Delayed Reaction: The Hustler

The Pitch: Paul Newman as a pool hustler.

I was about to begin this by saying something like "For how big of a movie star Paul Newman was, I've seen very few of his movies". Then I thought about it, and that's a lie. Just in the past few years I've seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Slap Shot, Nobody's Fool, Twilight, and Message in a Bottle, not to mention Cars and Road to Perdition before that. What I mean to say is that I haven't seen much "peak Paul Newman". I've got "Old Man Paul" covered. There's a few obvious holes from his filmography that I need to fill and The Hustler is a good place to start.

I still don't know how to watch older movies. Or, rather, I'm still thrown off by the things I should be used to by now. Such as, this movie is in no hurry. Every scene has enough time to breathe. Too much time occasionally. I could definitely see a version of this cut down some that plays a bit better. Regardless, Paul Newman is rightfully praised for the role. "Fast Eddie" is engaging from the very beginning, and even at his most foolish, I bought his decisions as fitting with the character. I fully expected Jackie Gleason, as the infamous pool shark, to be the antagonist of the film. Instead, he's the chief advesary, but not the "bad guy". That would be George C. Scott, as the bettor willing to stake Eddie for his games then screw him over. The love story between Newman and Piper Laurie approached some interesting dynamics but turned to melodrama before it could become something substantial. It's a good movie. Newman makes it worth seeing if nothing else, and now I'm rather excited to see The Color of Money.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Comet

The Pitch: (500) Days of Summer, but more fucked up.

There's no way for me to talk about this without mentioning two things: Sam Esmail and (500) Days of Summer. This is written and directed by Esmail, better known now for masterminding Mr. Robot. Knowing that is a great way to go into this, because his fingerprints are all over this. The narrative is confusing, which is the point. He plays tricks with the storytelling, such as when he reveals at the end that one of the stories is being told in an alternate dimention in which the Earth has two suns. The structure is undeniably similar to (500) Days of Summer too. I wouldn't even be surprised if Emmy Rossum or Justin Long were considered for the Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt roles a few years earlier. There's obvious differences and the thematic points of the two films are very different. I'd almost argue that Comet shares more DNA with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Either way, I'm talking about how it's similar two movies I love.

More importantly, I'll watch just about anything with Emmy Rossum (Starting with Genius all the way to Shameless) and Justin Long is just plain watchable. Long isn't the best at any one thing, but he's always right for the part he's cast in. That's a skill. Rossum gets the more interesting role in Comet. I'd say that her character has a real edge to her if I didn't have years of Fiona Gallagher to compare to. I'm not really sure why she hasn't had a bigger chance to be in a major film yet. It's pretty much The Phantom of the Opera and a few other supporting roles. She's way better than that.
Similar to Mr. Robot, I found myself more caught up in the puzzle than the story. And the movie isn't supposed to be about the puzzle. It's supposed to be about the relationship and what is learned with the different perspectives. It's missing that thing I can't shake. The thing about the movie that I feel compelled to revisit. Perhaps that will develop in time. As is, all the pieces are there for a movie that I would really love*, but it falls short.

*I'm a sucker for playing with story mechanics. I really like the leads. It's not trying to find easy answers.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: A Dog's Purpose

Formula: Marley & Me + Ghost

I like dogs more than people. I don't mean to, but I do. If I see a homeless person on the street with a dog, I feel bad for the dog and don't even register the person. That's how I'm wired. Dogs are easier than people and more immediately lovable. I've long held an "irredeemable villain theory" which concludes that the only way to be a villain without hope of redemption is to kill a puppy*. A character can throw a grenade into a schoolhouse full of children, and there's a way I can come around on him by the end. But, the bad guy in John Wick will never get sympathy from me. Really, dog suffering is not what I'm about. So, that means I saw A Dog's Purpose because I am a glutton for punishment.

*Puppy, of course, refers to dogs of any age.

A Dog's Purpose tells the story of a dog who has lived several lives as several different dogs. Within the first five minutes, there's already one dead dog. They waste no time. The second form of the dog is named Bailey and he has a boy named Ethan. The story with Ethan is the bulk of the movie, of course, always told through Baily's perspective. Ethan and Baily are as close as a boy and dog can be. Obviously, Baily doesn't live as long as Ethan...so that's cry #1. Bailey is reincarnated a few more times. He's a police dog, a corgi owned by a lonely college student who eventually starts a family, and a dog with a neglectful owner. There's a couple more good cries along the way. Eventually, he finds his way back to Ethan's farm and tries to find a way to let Ethan know who he is. This is all given away in the trailer, so I don't mind giving away that much of the story.

Josh Gaad is the voice of the dog and that's a good match. He is great at giving a child-like innocence to a character. The human cast is fine. Dennis Quaid is the big name. He's adult Ethan. Peggy Lipton, K.J. Apa, Luke Kirby, Juliet Rylance, and John Ortiz are all familiar, even if I can't come up with their names without IMDB. Britt Robertson is there too. I'm not sure if she works a ton or if I just keep stumbling onto the movies and shows she's in. She's everywhere though. No one in the cast is given anything complex to do, and they do what is asked of them ably.

I did feel talked down to by the story. A Dog's Purpose is a "family movie" in the sense that it was written for children, which means adults can follow it as well (i.e. It's written for the lowest common denominator). There is little nuance to any of the stories. That's how you get something like in the police dog life, there's a comically over-the-top kidnapping story that somehow ends with a standoff at a dam, entirely for dramatic effect. They took the outline of several stories and didn't personalize them any more than absolutely necessary. The plot contrivances fail my One Big Leap test several times over. I'd be lying if I said the movie didn't work though. There doesn't need to be much context to someone saying goodbye to a dying dog to make it emotional. Even poorly written, that can get me tearing up every time.

A Dog's Purpose isn't a great movie. It isn't a good movie. It's is an effective movie. The mission statement for the film is "people love dogs" and it honors that. It's charming and occasionally funny (polite laughter, not belly laughs). It nails the few big beats that it must. The rest of the time, it's a Nicolas Sparks story from the perspective of the dog.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Oscar Nomination Thoughts

The Oscar nominations were announced recently. Soon enough, I'll be coming out with my deep dives into the individual categories and how I think they will go. For now, I want to reflect on the nominations by themselves.

-La La Land: Tying the record for most nominations ever, it's almost unthinkable that La La Land won't run away with Best Picture and a lot of other awards. I'm hoping that the Academy spreads the love with the wins though. Damien Chazelle's directing seems like a lock to win, as do the Song, Score, and Sound Mixing awards that come standard with a popular musical. I would be fine if a lot of the other technical awards (Sound Editing, Cinematography, Costume Design, Production Design) go somewhere else (although I'm rooting for it). Emma Stone probably should have more competition for Lead Actress than she does. Gosling is almost certain to lose and Original Screenplay isn't a guarantee. Make no mistake, this was my favorite film of 2016, so I'm happy with all the love it can get, but there's no need for 13 wins on Oscar night.

-Moonlight: If anything can give La La Land a run, it's Moonlight. I would have no issue with it winning and would be happy to call it a Best Picture winner even if it isn't my preferred pick. Supporting Actor and Adapted Screenplay feel like locks. However, there isn't a historical comparison I can come up with that favors Moonlight to pull off the Best Picture upset. Two years ago, Boyhood was the clear critical darling that lost to Birdman, which was all about Hollywood and making movies/plays. Sound familiar? There's a long history of critical favorites with a serious, sombre tone getting overtaking by lighter crowdpleasers as the season progresses: Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan, The King's Speech over The Social Network, Slumdog Millionaire over Benjamin Button. The opposite doesn't really happen. In that respect, the unprecedented nature of a Moonlight win would be fascinated to track.

-Arrival: I'm pretty confused by how Arrival can get 8 nominations, including Best Picture and Director, but not get one for Amy Adams. That's bizarre and a testament to how ridiculously stacked the Best Actress race was this year. Adams, after all, is an Oscar favorite (5 nominations). I'm tempted to call her next nomination, whatever it's for, a lock to get her a win.

-Kubo and the Two Strings: A rare Visual Effects nomination for an animated movie. Zootopia looks like the frontrunner, but I could see support shifting to Kubo.

-Meryl Streep: I wish there was a way to calculate if her speech at the Golden Globes got her the Oscar nomination. It sure feels like it. Florence Foster Jenkins was forgotten nearly everywhere else. The Golden Globes happened right as the nomination ballots went out for the Oscars. This isn't even a conspiracy theory. It just makes sense. That said, I'm not about to dispute a Meryl nomination.

-Hacksaw Ridge: The "steakeaters" have spoken. It's Hacksaw Ridge and not Sully that they backed this year. "Steakeaters" is, off course, a dismissive term that's thrown around to describe the old men who vote for movies that feel dated, simplistic, or just plain "Ooo-rah". Past nominees with the "Steakeater" vote include Bridge of Spies (2015) and American Sniper (2014). It's hard to go too far back, because this is very much a function of the expanded nominee field and the fact that after a decade or two, just about everything looks like a "steakeater" movie...Because they're old...Get it.
Regardless, I'm surprised to see Mel Gibson return to the Academy's attention, especially the Director's branch for this movie. His only other Oscar attention was when Braveheart came out of nowhere to clean up in 1996. The directors branch is notoriously inclusive (remember when Ben Affleck couldn't get nominated for Argo despite winning everywhere else?).

-O.J.: Made in America: This 7+ hour documentary, qualified by the letter of the law, not the spirit of it, and is the presumed frontrunner in the category. I don't really believe in the idea of nominees cancelling each other out normally. With OJ, 13th, and I Am Not Your Negro covering similar thematic ground, I do wonder if that may be in play this year. I still doubt it.

That's it. See you in a couple weeks.

Delayed Reaction: Syrup

The Pitch: A movie about some marketing guy, but it's really about how awesome Amber Heard is.

This is based on a satirical book from the late 90s. I get the feeling that some producers got very involved somewhere in the process for two reasons. 1) The book is about selling a drink to Coca-Cola. The movie turns that into Addison Cola. I get why they opted to do that (Coke has many lawyers). It's still made this feel toothless. 2) The movie version is wholly uninterested in Shiloh Fernandez in favor of Amber Heard. Unless the book is told Great Gatsby-style, I can't imagine the original focus is kept in tact.

And, let's be honest, Amber Heard's Six is the most interesting thing the movie has going for it. Fernandez' Scat is just a dud. He's minor league compared to Heard or Sneaky Pete. His success by the end is a machination of the story more than reflective of him getting what he deserves. Sneaky Pete is a little too distanced to care at all about what Kellan Lutz is doing. There's a much more interesting movie there with Heard as the outright lead that maybe even focuses on a rivalry between her and the underused Brittany Snow. That's me writing my own movie rather than commenting on the movie that exists though. It's hard to rate Heard's performance. I never bought what she was doing as Six, but that's kind of the point. I never knew what exactly she was doing or what I was supposed to make of the character. She's largely a male-fantasy, although she admits as much. I'll put it this way, she's well-cast.

It's just not as clever as it thinks it is. Or maybe it isn't plausible enough. I'm reminded of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The faux-SNL within that show wasn't believable as a good show, which made everything else feel hollow. In Syrup, I didn't buy the "brilliant" advertisements as being brilliant. Perhaps Mad Men is the better comparison. When you promise people are good at their job, you need to convince the audience of that. Writing 101: Show, don't tell.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Founder

Formula: Wall Street / Super-Size Me

When it comes to brands, it doesn't get much bigger than McDonald's. Love it or hate it, you do know it. McDonald's is unavoidable now, but in the early 1950s, it was just a single location, run by a couple brothers with a great idea and a product people loved. The name of this movie isn't The Founders though. It's The Founder, singular, which refers to Ray Croc: the man who turned that name into a brand.

The story begins with Ray (Michael Keaton) as a traveling salesman trying to sell milkshake mixers to restaurants. This is his latest "big idea" after countless failures, and it isn't going so well either. Once day, he stumbles onto a San Bernardino, CA restaurant called McDonald's with a revolutionary idea (efficient, fast service). He convince the brothers who run the restaurant, Dick (Nick Offerman) and Mac (John Carroll Lynch) McDonald, to allow him to oversee franchising. He starts with a few locations in the Midwest, meets a few people along the way who help him turn this into an empire, and eventually muscles the brothers out.

The central question of The Founder is if Ray Croc is the hero or the villain of the story. Croc is a divisive character. Being played by Michael Keaton makes him inherently likable to begin with. Croc is someone who is willing to put in the work, almost to a fault. His great skill, as he's well aware, isn't talent, luck, or intelligence. It's persistence. He's willing to keep working at something until he succeeds, and that's a hard thing to root against. The problem is that he knows that to succeed in his chosen field, he'll need to step on a few throats along the way. He's willing to be civil, but he's also willing to be vicious. He screws over the McDonald brothers only after trying to work with them for a while. He's pretty lousy to his wife, played by Laura Dern, who puts up with a lot of crap from him, but he's direct about wanting to leave her. He's duplicitous, but in a subtle way.

I'm not sure the film does a good enough job answering that central question though about Croc. There's a difference between trying to be objective and refusing to take a stance. Ray Croc is the physical embodiment of "Shit happens". What he does to the McDonald brothers is seen as an inevitability. If it wasn't Croc, it would've been someone else. So, the movie continually pulls back from the hard moments. Croc rarely seems all that conflicted. He just keeps pushing forward, with or without the consent of his business partners. Is the point of the movie that some people are winners and some people are losers? I really don't know. There's more going on than just "this is how McDonald's grew into an empire" though.

Keaton is very good in this. The movie doesn't work at all without him. There's so many ways to play the character that are either too cruel or too dumb. Keaton balances it marvelously. Offerman and Lynch are fine as the McDonald brothers, playing similar to characters we've seen them play before. They want to be in a comedy more than they rest of the movie does, and there's an unintended tension to that which bothered me. I don't know if that blame goes with the performance or the direction. Dern, as Croc's wife, does more complicated work than I expected. She does everything she can to support Ray and it's never enough for him. Just when you think she's on the same page with him, he asks for more. She has the least satisfying exit in the movie. In hindsight, I wonder why they even bothered to include her in the first place. Linda Cardellini, Patrick Wilson, BJ Novak, and others get some mostly unimportant parts. They serve their purposes and not much else.

I think I didn't like The Founder, but the fact that I'm not sure about it makes me wonder if I just didn't like how it made me feel (It's the difference between how I feel about The Judge - awful - and how I feel about Anomalisa - uncomfortable). There's a nihilistic edge to it that I don't know if I'm supposed to celebrate or despise. Director John Lee Hancock doesn't make enough decisions (or consistent enough decisions) to dig into the finer points of the conflict and character. It's a film utterly dominated by Michael Keaton's performance and that alone makes it watchable. On the surface, the script and direction keep things light enough that I really didn't consider if I actually enjoyed the movie until it was over. That's a strange skill that seems to be Hancock's specialty. If nothing else, I can say this much: it's more entertaining than reading the Wikipedia article about Ray Croc.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Sccop

The Pitch: A wannabe reporter starts dating a man she suspects is a serial killer thanks to a tip from a deceased journalist*.

*Ok, the real pitch was "I'm Woody Allen. I make a movie every year, so grab a draft of a screenplay from that pile over there and let's make a movie."

Woody Allen is an important filmmaker, even if he's not a great man or someone you'd invite to a dinner party. If nothing else, his constant output is staggering. He has made [at least] one feature film every year since 1982. That's five, almost six presidents. Every year since EPCOT Center was opened, I could ask myself "What was Woody Allen busy with this year?". This streak goes back beyond the M*A*S*H finale. It's a rather impressive streak.

Of course, the downside to that kind of production turnaround is something I often complain about (See: Jasmin, Blue and Moonlight, Magic in). His movies often feel like first drafts. Scoop has that problem as well. Allen has a habit of deux ex macchina endings which is directly the result of him not having enough time to think through a story with another draft or two. It's fun to figure out the kernal of an idea he started with and how it grew into an entire movie. In Scoop, everything on the boat to the afterlife is vintage Woody Allen. This film did feel a bit more polished overall than a lot of his films, his recent ones especially.

This is not the high point in Scarlett Johansson's run as Allen's muse, but it's light and fun in an easy to appreciate way. Allen has never found a better surrogate for him than himself, so I like to see him in the film instead of some other guy. I know some people can't stand his voice, cadance, and rythms. Personally, I've always loved them.

There's nothing special about this movie. I enjoyed it even though I will continue to confuse it with Match Point.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: 20th Century Women

Formula: Beginners + more women

Sometimes, it takes a village.

That's the theory guiding Dorothea's (Annette Bening's) actions in Mike Mills' 20th Century Women. It's not a flawed theory on paper. She is trying to raise her 15 year old son, Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann), after his father moved away following the divorce. Dorothea's attempts to bring men into Jamie's life, such as William (Billy Crudup), who rents a room in their house, hasn't done much good, so she calls for two other women in his life to help him figure out how to become a man. The first is Abbie (Greta Gerwig), a hip, punk-loving 20-something who also rents a room in the house. The second is Julie (Elle Fanning), Jamie's 17-year-old best friend, who he is in love with but doesn't return those kinds of feelings for him.

That's about it as far as the plot goes. It's a case of the trailer* not hiding anything. 20th Century Women covers a single summer (or some time of year when no one seems to have to work or go to school). It's a snapshot of the lives of this handful of people, leaving little mystery to what has and will happen to them. It's one of those movies that puts a lot of people with baggage in the same place sees how they bounce off one another. Jamie is trying to become a man. Dorothea is trying to reintroduce herself to a world she's never really understood. Julie is rebelling, although she doesn't seem to know why or what against. Abbie is forced to reevaluate her life and doesn't know if she likes the new equation. It's not quite "drama of misery" (See: This is Where I Leave You), but it's a distant cousin to it. The big moments in the film are conversations, not actions.

*Sidenote: I've managed to see this trailer before so many movies that I could quote almost all the big moments. There's no reason why I should've needed to see that trailer so often.

The way the film is structured is interesting. There's almost a stream of consciousness to it (a little like The Tree of Life). The story is broken up into chapters or stanzas. Dorothea or Jamie give a voiceover narration focusing on a specific character. They will explain where that person came from, how they grew up, or, eventually, what their future holds. Often, during these voiceovers, shots are sped up, like they are making a point to show that the story isn't fixed on a single moment in time. Like it's telling the story of these peoples' lives through moments.

This film is filled with strong performances. I won't say Annette Bening makes is look easy. Her best moments aren't big moments though. It's not a performance that demands your attention but, instead, earns it. Elle Fanning has been around for longer than I realized (Her IMDB starts when she was 3 and hasn't had a year gap since). In the last year or two, she's really started to shine. Between this and The Neon Demon, she's dropped the "precocious" label that Dakota always had trouble with. Gerwig is playing a lead character in a supporting role. I could absolutely see her character as the center of a very good movie, and she's just one of many in this. Crudup seems like he's in a completely different movie, but in a good way. It's like he just happened to be there already when they started filming, so they decided to keep him around. Zumann, the nominal lead or co-lead, doesn't stand out as much as I'd like. He's technically the center of the movie. But, he's the object in every sentence, not the subject. The story happens to him. Some of that is intended and some of it is because the rest of the cast is so good that he has to defer to them.

20th Century Women is movie that engaged me more in moments than overall. Aspects like the performances, direction, and music I really liked. As a whole, it doesn't quite come together. It's a little too academic. Mike Mills knows what he's doing and proves that here. If you like any of the actors, there's enough to make the movie worth seeing. Same thing for it you are a fan of Mills' direction/writing. It's an accomplished movie, not a great movie.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Honeymoon

The Pitch: Newlyweds on their honeymoon get torn apart by strange and ominous events.

Rose Leslie and Harry Treadaway are solid leads (shaky American accents aside). I can see how Leslie's work on Game of Thrones led to her being cast for this since it requires her to shift a lot between being tender and feral. It reminded me a lot of Under the Skin except from a different point of view (Treadaway's - i.e. the victim's). The ending is nice and dark and no more is explained than necessary. That's something I always appreciate. Too many horror movie feel the need to explain things which only mutes the scares. I like my horror movies lean.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Wes Craven's New Nightmare

The Pitch: A Nightmare on Elm Street movie about the Nightmare on Elm Street movie.

It's rare that a movie bridges a gap between two generations of a genre like New Nightmare does. It's a Nightmare on Elm Street movie. It's more on the serious side, like the 1984 original than the more comical sequels. It definitely feels left over from the 80s. It's so meta though, that it's a natural progression to Scream, two years later, also directed by Wes Craven. It's not as good as the 1984 original or 1996's Scream, but it clearly links them.

I enjoyed the movie much more than I expected. The longer the Nightmare series went on, the less I liked it. New Nightmare shakes up the formula with so much meta-commentary that it feels original and formulaic. Scream does a far better job commenting on the genre, but New Nightmare is comfortably doing something different. Heather Langenkamp sells a lot of what is happening. There's a tough tone she has to pull off, heightened yet authentic. It's not perfect, but it's better than I should've expected. Essentially, this is Wes Craven cashing in on his clout to make Nightmare on Elm Street in his original image before moving on to a new chapter in his career.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The ABCs of Death 2

The Pitch: 26 more short horror stories from different directors.

If you recall, I saw the first ABCs of Death when I was pretty drunk and really don't remember it that well. It was fine. My one big issue with it is that it goes for laughs more than scares. For the sequel, I decided to do it right. All I had in me was water. I was awake, alert, and even taking notes as I went along. The result however was about the same. By its nature, this is an uneven film. I see that critically it was much higher praised than the first, which I don't get. They are about the same to me.
Since this is a crowded anthology with no actual connection, I think it's best to talk about the different stories individually. Not all of them. Just the one's I feel like mentioning.

A is for Amateur - The ending, when they found the corpse was really funny. More importantly, it set up the tone fore what was to come. This movie is more "black comedy" than horror.
E is for Equilibrium - A funny and unexpected twist on the idea of a woman coming between two friends.
M is for Masticate - I was already enjoying the slow motion story on its own. The "34 minutes earlier" cut to the man saying he'd do bath salts just underlined the point and gave it a good punch line.
O is for Ochlocracy - That was a funny take on the other side of zombie apocalypse. What if they really do find a cure?
Q is for Questionnaire - I like when the story is content with creating many questions and answering as few as possible.
R is for Roulette - Just a fantastic twist on the normal version of Russian Roulette. The "winner" gets the bullet, while the others get whatever is coming to them from upstairs.
S is for Split - What a great string of shorts. A house invasion turns into a revenge plot against a cheating husband.
V is for Vacation - Simple and effective. It reminded me a lot of the opening story from V/H/S. In this case, a prostitute becomes a crazed killer. Fun stuff.

26 stories is way too many, but I like the idea of getting a lot of different writers/directors involved. There needs to be more horror anthologies, plain and simple.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Upstream Color

The Pitch: ...uh...Pass.

Primer is a trippy movie that made my head spin. I owed it to Shane Carruth to see his follow-up, Upstream Color, which came nine years after his debut. It's about what you'd expect. He's not a filmmaker concerned with handholding the audience. I'm not sure exactly what was going on in the film. It managed to keep my interest though.

Since I'm assuming most people haven't even heard of this, I'll make a brief attempt to set it up. A woman is drugged and taken advantage of one night. A stranger messes with her head and pretty much ruins her life. She doesn't recall much about the experience afterwards. Months later, she's drawn to a man who shares a strangely intimate connection with her. He's had a run-in with the same man she did earlier. From there, they must come to terms with what was done to them and decide what their relationship is.

In a lot of ways, this feels like a Terrance Malick film (or at least Tree of Life). It has a stream of consciousness feel. Most of the time, Carruth is keeping the audience at an arm's length. Like Primer, it's a puzzle, but not in the form of a math problem. I probably need to rewatch it to even begin to understand it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Gold Rush

The Pitch: The Tramp takes on the mountains and the winter.

After watching Robert Downey Jr.'s Chaplin, I just had to get some Charlie Chaplin movie in my queue. The Gold Rush is his probably his most iconic feature, although I hear that The Kid and The General are better. There's not a lot to say about this. It's fascinating seeing movies made this early, because the productions are so different in scale and execution. Chaplin is one of the great clowns. It's just a delight to see his physicality and precision. They don't make them like that anymore.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Live By Night

Formula: Goodfellas - 13° Latitude

I like living in a world in which Ben Affleck is no longer a punchline. It was rough for a while in those Jersey Girl/Gigli years. He came out of it well, beginning with the often forgotten Hollywoodland and breaking into directing with Gone Baby Gone. It took until Argo for people* to really come around. He was great in Gone Girl. No one remembers Runner Runner enough to ridicule it. And, his Batman wasn't the problem with that movie. Now we all love Ben Affleck again (or at least tolerate him). So, it is with no pleasure that I say that Live By Night is his first miss as a director.

*"People" does not include the directors branch of the Oscars, apparently.

Live By Night is a Dennis Lehane adaptation. Between his other adaptations (The Drop, Gone Baby Gone, Shutter Island) and his work writing for The Wire and Boardwalk Empire, I'm accidentally a fan of his. It's funny that his work has also been tied to Martin Scorsese projects, because Live By Night is Ben Affleck's attempt to make a Martin Scorsese movie*. Like Gangster Squad or Lawless, he tries to find a new "spin" on it by relocating, but it's unavoidably Scorsese (Goodfellas or Casino, even some Gangs of New York).

*I'll admit, seeing Silence 12 hours earlier certainly highlighted the comparison.

Let's get to the movie itself though. It's set in the 1930s and follows a gangster crook named Joe Coughlin. He's a WWI veteran who takes to a life of crime up in Boston for a decade. He has an unfortunate run in with a local crime boss, Albert White, that puts him in jail for three years. Once he gets out of jail, he follows White down to his new Rum-smuggling operation in Tampa with his sights set on revenge. There, he falls in love with Graciela (Zoe Saldana) and tries to build a casino and get gambling legalized. He gets some opposition from the police chief (Chris Cooper) and the chief's born-again daughter (Elle Fanning). Oh, and there's the KKK problem to deal with. And, did I forget to mention his lost love who died in Boston? How about the mob wars between the Italians and Irish?

There is a lot going on and not enough of a focus on events or a character for it to work. The story lacks a central conflict. By the time Joe gets to square off against Albert White, it's been half the movie since he was last seen as a threat. The story with the police chief's daughter, which looked like it was going in some interesting places, ends abruptly except for one excessive call-back at the end. Joe Coughlin is the connective tissue who is supposed to hold it all together. And that can work. Forrest Gump has too much story too but a consistent lead who sells it. Joe Coughlin isn't a consistent character. He starts off claiming to have an aversion to killing people. That obviously doesn't last, and he has minimal emotional conflict about it. The film starts off with Sienna Miller being the love of his life. Then it decides Zoe Saldana is. Then Miller comes back to haunt him. Then his love of Saldana is supposed to carry the biggest gut punch in the movie. Despite a lot of narration, I don't feel like Joe is doing anything more than telling me a story that he would tell anyone and without any real insight.

The performances in the film are a mixed bag. Affleck isn't giving an interesting performance, although it's technically a proficient one. Brendan Gleeson has some good moments as Affleck's police commander father. Elle Fanning is quite good. She has a breakfast discussion with Affleck and goes toe to toe with him, fleshing out her character more in a single scene than Affleck manages throughout the entire movie. Chris Messina has a not-quite-comedic relief role as Affleck's right-hand man and handles it with ease. Others, like Chris Cooper and Matthew Maher (as Cooper's racist brother-in-law) play everything too big. Neither of Affleck's love interests (Miller or Saldana) have characters. They are more like symbols.

I really enjoyed how the film recreates 1930s Tampa. It's not a setting I've seen used before. It can't help itself from some landscape porn (I sure hope you like overhead shots of rivers and roads). However, that's more forgivable when it's an area like this that I haven't seen a hundred times before (I'm looking at you, True Detective Season 2 L.A. highways shots). Everyone involved seemed to treat the Boston scenes like the vegetables you have to eat before getting to desert (i.e. Tampa). It makes me wish they could've found a way to cut out Boston entirely.

Live By Night isn't an awful movie. Forgettable is a better word. It lacks the tight story or strong central character to pull off the years-spanning structure. It looks good, but not enough to make up the inconsistent focus. The world is filled nicely, although not with enough interesting characters. Nothing egregious enough to quell my excitement for what Ben Affleck does next. 

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Movie Reaction: Silence

Formula: (The Last Temptation of Christ * Unbroken) / The Last Samurai

Martin Scorsese has religion on the mind. This shows up a lot in his films, but nowhere more than his "spiritual trilogy" of The Last Temptation of Christ, Kundun, and now Silence. Scorsese's decision to make these films isn't commercial. Those three movies combined will likely end up grossing less than The Age of Innocence (in 1993) by itself. These are personal films. Passion projects that Scorsese wants to share. And that's the correct way to go into Silence.

Silence tells the story of two Portugese priests, Father Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Father Garrpe (Adam Driver), who go to Japan in 1641 to discover the whereabouts of another missionary, Father Ferreira (Liam Neeson), who hasn't been heard from in a very long time. In recent years, Japan has started torturing and killing Catholic converts as well as the priests doing missionary work there, so this is a dangerous mission. After worshiping with some faith-starved villages for a while, the two priests split up in search of Ferreira. Rodrigues is eventually caught by the Inquisitor, a local officer in charge of finding the Christians in Japan, who attempts to break Rodrigues' spirit.

There are many films I want to compare this to. Unbroken has the same Job-esque trials and tribulations. The Last Samurai is also about a visitor to Japan being held captive by the enemy. The Last Temptation of Christ depicts the challenges of keeping one's faith in times of strife. All of these are fair comparisons, but Silence is its own beast entirely. It's the rare movie that goes over 2 and a half hours that I couldn't imagine being any shorter. Some of Scorsese's past films - cough The Wolf of Wall Street cough - could've lost a half hour and barely impacted the final product. Silence needs every minute so the audience can soak it in. This isn't an exciting film or very driven by plot. It's repetitive, as Garfield's character is put through the ringer, so to speak, to have his faith tested. I'm still working on what I'm supposed to take away from it all. While I don't have faith myself, it argues well for the strength it can have, especially when all else is lost. You believe why these people would go through such hell for it.

Andrew Garfield, who already impressed me earlier in the season in Hacksaw Ridge, gives a superior performance as Father Rodrigues. He plays many emotions while always stopping just short of hysterics, which is easier said than done. Rodrigues seems to almost be jealous of the locals who are able to die for their beliefs. He instead must suffer mentally as others die in his stead. Driver and Neeson both have fairly minor roles. It's nice to get familiar faces for those roles though, especially Neeson, whose casting automatically imbues his character with several more shades than is there in the script. I've heard Issei Ogata's performance as the Inquisitor called a Japanese version of Christoph Waltz's in Inglourious Basterds. That's not far off. The Inquisitor, Inoue, is less cruel for the fun of it. He has a different understanding of Christianity than the priests and refuses to be proven wrong. His and Rodrigues' occasional conversations are interesting battles of wits.

Simply put, the film is pretty. It seems like Scorsese is finding an excuse for every kind of shot he can think of but not necessarily showing off. He takes advantage of the Tawainese setting (a reasonable stand-in for Japan) in several locations. It's no surprise that he recreates 1600s Japan in a way that looks authentic and lived-in. The "below the line" work in this is top notch (Cinematography, costumes, production design).

Silence is not a film that will appeal to many people. It's purposely tough to watch and plays out at a measured pace. This isn't Scorsese's best movie, but it may be one of the most valuable to understand him as a filmmaker. He's made something very personal at a very high level. I commend that even if I didn't connect to it emotionally much.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Vampire Academy

The Pitch: Juno the Vampire Defender

It's amazing what I'll watch when I'm not in the mood to sift through my 100+ movie Netflix queue. I didn't assume Vampire Academy would be very good. I pay enough attention to know that it was a box office bomb that was also panned by critics. However, there's value in knowing that I can turn a movie on and not feel bad about getting distracted by something else for large chunks.

This film is like a master debater trying to fit enough words into a small window of time to make their point. If there was a phrase that more extreme than "exposition dump" I'd use it ("exposition deluge", "avalanche of information", or something like that). There's a lot to the Vampire Academy world and the film isn't designed in a helpful way to handle it. They either need a POV character who is new to the world or they need a way to limit how much new information the audience is getting. Imagine starting Harry Potter in his second year at Hogwarts. It would be gibberish trying to learn everything all at once. The audience needs Harry asking questions from the very beginning in order to get the answers we need while still feeling like a story is being told. Beginning this film with Zoey Deutch and Lucy Fry being on the run was a good start. I wish they would've kept them out of the Academy for as long as possible. The solution for getting the information to the audience is Deutch's narration.

Honestly, I like Deutch's work in the movie. Yeah, it's exactly like Ellen Page in Juno. I liked Ellen Page in Juno and "teenage girl who quips" wasn't exactly an original concept in 2007 either. In a movie where she didn't have to work so hard to keep the story moving and make sense of everything, Deutch would be an affable lead. I'm not blaming her for it not working. Most of the cast (Lucy Fry, Gabriel Byrne, Olga Kurylenko, Sarah Hyland, Cameron Monaghan) apear to be confused about how they should be playing their characters, like no one told them if they were in an epic or a comedy.
I won't even get into the story. I lost track way too early on to speak intelligently about it. Something about vampires and super vampires and people who live to defend vampires and an ancient oligarchy. I don't know how the book series handles things, but someone should've considered changing things around more in order to get a better point of entry.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Patriots Day

Formula: (Deepwater Horizon – Oil Drilling + Running) / United 93

Peter Berg knows what he does well. He likes true stories, preferably about everyday heroes (Marines, blue-collar workers, cops). He doesn't shoot films with judgment. His films are shot as well as their edited. He doesn't let a single character take over the story. That was true with Deepwater Horizon. That was true of Lone Survivor. And, that is true of his latest film.

Patriots Day tells the story of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and the ensuing manhunt for the men who caused it. It begins shortly before the marathon. We meet several, seemingly unconnected characters: a Boston police sergeant (Mark Wahlberg) who has to work security at the finish line of the race to get off the commissioner’s shit list; a young couple (Rachel Brosnahan and Christopher O'Shea) getting afternoon drinks; a Chinese immigrant (Jimmy O. Yang) living on his own in Boston; a police officer at MIT (Jake Picking) trying to get a date with one of the students; the sheriff (J.K. Simmons) of Watertown [outside Boston], getting a muffin for his wife; a suburban Muslim family (Alex Wolff, Themo Melikidtze, Melissa Benoist) up to something nefarious. Others too. Of course, their stories collide over time as events unfold. I remembered very little about the actual events, so it was unnerving waiting to find out where their stories intersect. I imagine it still plays well if you remember every beat, since the tension is baked into the story. The narrative doesn't rely on any single person to drive it. The actors in the large and continually growing ensemble show up and disappear as needed. For example, Khandi Alexander turns up toward the very end for one dynamite scene and that's it.

Berg's management of all those people and stories is impressive. The last movie I saw to do it so well was Eye in the Sky, which I consider high praise. The stories are presented matter-of-fact and it doesn't feel like much is embellished other than Wahlberg being in the right place at the right time too much. That's forgivable considering that his character is intended as an amalgam of several people in order to give some connective tissue for all the events. There's really not a weak performance in the ensemble. Jimmy O. Yang, who I previously just knew as Jian Yang from Silicon Valley, gets some incredibly tense moments. Melissa Benoist challenges herself more than I've seen her do before. People like John Goodman and Kevin Bacon show up for small roles just to add even more legitimacy to the film.

Berg is happy to play on an audience's emotions. The end, in particular, is filled with scene after scene designed to put a lump in your throat or cheering. If you've seen his movies before, you should already have an idea of what to expect. Again, he knows what he does well and doesn't shy away from those things. He even manages to fit in some exciting moments. One of Berg's greatest strengths as a director is staging action sequences, so it would be wasteful if he didn't have some. The actual bombing is disorienting and unsettling. The eventual shootout with the bombers in Watertown is enthralling and explosive. Berg is great at knowing how to inject humor at the right times to stop the film from becoming a slog.

Along with Deepwater Horizon, Peter Berg managed to make two of the best movies of 2016, which is pretty remarkable. Patriots Day is a well managed film. The cast and direction are top notch. It's respectful without being dull and procedural. It's not always an easy watch, which may turn away some people. It's worth seeing though. As far as I'm concerned, Berg can give any true event he wants the movie treatment, because the results will be great.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Housebound

The Pitch: A New Zealand haunted house comedy.

I don't like to get too caught up with the review aggregator sites. There's some major holes in the methodology. They reward movies more for being pleasant than interesting, for example. I get irritated whenever a film comes out and a Rottentomatoes score is referenced as if it has any meaning beyond pass/fail (and even then it's questionable). Because, that's what it's a rating of: passing or failing grades, not quality. That said, how the hell does this movie have a 97% rating? It's a fine movie. I didn't dislike it, but it wasn't anything special. I must be missing something.

The ultimate compliment for a horror-comedy is that it offers legitimate scares while still being funny. Few movies succeed at it. Scream did it. The Cabin in the Woods is pretty good about it. Housebound doesn't. It's more like Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. It successfully mimics horror tropes, but never stops feeling like a comedy. So, let's just quit pretending it "succeeds as a horror movie". And that's not a bad thing. I love Tucker and Dale. That just means it has to wholly work as a comedy. This has a dry sense of humor, similar to Edward Wright's films. I don't prefer it. That's just a matter of personal taste. To recap: it didn't scare me or make me laugh. That's not great for a horror-comedy.

I'm being pretty negative. Sorry about that. I'm distracted by the noise around it rather than focusing on the movie. Housebound is a confident debut feature for writer/director Gerald Johnstone. The cast fits the characters well. The story finds a way to sidestep expectations just enough to keep things interesting and it doesn't feel at all constrained by its budget. I never got pulled in by the story or humor though.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

January Movie Preview

That was a busy December. So busy, in fact, that I couldn't get my January preview up in time for the first weekend of the month. I'm sorry. You just missed another Underworld sequel if for some inexplicable reason, you are waiting on what I have to say. Back to December though. Super busy. So many movies. More than any recent year, the studios saved everything for late releases in 2016. I've averaged at least two movies a week since November and I'm still not done with 2016. All sorts of movies are being slowly rolled out. Movies like Hidden Figures, Patriot's Day, Silence, and 20th Century Women, that I've covered in previous months, are expected to expand wide or nation-wide in January (or maybe even February). Because of this, the January slate is particularly dismal. There is exactly one movie that I'm looking forward to, and it's technically a 2016 release as well. I can only hope that February gives me reason to look forward to 2017.

2016
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec  
2015

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June | Jul | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec 

2014

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

2013

Mar |  Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

1/6

Underworld: Blood Wars
Kate Beckinsale is back as a kick-ass vampire in the middle of a full-scale war between the Lycans and vampires.
Working For It: I like Kate Beckinsale...and, uh...
Working Against It: I'm not a fan of the series. I'm not caught up on the series. This looks indistinguishable from the other films in the series. They established an audience since 2003 and I'm not part of it.
Verdict: Despite Love & Friendship reminding me that I enjoy Kate Beckinsale, this isn't happening.

I, Daniel Blake [Limited]
Last year's Palme d'Or* winner is about a middle aged carpenter who bonds with a single mother over their similar difficulties with the state welfare program in Britain.
Working For It: The Palme d'Or doesn't mean nothing, even if I've seen only 2 of the last 10 winners.
Working Against It: This looks pretty generic. I remember it was mocked for winning at Cannes last year. And, it's not a coincidence that I've seen so few of the winners at Cannes.
Verdict: I'm going to trust my mistrust of Cannes' winners.

*The grand prize at the Cannes Film Festival

1/13

The Bye Bye Man
About  a monster who chases you the more you think about him.
Working For It: It's January, so that means it's time for the counter-programming horror release (Thanks, White Noise). It's a clever enough idea: being chased by your own awareness of a fear.
Working Against It: I'm not a jump-scare kind of person and this appears to be highly dependent on those.
Verdict: I'd have to hear some incredible reviews, and even still, that didn't get me to see Don't Breathe last summer - which I do regret.

Monster Trucks
A Nickelodeon live-action film about an alien (or something) who takes over a guy's car and the guy and alien become friends or allies.
Working For It: I'm sure this will appeal to kids well enough.
Working Against It: ...except, I'm not sure it will. This looks like a January bury. It's a different take of Herbie the Love Bug that looks pretty generic. It's not the kind of movie I see a lot of parents bringing kids to see because it is on the wrong side of the annoyance threshold*.
Verdict: Hard no.

*Annoyance Threshold - The point at which a children's movie becomes too annoying for an adult/guardian to put up with. Oogieloves In The BIG Balloon Adventure is a great example of this.

Sleepless
Jamie Foxx is a cop caught in the middle of casinos and gang members, trying to rescue his kidnapped son.
Working For It: Jamie Foxx can certainly lead a gritty action movie like this. The cast is solid but unspectacular, featuring Dermot Mulroney, Michelle Monaghan, Sccot McNairy, T.I., and Gabrielle Union.
Working Against It: God this looks generic. I've watched the trailer and a couple TV spots and I don't have a sense of what the movie is. Foxx is a cop. He's in over his head. He sure looks cool doing it. I think that's the movie.
Verdict: Jamie Foxx is a deterrent for me, making me unlikely to ever see this.

The Book of Love [Limited]
Jason Suideikis' wife (Jessica Beil) dies. He copes with it by befriending Maisie Williams, a local homeless girl who wants to build a raft for some reason.
Working For It: That's a fun cast with some TV All Stars rounding out the supporting roles (Mary Steenburgen, Paul Reiser, Orlando Jones). The preview looks rather somber or saccharine, but if that's actually masking a lighter tone, this could be pretty good.
Working Against It: It seems like every TV writer/director (which Bill Purple is) ends up making a dramedy when they make their move to film. I'm not crazy about those results.
Verdict: Don't get me wrong, I anxiously await adding it to my Netflix queue, but that's about it.

The Comedian [Limited]
Robert De Niro is an aging comedian who is down on his luck, until he befriends Leslie Mann and stumbles into a late career resurgence.
Working For It: I'll tend to give anything about the comedy world a shot even if I end up hating it (Punchline). I still consider De Niro a plus casting move and Leslie Mann tends to be better than whatever role she's given (See The Other Woman). There's potential for a lot of fun cameos by [primarily] older comedians.
Working Against It: I'm hoping that they really don't make De Niro and Mann's relationship romantic, because that 30 year age difference is a little uncomfortable. Also, for someone who I've seen so many of his movies (Ray, The Devil's Advocate), I sure don't have a sense of what director Taylor Hackford is about.
Verdict: Enough praise for Leslie Mann may be enough to get me looking for this. Still doubtful though.

1/20

The Founder
The story of Ray Croc, the founder of McDonald's and how he essentially stole the company from the McDonald brothers.
Working For It: Michael Keaton is committing to the Ray Croc role. John Carroll Lynch and Nick Offerman look like fun McDonalds brothers. The movie did the Oscar tap dance for a while but appears to have given up on that (except maybe Keaton for Lead Actor), which is probably for the best. I'm more excited for this one than I should be.
Working Against It: I do worry about why this kept getting pushed (originally slated for release this past Fall). Is it like Monuments Men, where, despite the pedigree of the people involved, it just wasn't meant to be taken that seriously, or is it not very good?
Verdict: Absolutely going to find this, even if the reviews are savage. The trailer has me hooked.

The Resurrection of Gavin Stone
A former child star (Brett Dalton) get sucked into a local Church's Easter play as part of his community service.
Working For It: It's not often that you see Brett Dalton, Neil Flynn, and WWE legend Shawn Michaels in a film together.
Working Against It: I'm not a big fan of these religious movies that have the production value of a Disney Channel Original (if that) with writing to match. There's an audience for this who will enjoy it. I'm not one of them, and it's not for religious reasons.
Verdict: Maybe if it was a Hallmark movie called "Jesus Christ ChildStar"...no. Even then, still no.

Split
Three girls are kidnapped by a man (James McAvoy) with 24 different personalities and must work with the helpful personalities to escape.
Working For It: It's an M. Night Shaymalan movie. I know what he's about by now and this could be fun. I like McAvoy and one of the kidnapped girls is Anya Taylor-Joy, who was great in The Witch.
Working Against It: I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to not chuckle at how much this is requiring James McAvoy to overact.
Verdict: I'm not saying "no", but I am saying "unlikely".

xXx: The Return of Xander Cage
Xander Cage (Vin Diesel) is back for another mission that he will get done however he wants, looking as cool as he wants.
Working For It: This is an even less serious cousin of the Fast and the Furious movies. By casting Deepika Padukone, Ruby Rose, and Nina Dobrev, I think they are being pretty clear about the appeal of the movie. I don't imagine I'd have a bad time watching this.
Working Against It: I don't feel a pull to see this. It's completely disposable, which is both its selling point and to its detriment. I can't tell if this will be a fun mess or just a mess.
Verdict: Leaning toward no. Probably more than leaning.

The Red Turtle [Limited]
An animated Studio Ghibli film about a man (and, later, a woman), who is trapped on a desert island for several years.
Working For It: I've heard some high praise for this wordless [I believe] feature. Studio Ghibli isn't known for delivering sub-par movies.
Working Against It: Despite the high praise for Studio Ghibli, the latest of their movies that I've seen is Spirited Away, so I clearly don't put them as a priority. That's on me. I do intend to look for this one though.
Verdict: Eventually...

1/27

Bastards
Ed Helms and Luke Wilson find out that their mother has been lying to them about their dead father for years. They hunt down their real dad (J.K. Simmons) and he is not pleased to meet them.
Working For It: I like Wilson and Helms when they have a good partner. Simmons is a natural for a role like this. While this is director Lawrence Sher's debut feature as a director, he's amassed a strong resume as Director of Photography history over the last decade (The Hangover I, II, and III, I Love You Man, Due Date, The Big Year) and this movie is fitting with all of those.
Working Against It: I'm not sold on the Helms/Wilson pairing. They both like to fill similar roles in movies. There may be too much overlap here. And, it's already too easy to confuse this with a half-dozen other movies.
Verdict: Weak no.

A Dog's Purpose
Josh Gad is the voice of a dog who is reincarnated into four different dogs over 50 years, telling the story of each life and each owner.
Working For It: The trailer alone tugs at my heartstrings enough to make me interested. Add in Britt Robertson and Dennis Quaid and that probably seals it.
Working Against It: When it's this obviously tugging at my emotions, it might be better to see this at home rather than a sure-to-be dusty theater.
Verdict: Toss up. I don't think I'm going to know if I'll see this until I'm sitting in the theater.

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter
The sixth and final installment of the franchise brings Milla Jovovich back one more time to finish off the Umbrella Corporation for good.
Working For It: Milla Jovovich, Ruby Rose, Ali Larter, Rola. Gee, I wish there was a way to determine the casting strategy for this. They are committing to calling this the end, and the story appears to be giving the film massive stakes.
Working Against It: I know what you're thinking: Didn't they just release one of these movies earlier this month? No, that was Underworld, but I understand your confusion. I havent seen any of these movies and I probably never will.
Verdict: Just as soon as I see the first five.