REVIEW: “Stockholm” (2019)

STOCKposter

“Stockholm” begins by informing us it is “based on an absurd but true story”. Truer words have never been spoken. This off-beat movie from writer-director Robert Budreau is one part heist film, one part black comedy and all parts utter absurdity. I think that’s why I liked it as much as I did.

The film is set in 1973 Stockholm, Sweden and is based on an article written by Daniel Lan for the New Yorker magazine. It tells of a bank heist where the hostages begin to sympathize and side with their captors giving rise to the condition known as Stockholm Syndrome.

STOCK1

Ethan Hawke adds yet another fresh and fun role to his resumé. He plays a rather doltish American named Lars who we first see arming himself with a submachine gun, a really bad wig, and an even worse jacket. He then moseys into a Stockholm bank for what looks like your prototypical stick-em-up. But we immediately begin noticing Lars isn’t your ordinary robber and he has more things on his mind other than money.

Enter the canny yet hilariously reckless Police Chief Mattsson (Christopher Heyerdahl) who immediately pulls out the hostage situation playbook. He starts by contacting Lars and getting his list of demands. They include $1 million and for his best friend and former cellmate Gunnar (Mark Strong) to be brought to the bank. Oh, and “a Mustang 302 like Steve McQueen had in Bullit” (actually McQueen drove a 390 V8 Mustang GT but Lars isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer).

STOCK2

Inside the bank Lars takes a liking to cashier Bianca (Noomi Rapace) and the whole Stockholm Syndrome link is made. But don’t expect the movie to explore that link too deeply. Budreau isn’t that interested in the psychology. Instead he embraces the nuttiness of his story and gives the hilarious Hawke and subtly funny Strong some pretty good material to play around with. Plus, there are a handful of cheeky gags about the police and the media that land really well.

“Stockholm” ends up being a fairly light indie comedy that could probably dig a little deeper into its story and characters but seems perfectly content to just have fun. To be honest, that’s one of the things I like about it. It’s a breezy and often silly heist flick that is completely comfortable with itself. And Ethan Hawke continues his extraordinary run of solid and surprisingly varied performances.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

3-5-stars 

First Glance: “The Lighthouse”

LIGHTHOUSE1

Robert Eggers blew me away with his 2015 debut feature “The Witch”. It was a period horror picture that showed the filmmaker’s incredible knack for tone management and methodical tension-building. His latest film looks to be offering a different twist on the horror genre but with the same visual ambitions and gripping atmosphere. I can’t wait.

“The Lighthouse” debuted at Cannes to strong reviews and A24 has just released an exciting new trailer. In it we see Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson as lighthouse keepers on a remote island who appear to be slowly descending into a haze of madness. It looks to be a performance-heavy movie with a striking monochrome palette full of deep shadows and moody detail.

“The Lighthouse” hits theaters October 18th and hopefully its release won’t be too limited. Check out the trailer below and let me know if you’ll be seeing it or taking a pass.

REVIEW: “Escape Room”

ESCAPEposter

Hollywood has discovered a goldmine in modestly budgeted yet surprisingly lucrative horror-thrillers. Production companies such as Blumhouse can churn these films out at little cost and make a ton of money in return. These movies never end up among the highest grossing films, but they draw a big enough audience to earn substantial profits.

“Escape Room” is one of 2019’s addition to this popular sub-genre. With $155 million earned against a meager $9 million budget, it’s not only considered a box office success, but you can be sure that a sequel is already in the works. Whether that’s a good thing…we’ll get to that later.

Escape1

On sheer concept alone it’s hard to avoid instant comparisons to the “Saw” franchise. “Escape Room” isn’t as gruesome or grisly and it’s distinctly aimed at the PG-13 crowd. But its basic idea must have been inspired in some degree by the eight-film (so far) “Saw” series.

In Chicago six total strangers from various walks of life each receive a mysterious puzzle box. Inside is an invitation to an Escape Room challenge where the winner will receive $10,000. College student Zoey (Taylor Russell), daytrader Jason (Jay Ellis), stockboy Ben (Logan Miller), truck driver Mike (Tyler Labine), Army vet Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll), and video-gamer Danny (Nik Dodani) all arrive at the address provided and are ushered into a waiting room. And wouldn’t you know it, the waiting room is actually the start of the game.

Basically it works like this, each booby-trapped room features a host of hidden clues that reveal how to escape to the next room. Oh, and failure to do so within the set amount of time has fatal results. Along the way we learn the strangers were chosen for a reason and they share a rather unique bond. But as more of their individual personalities surface, teamwork turns into survival of the fittest.

Escape2

There really isn’t much more to “Escape Room” than that. Yes, each room becomes more challenging (and more deadly). Yes, a little more is revealed about the characters and the thread that binds them. Yes, some rooms are clever and visually captivating and director Adam Robitel does some interesting stuff with his camera particularly in playing with perspective. But the movie eventually runs out of ideas and ends up beating the same drum as it hops from one room to the next.

And then you get to the final act where the whole thing flies completely off the rails. You learn early on to switch your brain off, but even that can’t cover the ludicrous finale. Things get so ridiculous and we’re asked to buy into the wackiest ending and sequel setup. If you don’t think about “Escape Room” you could probably find some decent throwaway entertainment. But once you look even an inch below the surface, the whole thing comes unglued.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

 

2-stars

REVIEW: “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”

POSTER

You can say this about Quentin Tarantino – he’s consistent. His settings and timelines may change, but regardless of the movie you still see a filmmaker unshakably devoted to his style. It’s so pronounced that you’ll hardly see him step outside of his self-defined box or sway too far from his brand. Take his recent conversations about making a Star Trek movie. Right off the bat he confirmed to Empire magazine that his version would be replete with profanity, a needless addition but a glaring Tarantino trademark.

I doubt any of that will be a problem for die-hard Q.T. fans and I can understand why. But as someone who feels his stories are often smothered by his style, it makes it easy for me to keep my expectations in check whenever a new Tarantino movie arrives. His 9th film (10th by release, but whatever) comes in the form of a retro la-la land fairytale set in the waning days of Hollywood’s Golden Age and our country’s perception of innocence. It’s a movie full of surprises, none bigger than this – I kinda love it. And let me get this out of the way – I think it’d Tarantino’s best film.

ONCE1

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” walks in several of Tarantino’s familiar footprints. It’s set within an alternate timeline, it’s a compendium of the filmmaker’s favorite classic cinema pastiches, and it sports a fascinating array of unique and often eye-popping characters. It isn’t much interested in plot. Instead Tarantino’s focus is on these characters and recreating 1969 Los Angeles with an obsessive level of detail.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading TV star Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt plays his reliable stunt double and best friend Cliff Booth. The two are drawn from an era where actor and stuntman worked closely together both on and off screen. If Rick loses an acting gig so does Cliff. And Cliff not only takes Rick’s lumps on camera but he’s his chauffeur, gopher and overall handyman.

Television westerns were Rick’s ticket to stardom (Tarantino’s flashbacks to Rick’s former hit show “Bounty Law” are spot-on and so much fun). But as Hollywood transitions to a new era, Rick senses the industry leaving him behind. Instead of adapting he spends much of his time boozing and feeling sorry for himself. Enter the easygoing Cliff, a good listener and even better encourager.

ONCE2

As with other Tarantino films, “Once Upon a Time” routinely sees fiction intersecting with fact. An example, Rick lives in a nice house at the end of Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon. Many will remember that street name from the horrific Manson Family murders. Rick’s new neighbors are indeed filmmaker Roman Polanski (Rafał Zawierucha) and his wife, rising Hollywood star Sharon Tate (played with an effervescent beauty by Margot Robbie).

Much has been made of Robbie’s lack of dialogue, but her portrayal of Sharon Tate has a very unique role to play. In many ways she stands as a symbol as much as a character. She represents innocence, goodness, and compassion. Tate is a constant ray of light and Tarantino shoots her with an ever-present glow. That’s why we’re hit with a looming sense of dread when we get those few glimpses of Charles Manson (Damon Herriman) or when Cliff gives a young hippie hitchhiker (Margaret Qualley) a ride to Spahn’s Movie Ranch. We know what history says and where things are heading.

ONCE3

As for the leads, “Once Upon a Time” is a very character-driven movie and Tarantino gives his two biggest stars plenty of meaty material to chew on. DiCaprio goes wild in a role that’s big and showy in the same way many Tarantino roles are. Still there are layers of sadness and insecurity that DiCaprio absolutely nails. But it’s Pitt who steals the show. Not only does he look the part with his sun-bleached hair and leathery good looks, but he’s tempered, laid-back, and easy for us to connect with (despite a few potential skeletons in his character’s closet).

The film does feature some of the same Tarantino vices that we seem to get in all of his pictures. For example he has this weird fascination with profanity. He doesn’t use it for realism or emotional effect. It’s something woven so tightly into the fabric of his style and he can’t seem to break away from it. Because of that many the characters across his movies often talk alike and sound alike.

Once4

Tarantino does indulge himself a little too much specifically during a long sequence on the set of Rick’s new western. Admittedly, it’s kind of fascinating watching Tarantino essentially shoot a TV show within his movie. It’s also a segment that features several good moments including Luke Perry’s final appearance and a fabulous performance from 10-year-old Julia Butters (she’s a revelation). But it still feels detached from the film’s other moving parts.

It’s hard to imagine a better looking film in Tarantino’s catalog (bold statement, I know). Every scene gives you an image worth setting your eyes on or a detail that in some way calls back to 1969. You get his nostalgic visual splurges often rooted in his pop-culture fluency. Whether it’s a Sgt Fury and his Howling Commandos comic on a coffee table or DiCaprio’s Rick grafted into a scene from “The Great Escape”. And of course there is the sheer technique seen throughout the entire movie. My favorite may be Tarantino’s knack for tracking shots best seen in a neon-bathed nighttime drive down the Sunset Strip and a subtly unnerving pan of Spahn’s Ranch.

ONCE5

So much else could be said about the rip-roaring soundtrack filled with songs of the period that haven’t been played to death in other films. About Tarantino’s surprising restraint even among such nostalgic excess and the unexpected splash of maturity seen most in his treatment of his characters. And how about the plethora of great cameos from Al Pacino, Kurt Russell, and Zoe Bell just to name a few. We could even talk about how Tarantino’s ending (in its own twisted way) offers us something his films rarely give – a glimmer of hope.

I can see “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” getting criticized from both sides. Tarantino stalwarts who come to the movie hungry for his traditional pomp and shock may be disappointed in how little they get. Those looking for a more traditional narrative may find the movie too messy and light on plot. Me, I love how this film manages to avoid many of Tarantino’s self-induced trappings while still being unlike anything else you’ll see in the theater this year. And while I still grumble at some of his style choices, I can’t deny being completely absorbed in this crazy yet magnificent cinematic concoction.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4-5-stars

REVIEW: “Stranger Things 2”

STRANGERPOSTER

It took a special occasion (vacation), but I temporarily put aside my movies-only mentality and actually watched a popular streaming television series. “Stranger Things” seemed like an obvious choice and it ended up blowing me away with its phenomenal first season. Sure it was episodic like most television, but it played out like a well-constructed movie. So much so that it was easy to review as one continuous whole.

Right out of the gate Season 2 feels much more like a television series. Unlike the previous season, here we get some episodes that are clearly weaker or stronger than others (with one being distinctly bad). That’s a key reason why “Stranger Things 2” lacks the cohesion and steady movie-like flow that made the first season so intensely riveting.

Stranger1

Now don’t get me wrong, those who are more attuned to the structure of episodic television may not see those gripes as a big deal. But considering how well every episode of Season 1 gelled together, this is a noticeable difference. Even the writing in “Stranger Things 2” lends itself to a small screen style of storytelling. But lets be fair, it’s no easy task building a second season when the first one felt like a completed story in itself.

Things start a lot slower this time around and it takes a couple of episodes for the story to really get going. Show creators the Duffer Brothers return and immediately begin threading together loose ends and setting the foundation for what is to come. Season 1 had a firm centerpiece – the disappearance of Will Byers (Noah Schnapp). This season doesn’t have that tight story focus and spends far more time developing characters and introducing new ones.

Interestingly, some of the main characters from the first season are back-burnered this time around (Finn Wolfhard’s Mike instantly comes to mind). Instead its those formerly in supporting roles that get more attention. Those benefiting most are Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo) and Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin). They are given some much needed depth despite there being some kinks in their storylines. Also Steve (Joe Keery) avoids being the stereotypical bitter ex-boyfriend and grows into a fun and fully-realized character.

STRANGER3

A lot of time is put into building up new characters as well. We’re introduced to the new girl in school Max (Sadie Sink) and her ‘bad boy’ step-brother Billy (Dacre Montgomery). We know he’s bad news because he smokes cigarettes, listens to hair metal, and constantly peels the tires of his Camaro. Max is a fun addition but Billy comes across as a weirdly out-of-sync caricature.

A new character who manages to avoid caricature is Sean Astin’s Bob, the boyfriend of Joyce (Winona Ryder). He’s a bit of a goof but an earnest one. At first he seems like an easy character to pigeonhole but the writing mixed with Astin’s warmth subverts our expectations. You can’t help but like the guy. Paul Reiser (who is no stranger to science-fiction) is a nice fit playing the new head of the Hawkins Laboratory.

David Harbour as Chief Hopper was a true strength of the first season. He’s still really good here, but his character arc isn’t nearly as compelling and he’s often relegated to a background player. Even Eleven (Millie Bobby Brown), who was a linchpin of ST1 and still very relevant here, disappears for huge chunks of the season. These aren’t critical flaws but still disappointing.

Stranger2

It’s a good thing when a show invests time to grow its characters and the relationships between them. However in “Strangers Things 2” there is a negative effect. The narrative itself lacks the depth of the first season and you could say it retreads some of the same ground. Instead of rescuing Will from the Upside-Down, here it’s from a sinister supernatural virus. And the similarities to the X-Files mythology (government cover-ups, secret experiments, etc.) which I loved so much is ST1 pretty much vanish in Season 2.

Yet despite all of that the Duffer Brothers, along with their team of writing and directing collaborators, still manage to get their hooks in you and pull you into their ever-interesting sci-fi world. We still get so many wonderful 80s references scattered throughout which are tons of fun to discover and which add a thick layer of realism to the timeline. And once again we get to spend time with these characters who ST1 introduced so well. It all makes for a good follow-up season that may not live up to enormous strengths of the first, but does enough to keep us interested and excited for what comes next.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

3-5-stars

REVIEW: “Stranger Things” Season 1

STRANGERposter

Recently I spent a week with my family at a beach condo on the Gulf of Mexico. It was a time full of laughs, fun, and plenty of beach bumming. But something unexpected and extraordinary happened during our trip. I actually watched the first season of the much talked about “Stranger Things”.

To be clear, I didn’t watch it because of any built-up excitement or anticipation. I started watching it simply because I had heard so much about the series and it felt like I was missing out on what could be considered a television phenomenon. Oh, and our condo happened to have Netflix on its big screen TV so that made the decision even easier.

STRANGE2

This probably comes as no surprise, but I’m not a television guy. I only write about movies therefore this review will have a movie-like form. But with “Stranger Things” that actually works better that an episode-by-episode breakdown. Yes, Season 1 is broken into chapters with each picking up right where the previous one left off. But all eight chapters/episodes work beautifully as one cohesive whole (very movie-like).

“Stranger Things” is the brainchild of twin brothers Matt and Ross Duffer. They not only conceived the story but wrote the first two chapters of Season 1 and directed all but two. Set in 1983, their series takes place in the fictional town of Hawkins, Indiana. The story is launched by the mysterious disappearance of a young boy named Will Byers (Noah Schnapp). We’re introduced to a host of well-developed characters who are unknowingly being drawn towards the strange circumstances surrounding his disappearance.

First among the characters is Will’s mother Joyce played by an exceptional Winona Ryder. Folks around town think she’s snapping under the weight of grief. Even her older son Jonathan (Charlie Heaton) doesn’t buy into her insistence that Will is trying to communicate with her through supernatural means. Will’s three best friends Mike, Dustin, and Lucas (Finn Wolfhard, Gaten Matarazzo, and Caleb McLaughlin) set out to do their own search and in the process encounter a special young girl (Millie Bobby Brown) who is on the run from some pretty bad people.

STRANGER1

Perhaps the most fascinating character is Police Chief Jim Hopper (a superb David Harbour). He’s leading the official investigation despite carrying some pretty heavy baggage of his own. His personal life may be a mess, but he knows how to work a case and what he discovers goes far beyond one missing child. Watching Harbour really dig into this character is one of the season’s biggest strengths.

Several other characters have meaningful roles. Natalia Dyer plays Mike’s older sister Nancy and Joe Keery plays Nancy’s new flame Steve. Their story starts as a fairly familiar teen drama but quickly goes in a much different direction. And Matthew Modine plays Martin Brenner, a scientist with Hawkins Laboratory. Little is known about him or the shadowy operation he’s running just outside of town.

When watching “Stranger Things” so many comparisons immediately come to mind. Perhaps the most satisfying is classic Steven Spielberg meets Chris Carter’s “The X-Files”. You see the influences of Spielberg’s “E.T.” and “Close Encounters”; Ridley Scott’s “Alien” and Stephen King just for starters. And I especially love the cool X-Files vibe. Clandestine experiments, deep cover-ups, government conspiracies – it’s all there.

STRANGER3

And of course, how can I not mention something the show is perhaps best known for – the countless 80s pop culture references. My teen years ran through that decade so spotting them is a lot of fun. But they aren’t just added for nostalgia alone. They really do help create a convincing setting for the Duffer brothers and company to play in. And sometimes they play directly into the story. Take Cold War paranoia, something very real during the 80s and cleverly woven into the plot.

“Stranger Things” is a fascinating stew that juggles numerous genres and influences. Yet it all comes together to form an enthralling eight-episode television season that plays like one well-paced and impressively conceived movie. It does a great job of introducing and developing characters while featuring several stand-out performances (Harbour, Brown, and Ryder specifically). And perhaps best of all, it builds real excitement for Season 2, even for a ‘strictly movies’ guy like me. I consider that to be the highest praise!

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4-5-stars