I just want to take a second to wish everyone who celebrates it a very Happy Thanksgiving. Myself, I’m thankful for all of the people I’ve gotten to know through this goofy website. Thanks for all of the reads, likes, comments, and conversations. They means a lot.
Have a terrific day and a wonderful holiday season.
Sandra Bullock transforms in the new Netflix film “The Unforgivable”, a drama based on a 2009 British miniseries penned by Sally Wainwright. The story centers around a woman trying to get her life back together after serving 20 years in prison for murdering a local sheriff. This is a showcase for Bullock who gets a nice meaty role to sink her teeth into. And while the story may unravel a bit in the end, Bullock’s performance is rock solid from start to finish.
The film marks the English language feature film debut for director Nora Fingscheidt. First announced back in 2010, “The Unforgivable” originally had Angelina Jolie attached to star and Christopher McQuarrie from the “Mission: Impossible” franchise set to write the script. But much changed in the nine years that followed with Fingscheidt and Bullock eventually coming onboard. They prove to be a good pair.
Bullock plays Ruth Slater who we first meet as she’s being released from prison. She’s met by her parole officer Vince Cross (the always great Rob Morgan) who goes over the conditions of her release and then drives her to an uninviting halfway house in Seattle’s Chinatown district. She learned carpentry while in prison, but she can’t escape the “cop killer” label and every construction job she applies for turns her down. So she ends up hacking up fish at a fish factory.
It doesn’t take much to see that Ruth is a complicated individual. Fingscheidt gives a lot of attention to her struggle to plug back into society. Her hardened exterior leads us to believe she’s tough enough to handle whatever she’s forced to face. But underneath the lack of connection begins to take its toll. Bullock does a great job conveying her character’s grit and her vulnerability.
But it’s Ruth’s past that tells us the most about her. Fingscheidt sprinkles in brief flashbacks that are like puzzle pieces, revealing the details of the event to sent Ruth to prison. We learn she had a five-year-old sister named Katherine who was present when she killed the sheriff. Now a young woman in her early twenties, Katherine (Aisling Franciosi) lives with her loving foster parents Michael and Rachel Malcolm (Richard Thomas and Linda Emond). She remembers nothing about her old life, but she does have these fragments of memory that she’s unable to decipher.
Despite a very firm “no contact” order from the court, Ruth immediately sets out to reconnect with Katherine or at least to find out if she’s okay. On her journey she encounters a number of people including Liz and John Ingram (Viola Davis and Vincent D’Onofrio), the couple who now own Ruth’s old house. She also meets Blake (Jon Bernthal), her super chatty co-worker at the fish plant who immediately takes a liking to her.
But there’s also Steve (Will Pullen) and Keith (Tom Guiry), the two embittered sons of the man Ruth killed. A flat and hard to buy side-story about the two brothers slowly unfolds, doing more to distract than add compelling layers to the story. Their angle is a misfire that never feels in tune with the rest of the movie.
Most of story (written by the trio of Peter Craig, Hillary Seitz, and Courtenay Miles) does a good job weaving in the numerous supporting characters. Some play bigger parts in Ruth’s journey while others only have bit parts (I would have loved more of Viola Davis). But it all comes back to Bullock who pours herself into her role, physically and emotionally embodying a character full of complexities. And while the ending undermines much of the gritty authenticity from earlier in the film, Bullock’s performance keeps us centered while reminding us of how good she can be with the right material. “The Unforgivable” premieres on Netflix December 10th.
These days there is an inescapable buzz that surrounds anything with Lin-Manuel Miranda’s name attached to it. The mastermind behind the stage musical and cultural phenomenon “Hamilton” has been venturing more and more into the world of film – producing, voice acting, and writing music for several recent movies. Now Miranda steps behind the camera for the first time to tell the story of a Broadway star-to-be who never had the opportunity to see his dream realized.
Jonathan Larson’s “Rent” was an influential stage production that inspired a generation of theater playwrights and performers. “Rent” played on Broadway for 12 years and grossed over $280 million. Tragically, Larson never saw its success. He died January 25, 1996 of an aortic dissection, the very day of Rent’s first Off-Broadway preview performance. He was only 35-years-old. He would go on to win three posthumous Toney Awards and a Pulitzer Prize for Drama.
Among those influenced and driven by Larson’s work was Lin-Manuel Miranda. His new film “Tick, Tick…BOOM!” plays as both a tribute to Larson’s legacy as well as a celebration of New York City theater. The script is by Steven Levenson, a Toney Award winner himself who also wrote the screenplay for the woeful film adaptation of “Dear Evan Hansen”. Don’t worry, this is an imperfect yet considerably better effort.
Andrew Garfield leads the way, who playing Jonathan Larson with an unbridled commitment. Garfield pours every bit of himself into the role, acting and singing with an infectious enthusiasm. He paints a fascinating portrait of Larson with his unruly crop of hair, manic energy, and an obsessive drive. It’s impressive work that articulates the struggle to be successful while creating something meaningful. It also highlights the personal costs that come with an all-consuming single-minded vision. I just wish it was as interested in the man as it is his art.
“Tick, Tick…BOOM!” was the name of Larson’s autobiographical production that preceded his smash hit “Rent”. The one-man “rock monologue” mixed music, lyrics, and spoken word to tell the origin story of the composer and playwright’s first major stage project – an ambitious futuristic rock musical called “Superbia”. This isn’t easy material to adapt and to Miranda’s credit he takes no shortcuts. Instead, he and Levenson do some crafty tweaking, reorganizing the one-man show into a three-person chamber piece similar to the ones performed on stage since Larson’s death. The difference is Larson himself (through Garfield’s performance) leads the film’s three-person gig.
Miranda’s imagining of a Larson-led stage performance of “Tick, Tick…Boom!” is a good framing device that opens up the broader story. His film cuts back-and-forth between the singing of Larson’s songs on stage and the moments from his past that inspired them. These scenes transport us back to 1990 when Larson was bursting with confidence yet burdened with an eerily prophetic sense that he’s running out of time. With his 30th birthday only days away, he feverishly works to complete “Superbia” as if it were his last shot at fame.
We see Larson living out of a cramped apartment spending his time jotting down ideas and pecking away on an old Macintosh. When not waiting tables at Soho’s Moondance Diner, he hangs out with an eclectic bohemian blend of aspiring artists and art lovers. Some, like his girlfriend Susan (an underused Alexandra Shipp) and his childhood friend/roommate Michael (Robin de Jesús) are abandoning their dreams of performing. But Larson’s rabid desire to succeed won’t allow him to quit, even if it hurts his relationships with those closest to him.
As far as the music, Miranda wisely sticks with Larson’s own songs which often conveys more feeling than the movie’s dialogue. As with any musical, some tunes are better than others. The rousing “Louder Than Words”, the cameo-filled “Sunday”, and the catchy “Boho Days” stand out most. And while I wouldn’t say Garfield has a great voice, he certainly manages the songs well enough, performing them with such spirit and verve.
Miranda’s structure is certainly bold, but it leads to some of the film’s frustrating issues. Most notably, it’s frenetic pace. The movie never slows down long enough to let us see beyond Larson’s creative zeal. By the end there’s still so much about him that we don’t know. Also, not all of Miranda’s choices make sense. Take the decision to intercut one of the few dramatic scenes with the movie’s most comically upbeat musical number (“Therapy”). It’s a case where it probably sounded good on paper, but the style-first approach ends up shortchanging two really good bits.
As it is, “Tick, Tick…BOOM!” is more of a biographical sketch laced with catchy tunes than an actual exploration into the man who was Jonathan Larson. Miranda’s admiration for his subject is never in doubt, and he makes honoring Larson’s artistry his chief focus. And while the film is full of emotion, there’s very little drama. Thankfully a magnetic Andrew Garfield elevates and carries the entire film. This is without question his movie, and he gives the kind of spellbinding portrayal that makes it a lot easier to digest the film’s noticeable shortcomings. “Tick…Tick…BOOM!” is now streaming on Netflix.
Oscar winner Riz Ahmed leads “Encounter”, an enigmatic science-fiction thriller from writer-director Michael Pearce. The film had its world premiere at Telluride and is now set for its full release via Amazon Studios. Ahmed is joined by co-stars Octavia Spencer, Janina Gavankar, Rory Cochrane, Lucian-River Chauhan, and Aditya Geddada.
Ahmed plays Malik, a decorated Marine veteran and the father of two young sons. The new trailer is pretty cryptic, but it looks to show Malik load up his boys and head on a road trip that turns into (as he himself puts it) “a rescue mission”. There are hints of an impending attack from outer space. But what’s most revealing is the number of law enforcement agencies who are hot on Malik’s tale. Clearly there’s more going on here than meets the eye.
“Encounter” is slated for a limited theater release on December 3rd prior to premiering on Amazon Prime streaming on December 10th. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.
Though I’m a proud kid from the 1980s, would it surprise you to know that I have no real affection for “Ghostbusters”? No deep love for the characters. No vested interest in their story. No warm and fuzzy feeling at the thought of a new film. I thought the 1984 original was fine and I don’t remember anything about its 1989 sequel. I thoroughly disliked the 2016 reboot and not because I agreed with shallow-minded meatheads who hated the idea of an all female cast (frankly, it just wasn’t very good).
So it should go without saying that “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” wasn’t one I was dying to see. I was more curious than excited and for a number of reasons. First, it’s considered a sequel to the original two films (sorry Paul Feig). Second, it’s directed by Jason Reitman, the son of Ivan Reitman who directed “Ghostbusters” 1 and 2. Third, I was curious to see how well the new film connected with its predecessors considering the 30+ year gap? And fourth, would they bring back that killer Ray Parker Jr. theme song (happily, the answer to that one is YES).
Basically, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is a well-made movie. It’s mostly well written (more on that in a second) and it’s the kind of entertainment that will probably appeal most to the already established fan base. Reitman clearly has an affection for the material and often that affection dictates much of what we get. The list of callbacks is long and some things seem stuck in solely for nostalgia. Again, that should excite the franchise faithful. Personally, “Afterlife” isn’t a movie that will stick with me past the weekend, despite the moderately fun time I had with it.
The way Reitman (who also co-writes with Gil Kenan) connects this film with the previous movies is pretty crafty. We learn that Egon Spengler (previously played by the late Harold Ramis), a founding member of the Ghostbusters, left New York and relocated to the dried-up town of Summerville, Oklahoma. He severed ties with his three parapsychological partners and his family to move out on an isolated dirt farm where he recently died. Why Summerville? What was he doing there? Both are questions the movie answers later with varying degrees of success.
Meanwhile back in the city, Egon’s estranged daughter Callie (Carrie Coon) is a single mother to two kids, the energetic Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and the nerdy science-loving Phoebe (a show-stealing Mckenna Grace). Callie gets word that her father has died around the same time she gets evicted from her apartment. Out of options, the three move to the farm Egon left her in Summerville. While there, Phoebe and Trevor begin learning the truth about their grandfather and what he was really up to. And as you’ve probably guessed, it has something to do with ghosts.
While Reitman eventually gets around to doing some ghostbusting, a big chunk of the movie plays like a mystery. In truth, the movie is at its best when Phoebe, Trevor, and their collection of disposable Summerville friends are following a trail of clues linking Egon to a series of mysterious tremors that has been shaking the town. These scenes give us time to get to know the main characters especially Phoebe. Mckenna Grace is hands-down the star of the movie while Coon gets some good scenes as the embittered mom and daughter. Wolfhard gets stuck with your run-of-the-mill teen boy character while Paul Rudd brings some name recognition to an otherwise throwaway role.
But then the movie gets into the considerably less interesting supernatural stuff – ancient temples, gatekeepers, keymasters, etc. It’s all pretty silly and haphazardly thrown together in a way that gets away from all the things the movie did so well early on. It does end on a predictable yet undeniably warm note and a couple of end credits scenes hint at more Ghostbusters to come. That’s more good news for fans. But I’m not sure “Afterlife” did enough to excite the rest of us for what’s to come. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is now showing in theaters.
Based on Thomas Savage’s 1967 novel of the same name, Jane Campion’s “The Power of the Dog” is a crafty anti-Western with all the visual flavor of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, or Delmer Daves. But at its core Campion’s film (she both writes and directs) is a slow-boiling psychodrama that seeks to explore the darker shades of human nature. It’s a master-class of tone management and the patient steady rhythm of Campion’s storytelling keeps us glued to every frame even as the story butts heads with itself later on.
With New Zealand posing as Montana, the movie is set in 1925. The Burbank brothers, Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and George (Jesse Plemons), run a profitable cattle business off their sprawling family ranch in the heart of beautiful Big Sky Country. While they’re good business partners, they couldn’t be more opposite. George is the gentlemanly sort; mild-mannered and soft-spoken but with a deceptively fervid aspiration to climb up the social ladder. He’s sensitive and gentle, tending to the business side of the ranch while brushing off his brother’s relentless insults.
Phil is a hardened cowboy whose cauterized emotions have turned him into a cold calloused brute. With thick brown chaps, a thick layer of grime caked on his face, and a constant scowl, Phil moves with a stiff-shouldered gait as if forcefully projecting a distinct image. His ranch-hands follow him like disciples, listening close as he recalls the wisdom of his late mentor and friend Bronco Henry. His men also channel their alpha-male leader’s bullish antagonism towards anyone who doesn’t meet their hyper-masculine standard.
Phil and George live on a slippery slope. But the tension between them reaches a simmer while taking a herd of cattle to market. The brothers and their cowhands visit a restaurant owned by a young widow named Rose (Kirsten Dunst) and her awkward teenage son, Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Repulsed by what he perceives as weakness, Phil pounces on the shy lanky boy, viciously mocking his slight lisp and burning an intricate paper flower Peter made as a centerpiece. It’s an unsettling sequence, but also one that highlights Campion’s remarkable control.
Later, a sympathetic George returns to the restaurant to see Rose and apologize for his brother’s cruelty. It sparks a sweet romance that eventually leads to marriage. With Peter off to medical school, Rose sells her restaurant and moves to the ranch. This triggers a jealous and embittered Phil who makes it his goal to crush his brother’s newfound marital bliss. To Phil, Rose (and later Peter) are threats to his manly order of things. That conflict drives the remainder of the film and sends the movie careening down a path with no happy ending in sight.
While some find a critique of masculinity in nearly every movie these days, Campion provides one of the most vivid and clear-eyed examinations yet. She uses Cumberbatch’s commanding and at times terrifying performance to not only reveal what warped manhood looks like, but to also show the destruction it can leave in its path. Cumberbatch’s Phil is a blunt force with a domineering aura and his methodical psychological assault can be hard to watch. Dunst gives a devastating portrayal of a woman who is both a victim of Phil’s unyielding harassment and of the era’s oppressive societal norms.
Things only intensify once Peter arrives to spend the summer at the ranch. Smit-McPhee’s poker-faced presence and (again) Campion’s confident control keeps the character at an arm’s length. This makes Peter impossible to read; every bit as enigmatic as he is peculiar. It also makes him a prime target for Phil’s abuse. With a tormented Rose withering away from depression and alcoholism, the story shifts towards Phil and Peter. Meanwhile Plemons gets the short end of the stick as George (sadly) all but vanishes for much of the second half.
While the film’s exploration of masculinity is a good one, it’s undone a bit by the implications of another theme that comes fully into focus late in the story. I won’t spoil it for those unfamiliar with Savage’s book, but it’s a “twist” that adds a new layer to Phil while inadvertently giving him an excuse for his emotional savagery. I doubt that’s the intent and it won’t play that way for some, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that Campion’s attempt at adding richness to her story ends up undermining one of its biggest strengths.
Tangled themes aside, “The Power of the Dog” ends on a strong note as the movie’s Psalm-inspired title clicks firmly into place. It’s a finish that again showcases Campion’s deft management of her scenes and her audience. Accompanied by the painterly beauty of Ari Wegner’s cinematography (among the year’s best), the simple yet haunting Jonny Greenwood score, and superb performances top to bottom, Campion has crafted a striking Western with all the leathery textures of the genre, but with the assured and probing touch of an auteur. “The Power of the Dog” is now showing in limited release and streams on Netflix starting December 1st.
Keith & the Movies 