Category Archives: Movie Reviews – A

REVIEW: “A Most Wanted Man”

by

20

WANTED POSTER

Anton Corbijn’s brooding espionage-thriller “A Most Wanted Man” doesn’t follow any popular spy movie blueprint or formula and the movie is better for it. It won’t take audiences long to notice the intentionally deliberate pacing, dialogue-driven suspense, and strong character focus. All of these elements create a very grounded and methodical procedural that relies heavily on great performances and a strong screenplay from Andrew Bovell.

“A Most Wanted Man” isn’t just a unique thriller. It also has the sad distinction of being Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s final performance. He plays Günther Bachmann, the head of a German anti-terrorist group. He’s a heavy smoker, drinks a lot, and often times looks unkept. In fact, in an unfortunate case or art imitating reality, he looks terribly unhealthy. But Hoffman takes whatever personal struggles he may have been going through and injects them into this character creating someone full of raw authenticity.

WANTED2

When a Chechen Muslim on Interpol’s radar illegally enters Hamburg Günther and his team begin tracking him down in hopes of catching bigger fish in a potential terrorist ring. Complicating things is a German security official (Rainer Bock) who wants to apprehend the Chechen instead of using him. Then there is an American intelligence agent named Sullivan (played with fascinating mystery by Robin Wright). No one knows her intent and Günther doesn’t trust her from the start.

The story spins in several different directions and we are kept on our toes by some interesting twists and character developments. It becomes a movie of ‘who is a terrorist and who isn’t’ and ‘who can I trust’. Watching Hoffman navigate through this maze of clues and information is half the fun. Willem Dafoe shows up as a banker with a very shady past and Rachel McAdams has a hefty role as a human rights attorney who latches on to the Chechen suspect’s case. Both characters play key roles in the unfolding story.

WANTED1

When you’re working with this type of material you have to trust your cast and they are all good here. I still find myself drawn to Wright’s performance and the unshakable confidence she brings to her character. Dafoe is also spot-on and many of the film’s great scenes have him in them. McAdams
is good although she often has trouble keeping her accent. But this is truly Hoffman’s film and he strips away every shred of showmanship in portraying this sad and weary soul whose life revolves around his work. He is obsessive to a fault, but that’s also what helps to make him such a compelling character.

“A Most Wanted Man” may not be for everyone and that’s a shame. It’s a slow burn meticulously built around nuggets of information we glean from conversations, interviews, and observations. It’s compelling stuff – crisp and razor sharp. There was a moment or two where I wasn’t sure what was being discussed and there are a couple of lulls. But even in those moments there is still Hoffman’s sublime performance. If there had to be a final performance this a fitting one – conscientious, complex, and forceful. It’s a clear reminder of the natural ability this man had as an actor.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

2015 Blind Spot Series – “Au Hasard Balthazar”

by

24

Anne Wiazemsky as Marie in Robert Bresson’s AU HASARD BALTHAZA

The brilliant auteur Robert Bresson has been called the father of French cinema. Many of the greats from France’s New Wave movement considered Bresson their chief influence. Other filmmakers from around the world often pointed to Bresson’s work as effecting the shape and form of cinema for generations. He was known for his unconventional style and techniques which found their roots in his own unique philosophies behind the art of cinema.

Bresson had an intriguing filmography and one of his best pictures is his 1966 drama “Au Hasard Balthazar”. His films often focused on lead characters weighed down by or struggling with their circumstances or their inner-self. The conflicts and turmoils they faced often left them physically or emotionally broken. Bresson’s films are not for those looking for a lighthearted affair. They are thought-provoking examinations of humanity that refuse to shy away from our crueler and harsher sides. “Au Hasard Balthazar” is a stirring example of this approach.

The film follows a donkey named Balthazar who encounters a wide assortment of deeply flawed people during his life. We first see him right after birth living on a small rural farm. Over the film’s quick 95 minutes Balthazar changes hands several times . Many of his owners and handlers abuse him often physically but sometimes out of sheer neglect. But Bresson doesn’t take a cheap way out. Balthazar isn’t a miracle animal. He doesn’t speak or come up with clever ways to repay his abusers. No, he’s just a donkey. Simple, innocent, and true to his nature. He knows what donkeys know, feels what donkeys feel, and acts as donkeys act.

AU1

Why is that so important? Because it puts the spotlight on humanity. Balthazar is doing what he should be doing. It’s the people he endures along the way who show their very flawed and sometimes wicked sides. It’s an indictment on the reality of how things are. When speaking on the movie the great filmmaker and one-time critic Jean-Luc Godard called it “the world in an hour and a half”. It’s a sad picture that is sometimes hard to look at. And despite his limitations Balthazar is still intensely sympathetic and able to touch our emotions.

But Bresson doesn’t just follow Balthazar around everywhere. He also tells us the stories of several characters who play roles in the donkey’s life. The main one is Marie (Anne Wiazemsky). She lives on the farm where Balthazar is born and shows love towards him. But in another instance of straying from the conventional, Marie also sits idly by while a group of young thugs led by the slimy Gerard (François Lafarge) beats Balthazar. Marie becomes an emotionless hollow soul, in some ways like Balthazar – a victim of her circumstances. But she loses herself in a much darker place.

AU2

Gerard ends up with Balthazar on a couple of occasions and his cruelty towards the animal is unsettling. Gerard is a thug, a thief, and is shown to possibly be a lot worse. There are parts of his story that didn’t make sense to me, but Gerard’s brand of sadistic evil is felt by man and beast. Balthazar also spends time with a baker, a traveling circus, and a local drunk. We see all of these people through the clearest and most honest eyes possible – Balthazar’s.

Several of Bresson’s signature style choices are clearly seen in the film. Most obvious is his penchant for using non-professional actors in his roles. You will rarely find room for big movie stars in a Bresson movie. The director would hire unknowns and then train them specifically for their part. He didn’t want an ounce of theatrics from his actors and he was known to film a scene over and over until every hint of performance was removed. Even more, Bresson didn’t refer to his performers as actors. He called them “models” and they offered a raw and reserved take unlike what you see in the mainstream. When watching “Au Hasard Balthazar” this can be a challenge especially for those not accustomed to Bresson’s work. The characters can appear cold and indifferent, but that also causes us to look at them in a very unique way.

“Au Hasard Balthazar” can be a difficult film to take in. Its narrative can be a bit challenging but once you connect with Bresson’s greater message everything falls into place. It’s visceral and heartbreaking. At the same time it holds a mirror up to the world we live in. And while this film was made in 1966, the reflection it casts is just as piercing today as it was then. Godard’s description of the film is spot on. Bresson shows us the world. The question becomes how are we going to change it? Even more, can we change it?

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

AU finish

To see my full 2015 Blind Spot Lineup click HERE…

REVIEW: “Amador”

by

2

AMADOR POSTERThere’s an intriguing, poignant, and fairly bizarre idea at the center of the 2010 Spanish drama “Amador”. Marcela (Magaly Solier) is a woman struggling to find an ounce of happiness in her life. Her husband Nelson (Pietro Sibille) has promised her the world including owning her own flower shop. But he seems content with running a second-hand flower business out of their tiny apartment. He sends out cheap laborers to get discarded flowers from dumpsters. He then picks out the salvageable ones, prunes them, sprays them with floral air freshener, then sells them on the street. It’s quite a concept but its far from what Marcela wants.

One day Marcela packs her suitcase and leaves a note for Nelson telling him she’s leaving. But while waiting at the bus stop she collapses. It turns out she’s pregnant. Knowing she can’t handle a baby on her own, she heads back home before Nelson arrives. She never tells Nelson her initial plans and even more, she doesn’t tell him she’s pregnant. This gets into one aspect of this movie that drove me crazy. Marcela never tells anyone anything! This leads to several predicaments that could have been avoided with better judgement and better communication.

Things get tougher when the couple’s refrigerator goes out leaving them with no way to refrigerate their flowers. With no money for a new one, Marcela is forced to take on another job as a caregiver for a sick, bedridden elderly man named Amador (Celso Bugallo). She’s hired by Amador’s daughter who seems to see her father as a burden. She leaves a phone number and medication instructions then leaves. Marcela cooks Amador’s meals, gives him his pills, does his laundry, and eventually forms a connection with him, something he grows to appreciate. But Amador’s declining health soon leads to several decisions that carry all sorts of moral implications.

AMADOR

There are many things that this film does right. Unfortunately there are several stumbling blocks that keeps me from being able to fully embrace it. It’s hard to get into one of my problems without wandering into spoiler territory. I’m not going to do that, but let me just say there are some breaks from logic that were tough for me to get past. There’s a big turning point midway through the movie that effects the rest of the story and adds an interesting dynamic to what we’ve seen so far. But with it comes some head-scratching questions that the film tries to but never adequately deals with. I spent a lot of the second half of the film focusing more on these gaping illogical holes than on the actual story.

Another problem is with the handling of the Marcela character from writer and director Fernando León de Aranoa. She is incredibly passive when it comes to her situations and decision making. It’s another movie example of how a little communication could solve a lot of the problems that come her way. We also spend a lot of time just watching Marcela think, stare, and look concerned. And trust me, I mean A LOT of time and it ends up bogging the movie down a tad. Now I can’t really fault Solier’s performance. She’s very good here. But de Aranoa chooses to keep his camera in her face for long stretches and directs her to be slow and deliberate with almost everything she does. This did eventually slow things down a little too much for me.

If you can wade through the intentional deliberate pacing and forgive a couple of obvious plot holes, there is a lot to like with “Amador”. There’s such a great concept at the heart of this stor. I also think Marcela is a fascinating character and I particularly enjoyed her candid and often times amusing conversations with Amador. With a little better direction and a sharper script it could have been even better.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”

by

38

SPIDEY POSTER

While it certainly wasn’t a bad film, I can’t say that I was amazed by “The Amazing Spider-Man”. Maybe it was just too soon after the previous trilogy and a rebooted origin story simply felt too familiar. I liked the movie but it didn’t stay with me. As you would expect in today’s modern Hollywood, a big budget sequel was already in the works and it arrives only two years later in the form of “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”. It is director Marc Webb’s $250 million continuation of the web-slinging superhero’s story, at least this version of it.

Spider-Man is probably the most popular superhero in the Marvel Comics universe and he has been box office gold for Sony Pictures. That trend has proven to continue. This film has already raked in over $350 million worldwide only one week into its United States release. People flock to Spider-Man pictures. But are they flocking to a good movie? Quite honestly the trailers for this film did little to excite me. Still, I’m a comic book guy so any chance to visit these great characters piques my interest at least to some degree.

SPIDEY2

Andrew Garfield returns to play Peter Parker and Emma Stone is back as Gwen Stacy. It’s high school graduation and the two are still romantically involved although Peter still struggles with a promise he made to keep her out of his dangerous crime-fighting life. He’s also still haunted by the truth surrounding the disappearance of his parents many years earlier. We are also introduced to Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) who returns to Manhattan to see his dying father Norman (Chris Cooper). We also meet a lonely, unassuming man named Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx). He works as an engineer for OsCorp and he has a longing to be needed and noticed. All of these characters plus more find their way into this busy story.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the perfect definition of a mixed bag. Several of the film’s components work really well while others drag the film down or hinder the storytelling. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the movie tries to cram in too much story and too many characters. This results in some characters who are thin and who feel terribly underdeveloped. More importantly there are significant story angles that are never given the time they need to build. This makes certain parts of the story feel forced and shortchanged which ultimately waters down their effect.

On the flip-side, the movie does shine in the more human emotional moments. Garfield and Stone create a strong and truly believable romance hindered by the complications their lives have brought. The two have really good chemistry and they share several fantastic non-superhero scenes together. I do miss the changes made to the Peter Parker character. Gone is the nerdy awkwardness that has always been a defining quality. There are also some good scenes between Peter and his Aunt May (Sally Field) as well as one particular good scene where Peter catches up with his old high school buddy Harry. The movie was at its best when focusing on the human elements.

SPIDEY1

But this is a superhero movie so naturally you look for and expect certain things. First off, Garfield is very good behind the mask. He has a lot of personality and I found several of his quips to be quite funny. Of course the majority of his fighting is presented through CGI. Sometimes it looks good, other times the animation is obvious. But even he suffers due to the film’s lack of a bankable villain. Jamie Foxx’s Electro is a huge stretch from the comic book inspiration and frankly this version is not that interesting. I’ve never been sold on Foxx as an actor and he is very dull and uninspired here. But it’s hard to put the blame squarely on him. He’s given flimsy material and he doesn’t have the chops to rise above it. I also didn’t care for DeHaan’s Harry Osborn. He barely resembled this important character in Spidey lore and there were times when he was just painfully bad. The movie needed these characters to work and I didn’t buy into either of them.

So basically this movie works on the human level but only occasionally where it needed to the most as a superhero movie. It’s a cramped and underdeveloped story which is surprising considering the film is a long 2 hours 20 minutes. There are so many plot lines that feel shoehorned in and that barely contribute to the movie as a whole. There isn’t a good villainous presence and the rebooted series has yet to find itself an identity. It does have its moments, but in the end it doesn’t feel like the movie that this character and his great history deserves. Despite its scattered good scenes, I still felt Spider-Man deserved better.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “A Streetcar Named Desire”

by

31

STREETPOSTER

Tennessee Williams first took Broadway by storm in 1947 with his Pulitzer Prize winning stage production “A Streetcar Named Desire”. His dark and dysfunctional story was ripe for a film version and it came in 1951. In order to recapture the success of the play, Warner Brothers brought over several key players from the stage show including Williams to help with the screenplay, the director Elia Kazan, and cast members including Marlon Brando, Kim Hunter, and Karl Malden. The one big change came in the lead role. Jessica Tandy starred in the Broadway show but the studio didn’t consider her a big enough name. Vivien Leigh, who had been working on the London stage version, was brought in to round out the cast.

Leigh plays a southern belle named Blanche DuBois from Auriol, Mississippi. She arrives in New Orleans’ French Quarter to visit her pregnant sister Stella (Hunter) and brother-in-law Stanley (Brando). Stella is happy to see her sister but begins noticing several peculiar things about her. Blanche clings to fantasies of past luxury and prosperity. She still sees herself as a beautiful woman of prominence and stature. But we quickly see it to be a facade that she mixes with heavy drinking in order to deal with deeper buried secrets.

STREETCAR1

Stanley doesn’t like Blanche from the start and suspects her of holding out an inheritance from the sisters’ homeplace which was meant for both of them. He is brutish and his hot-temper often shows itself in fits of rage. His relationship with Stella is volatile and his physical and emotional abuse is startling. Stella just takes the treatment and keeps coming back to him which her sister doesn’t like. But Blanche has problems of her own which are seeded in some deep emotional baggage and psychological scars. The personality clashes and conflicts between these people is the driving force of the story.

In almost every way “Streetcar” is more theatrical than cinematic. Its Broadway roots show themselves in nearly every facet of the production. It’s a very talky picture that focuses heavily on the actors and their performances. The vast majority of the film takes place in and around a cramped apartment building – a confinement that also resembles a stage production. But these parts are integral components to a story that doesn’t require lavish production designs or location shoots. The well conceived Hollywood studio sets are perfect for creating claustrophobic living spaces that force these characters to deal with one another. Add to it Kazan’s sweat-soaked depiction of the New Orleans heat and you have a grimy and uncomfortable environment that fits the narrative.

“A Streetcar Named Desire” was an Academy Award magnet earning twelve Oscar nominations and winning four of them. Most notably three of the wins were in the acting categories, a first at the time. Vivien Leigh won for her twisted and tormented depiction of Blanche. She was the only one of the main cast members who had not worked together on Broadway. Kazan urged her to use that lack of connection in her performance. Kim Hunter and Karl Malden also won Oscars for their supporting performances. Malden plays a unassuming fellow who desperately wants to love Blanche.

STREET2

Marlon Brando was nominated for Best Actor but lost out to Humphrey Bogart who won his one and only Oscar for “The African Queen”. What’s interesting is that Brando’s performance is the one that has had the greater impact. This was his second feature film and it introduced his unique and tenacious method acting to a wider audience. Just look at the differences between the acting styles of Brando and Leigh often in the same scene. His performance as Stanley Kowalski displayed an instinctual prowess that would be present throughout his career. He brings such a vivid range of emotions to every scene he’s in. It’s raw but calculated work. Whenever the question is raised about Marlon Brando’s place among the best actors in cinema history, I point people to this performance.

Often heralded as a classic, “A Streetcar Named Deserve” earns its accolades. The Tennessee Williams story mixed with Elia Kazan’s sharp eye and some unforgettable performances cement “Streetcar” as one of the most focused and well made productions you will find. It’s rough, depressing, and unstarched, but it is so potent because of the characters. They are overflowing with energy and life and it is impossible not to be mesmerized by them despite their dysfunction. “Streetcar” made an indelible mark on cinema and it introduced the world to Marlon Brando. How can it not be considered a genuine classic?

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Act of Killing”

by

23

KILLING POSTER

A film like “The Act of Killing” is almost indescribable. It is strikingly unique and it certainly can’t be labeled or put in a box. Director Joshua Oppenheimer calls his film a “documentary of the imagination”. It’s bizarre, unsettling, and at times impossible to comprehend. It’s horrifying, repulsive, and unflinching in its focus. It’s an overused statement but “The Act of Killing” is unlike anything you have seen before and digesting what we are fed isn’t all that easy.

To understand this documentary you must first look back to 1965 in North Sumatra, Indonesia. A splinter group’s failed coup d’état led to a military takeover of the government. The new leadership blamed the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and soon sanctioned the wholesale massacre of communists across the region. But the killings weren’t restricted to alleged communists. There were also brutal mass murders rooted in racism and religion. It is said the killings have been overlooked in most Indonesian history books and by the international community, yet a CIA report called them “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century”.

killing1

With that historical backdrop in place, the film spotlights some of the authors of the murders and we are told of their atrocities from the men themselves. Anwar Congo and Adi Zulkadry went from movie theater ticket scalpers to heads of military death squads responsible for thousands of brutal killings in 1965 and 1966. Even more appalling, they have never been punished or even found guilty of any crime. In many ways they are celebrated among the ignorant or sympathetic. These are the men we spend two hours with in “The Act of Killing”. Their words, their candor, their lack of remorse, their impunity. These men openly discuss their parts in the anti-communist purge in uncomfortable detail and often with smiles on their faces.

These men also have an unusual infatuation with western cinema which finds its way into the movie on several occasions. They constantly refer to themselves as ‘gangsters’, a term stemming from their love of American gangster movies. But it also seems that some of their real-life killings were patterned after these films. Anwar especially seems to treat the title of gangster as a badge of honor.

Killing2

But their love for movies also plays into the stories they tell. Throughout the documentary we listen in on pointed and detailed recollections of some purely evil murders. But these men also tell their stories through dramatic reenactments for the cameras intended to glorify their atrocities. Their scenes borrow from their favorite mob movies, westerns, and musicals. It’s these uneasy sequences of boastful self-aggrandizement that reveal the true evil dwelling within these people. As we get deeper into the movie the reenactments become more bizarre and surreal possibly a result of Anwar’s desire to squash any feeling of guilt that may be surfacing.

It took Joshua Oppenheimer over five years to make “The Act of Killing” and during that time he accumulated 1200 hours of footage. The result is a potent exposé that unveils one of the darker secrets of our world. I knew nothing of this horror which made the film all the more enlightening and disturbing. At times I did feel disconnected from the more absurd and unintelligible mini-productions from Anwar and company. But there are far more times where I sat in silent shock due to what I was watching. This is audacious filmmaking and there are several scenes carved into my memories. I would be surprised if others didn’t have that same experience.

VERDICT – 4 STARS