western hero. Closer to the usual “oater” lead “buckeroo” is Russell (nearly hidden beneath that walrus,Yosemite Sam ‘stache) as the swaggering man of action (said swagger almost channeling Western icon John Wayne), who and often succeeds at being the alpha male among this “wolf pack”. His boisterous performance at times turns Minnie’s into a private concert hall, entertaining and intimidating us with his outrageous bluster and behavior. Part of that behavior is his brutal treatment of Daisy, somewhat shifting our sympathies to her. That’s until her true, sinister nature kicks in. Leigh (making her astounding arrival into the “Tarantino-verse”) is a sullen, feral she-demon, spewing obscenities and racial epithets like a spitting cobra. With Leigh’s silent glare she tells us that she’s just as savage, if not more so, than any hombre.

Just as watchable is Goggins, who had a small role in DJANGO, as Mannix. His body language conveys a very malleable misfit, whose loyalties can switch in seconds, even as his somewhat think skull struggles to process each new curve thrown at him. After racking up a terrific TV career (from “The Shield” to “Justified”), he proves to be a great screen presence. Another vet from that earlier flick has been a screen star before the birth of Mr. Goggins. Dern as Smithers seems to be the stereotyped, docile old “coot” in a rocking chair, but when he’s verbally poked, he shows us that seething stare, warning his tormentor like a rattlesnake, that his fury will be unleashed. It’s a great follow-up to Dern’s award-worthy work a couple of years ago in NEBRASKA. Roth has a unique spin on the old cliché of the smiling, refined English “dandy” whose effete manners hides his motives. Madsen is surly and sullen as the tight-lipped, close-to-the-vest cowpoke, who is all squint-eyed, laid-back menace. Bichir gives a toned-down performance as the deferential Bob, who suffers ethnic slurs without blinking while trying to keep his “customers’ comfortable.

Much as with his earlier “horse opera”, Tarantino’s new film is a bit of a hybrid. His original screenplay and story is almost equal parts Zane Grey and Agatha Christie, reminiscent of her oft-filmed “Ten Little Indians” (some have even called it a “cowboy CLUE”). It’s a drama of observed looks and gestures that can suddenly erupt in bloody violence (often as over-the-top as any of George Romero’s zombie classics). Since so much of the story is set in Minnie’s roomy general store, many have speculated that this may have been conceived as a stage play. That’s not to infer that Tarantino has treated it as such. His camera swoops in to capture the gunplay, while his edits and cuts direct us right to the most drama and conflict. He even makes the weather a character, as the blizzard, like a howling beast, presses in the cracked door. This is particularly true with the visuals used during a flashback tale. You can almost feel the frigid air cutting through you right to the bone. It may seem an odd choice to shoot a mostly indoor story with “old school” 70mm, but the results are never “stagey” or claustrophobic. The superb, sweeping score by Morricone certainly aides in opening things up. Best of all may be that Tarantino dialogue, though peppered with “f-bombs’ and “n-words”, is gloriously “un-PC”, and often close to poetic. We can see the delight in the cast’s eyes has they savor each syllable like a fine wine. He’s been threatening a retirement from films, but hopefully this true cinema lover (it truly oozes out of every frame) will continue to keep us entertained with work as enthralling, outrageous, and ambitious as THE HATEFUL EIGHT. Whoa!

4.5 Out of 5

THE HATEFUL EIGHT opens in Super Panavision 70mm in select theatres (including Wehrenberg’s Ronnies 20 Cine in St. Louis) on Christmas Day. It opens in wide release on New Year’s Eve

DADDY’S HOME – The Review

Every holiday, millions of people make their way to the local movie theater for some fun, cinematic action, comedy, romance, or adventure. Unfortunately for DADDY’S HOME, it offers none of the above.

Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg team up again for the all new broken family comedy. Brad Taggart is a mild-mannered executive at a jazz radio station who seems to have everything that he’s ever wanted… a great job, a loving wife, and two wonderful step-children. He’s living the daddy dream until the children’s biological father Dusty comes back into the picture. Now, Brad is in a battle for his family with a bad boy who seems to excel where he doesn’t. The result is chaos.

I get what they were trying to do here by bringing Ferrell and Wahlberg back together. They were trying to recreate the same comedic chemistry that THE OTHER GUYS had. True, Ferrell and Wahlberg are great together, but that isn’t enough to save this film. It all starts with the script. We’ve seen oddball pairings in film before. It gets boring unless there is some sort of direction or substance behind it. Unfortunately, none of that was offered in this script.

The whole film felt lost, and the comedy had no real direction. It felt like they couldn’t decide if they were making a family comedy, or going more gallows. That doesn’t really work for a movie like this. They needed to pick one or the other. Instead, it danced back and forth in a sad attempt to find middle ground. Forty-five minutes into this ninety-six minute snooze-fest I was completely bored and ready to leave. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Director and screenwriter Sean Anders doesn’t have a great track record with his films. His top two being WE’RE THE MILLERS and HOT TUB TIME MACHINE. I mean, DUMB AND DUMBER TO was embarrassingly bad.

My problem is not with the actors… especially the children. Owen Vaccaro and Scarlett Esteves were terrific. My problem is with the flow of the film and the script. Did none of the actors realize that the script had no direction? Were the actors not able to improvise? Something tells me that there are a ton of jokes that were left on the cutting room floor that could have greatly improved this film. I guess we’ll have to wait for the bonus features.

It’s a shame to have such a stink bomb in theaters for the holidays. This should have been a mid-January release.

Overall Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

DADDY’S HOME is in theaters December 25th

For more info: daddyshomemovie.tumblr.com

THE BIG SHORT – The Review

Making a comedy about a serious subject is a tricky thing. But it has been done – think DR. STRANGELOVE or THE GREAT DICTATOR. THE BIG SHORT is a dark comedy with biting wit about the real estate bubble and meltdown that triggered the Great Recession. Or at least it is funny to start, until remembering all that greed and misbehavior begins to make you angry all over again.

Many will find THE BIG SHORT a brilliant, intelligent, pointedly funny film. Whether you like “The Big Short” or not might depend on how you feel about those events and the fact that no major figures went to jail. The right-leaning media seems determined to call the film terrible, despite its appearance on many critics’ top-ten lists.

Christian Bale heads up a terrific ensemble cast that includes Steve Carrell, Ryan Gosling, and Brad Pitt. Director Adam McKay adapted the Michael Lewis book of the same name. The film opens with voice-over by Gosling and Michael Burry (Bale), a physician turned investor, uncovering what he thinks is an anomaly in the market, one he can exploit by “shorting” investments that are considered some of the safest, ones backed by home mortgages, long considered rock-solid reliable. Pitt’s character Ben Rickert, a former investor who has dropped out of the rat-race to live out in the woods, is based on Ben Hockett, Gosling portrays Jared Vennett, a character based on the real Gregg Lippman, one of several investors looking into mortgaged-backed securities and discovering the problems that will eventually crash the economy.

Among these high-powered, often eccentric individuals mining financial information for overlooked investment gold are Mark Baum (Carell), somewhat based on the real Steve Eisman. All these guys are strikingly unique but Baum’s foul-mouthed, high-stress character is among the most eccentric, as well as funny. Baum engages in a running back-and-forth with his wife (Marisa Tomei), in which she tells him he should quit his job because he hates it while Baum insists he loves it.

This story requires the use of some technical financial talk, which director McKay handles in a clever way. Margot Robbie soaks in a bubble bath, sipping champagne while explaining sub-prime mortgages, one of several interludes where unlikely celebrities, such as Anthony Bourdain and Selena Gomez, to provide definitions and brief explanations of financial terms. The effect is both humorous and informative, a far better solution than the usual one of stopping the dialog for some exposition by the characters…

The film is fast and funny, switching from person to person. As befits the irrational exuberance that proceeded the crash, the film has a breathless pace and driving energy. Gosling’s voice-over helps us keep track in this rapid-paced, cleverly presented story that sometimes plays a bit like an action thriller. But the comic tone starts to drop away as these clever people start to realize how far down the rabbit hole this problem goes, the chain of responsibility that runs all the way to the top, and its incendiary potential for the U.S and world economies and people’s individual lives. Coming at all that makes the revelations all the more chilling.

THE BIG SHORT is one of the year’s best films in a year that has seen some other great films about real-world subjects, such as SPOTLIGHT. Human folly and our capacity for short-sightedness as well as greed are major themes in this brilliant, worthy film. THE BIG SHORT starts out with comedy but ends with tragedy for those not in on the secret under the market.

THE BIG SHORT opens in St. Louis on Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015.

Category: Review

ANOMALISA – The Review

THE REVENANT – The Review

THE FOREST – The Review

MAGICIAN: THE ASTONISHING LIFE AND WORK OF ORSON WELLES – The Review

JOY – The Review

CAROL – The Review

MUSTANG – The Review

THE HATEFUL EIGHT – The Review

DADDY’S HOME – The Review

Overall Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

DADDY’S HOME is in theaters December 25th

THE BIG SHORT – The Review

OVERALL RATING: 5 OUT OF 5 STARS

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Overall Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

DADDY’S HOME is in theaters December 25th

Share this:

OVERALL RATING: 5 OUT OF 5 STARS

Share this: