Category Archives: Movie Reviews – F

REVIEW: “Francofonia”

by

15

FRANCOposterDirector Alexander Sokurov’s love for art and culture was made evident in 2002’s “Russian Ark”. Using a single 95 minute take, this historical drama explored over 33 rooms in Saint Petersburg’s Winter Palace (now part of Russia’s State Heritage Museum). The film is impossible to categorize. It’s rich with dramatic elements while at the same time examining three centuries of Russian history.

Fast forward 14 years to “Francofonia”, a similarly difficult film to classify but equally stimulating in its exploration of art and history. This time Sokurov’s focus is on the Louvre museum in Paris, but it’s not just about the building or its history. There are several interconnected layers built around it that Sokurov comes back to again and again. The Louvre is the most important character in the film, yet it mainly serves as the anchor for Sokurov’s contemplation and reflection.

FRANCO2

“Francofonia” hops back and forth between the past and present, between fact and fiction, between historical accounts and provocative metaphors. In an almost documentarian style Sokurov’s own narration carries us through his mélange of subjects offering an assortment of information and perspectives.

One of the film’s focal points is the relationship between the French director of the Louvre Jacques Jaujard and German officer Franz Wolff-Metternich, the Hitler-appointed overseer of French art and culture. The two met during the Nazi’s occupation of Paris during World War 2 and worked together to save and preserve the Louvre’s collection. The dramatization is presented in bites and surrounded by a medley of historical and artistic thought.

FRANCO1

Sokurov takes time to examine the origins of the Louvre, Hitler’s march into Paris, and the mindsets of Parisians and the French government. He documents the hiding of the Louvre’s paintings in different châteauxs south of Paris – a desperate attempt to keep them out of Hitler’s clutches. All of this is visualized through some incredible old reel footage and photos.

But if that weren’t enough, Sokurov also takes time for deep, thoughtful meditations on art. Some of the focus is on the art itself such as the unique European intimacy with portraits or the timelessness of early civilization pieces. Other meditations ask some compelling questions. For example why was Paris spared when so many other cities were bombed? Could it be the city was saved by none other than the glorious art itself?

FRANCO3

This captivating intersection between art and war is something Sokurov is eager to explore. He reveals how the art of the Louvre and war itself are historically inseparable. In addition to its relevance with the German occupation, the film shows the ghost of Napoleon roaming the museum halls reminding everyone that he was responsible for bringing much of the art to the Louvre – many pieces being spoils of his war victories.

Much more could be said about “Francofonia”. Categorizing it is nearly impossible, but breaking it down is a rewarding challenge. I think the film could best be called Sokurov’s canvass, and on it he presents a collage of thought, reason, and reflection. It is exquisitely shot from start to finish and intellectually honest in how it approaches each of its subjects. It’s certainly not a film for everyone, but I found myself absorbing every second.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “45 Years”

by

19

YEARSposter

With marriage you never get over the hump. Whether you’ve been together 5 years or 45, marriage always requires work and bad choices can have devestating effects. That’s just one thing I took away from Andrew Haigh’s subtly devastating “45 Years”.

The British drama, based on a David Constantine short story, spans a period of six days. Kate (Charlotte Rampling) and her husband Geoff (Tom Courtenay) are days away from celebrating their 45th wedding anniversary. Everything points to them being a happy couple but that is brought into question after Geoff receives a letter linked to something very personal from his past. It would be a disservice to give away anything about the letter. I knew nothing of it going in and my experience was richer for it.

I will say the effects of the letter slowly fester and their relationship struggles under the burden of it. Haigh (serving both as writer and director) is smart in his handling of things. He meticulously allows things to play out and patiently feeds us bits of revelation. Most importantly he never feels the need to be manipulative or the slightest bit conventional. Instead the stress is on developing a truly authentic relationship free of any traditional Hollywood prodding or sentimental fluff.

YEARS1

A key reason he accomplishes this is because he shows a heavy dependence on his two leads. Rampling and Courtenay are a joy to watch. They are so perfectly in tune with the naturalistic flow of the script and there is never a question about their characters or their relationship. Like most couples they have their routines – walking the dog, listening to 60s music, book reading. But eventually the letter’s influence can be seen even in their daily rounds.

Rampling handles her character with a low-key steadiness. She conveys a hope and optimism that slowly becomes harder for her character to maintain. Every reaction and response she gives is rooted in unquestionable truth and the performance becomes more engrossing the further along we go. Rampling has so many potent moments where she reveals her character through her keen expressiveness.

YEARS2

Courtenay gives us a much different character. The 79 year-old actor is playful and open early on but his performance shifts as the week progresses. More and more Geoff shuts himself off. He constantly seems distant, distracted, and is easily agitated. But Courtenay doesn’t give us a villain. He shows a sincere complexity within his character. He is a sweet-hearted man who genuinely doesn’t know how to handle his emotions.

Lingering in the background is a weekend party their friends have put together to honor their 45 years of marriage. In light of the letter, we begin to wonder how the party will go? Will Kate and Geoff even make it there? Each day as the party gets closer those questions have more meaning. We the audience watch and hope, but we don’t know how things will play out. That is what makes this quietly devastating.

Andrew Haigh deserves a lot of credit. At first it may seem his film isn’t doing much other than allowing good performers room to act. But slowly he unveils his true vision and meaning. Ultimately he gives us a fresh, authentic portrait of marriage while revealing the importance of honesty and openness. He doesn’t make lofty statements or give us clear-eyed answers. He makes subtle points, asks questions, then allows us to wrestle with them. It is a very smart and effective approach.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Focus”

by

26

FOCUS poster

I can’t say I have always shared the general enthusiasm for Will Smith’s movies or his performances. It’s not that he is a bad actor. But, with a few exceptions, he often seems to play variations of the same type of guy. That is certainly not a problem for his fans who have made him a bonafide box office draw, but as someone who doesn’t always care for ‘that guy’ he plays, it can be a turn off.

Smith’s time on the big screen hasn’t been as prominent as during his heyday. He had at least one film (sometimes more) come out every year between 1995 and 2008. “Focus” ushers in a bit of a return to the starring spotlight and once again he is playing a variation of the same type of guy. He’s cool, stylish, cocky, and a bit of a wise guy. Sound familiar? Here he plays a dapper professional con-man with a seemingly endless amount of resources at his disposal. But more on that later.

 

FOCUS1

The story begins with Smith’s character, Nicky Spurgeon, being seduced and conned by a novice scammer named Jess (Margot Robbie). Nicky isn’t fooled and he sees through her amateurish scheme. A few days later Jess approaches Nicky in dire straits begging to be his protegé. Nicky agrees and tests out her sticky fingers on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Impressed by her success Nicky invites Jess to join his crew. A few good scores and a painfully predictable romance follows.

Nicky’s dad always taught him that business and pleasure don’t mix, so he drops Jess after realizing he was falling for her. But obviously the story doesn’t stop there and the two meet again three years later in Buenos Aires. Is it a chance meeting or doesn’t Jess have something up her sleeve? A web of twists, turns, deceptions, billionaires, parties, and race cars make up the second half of the story.

FOCUS2

There are times when “Focus” could be called a fashion extravaganza masquerading as a con-artist movie. Some scenes serve only as opportunities for the two stars to show off their good looks, nice physiques, and chic attire. This works well with the aforementioned typical Will Smith character. We get a lot of that here. It’s interesting that the film’s best scene features Smith casting aside that persona and showing us a vulnerable and intensely human side of his character. I won’t build it up but you will know it when you see it.

Ultimately “Focus” is a movie stymied by its amoral vanity, its overload of mediocre twists and turns, and the lukewarm chemistry between Smith and Robbie. If you view it through a very simple and straightforward lens you’ll notice a few fun moments. But it is never as cool or crafty as it tries to be and designer sunglasses, swanky sports jackets, and posh gowns only carry things so far. And even the movie’s title makes you wonder if you are the one being conned because there isn’t a lot of focus here.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2 Stars

REVIEW: “Fantastic Four” (2015)

by

37

FFposter

I doubt many people initially thought rebooting the Fantastic Four series was a great idea. Even though the previous two films made decent money, the cast has clearly moved on and calls for a third movie have been nonexistent. But that didn’t stop 20th Century Fox. Desperate to revive one of their lone Marvel Comics properties, the studio went ahead with their shaky venture. They compounded skepticism with some questionable casting choices and statements made during production that gave comics fans cause for concern.

Director Josh Trank was handed the reins and $120 million to bring his vision to the movie. Trank made a surprising splash with his 2012 debut film “Chronicle”, a movie loved by critics and audiences but one that I found to be inconsistent and predictable. We see these same issues fester up in “Fantastic Four”, but this film’s problems stretch much, much further (horrible pun intended) and the resulting mess of a movie is pretty tough to endure.

FF2

Sleep – Prepare to fight it.

The decision to completely rewrite the superteam’s history proved to be a bad one for a couple of reasons. First, I’m not convinced moviegoers really want to sit through another origin story especially about this group of heroes. Second, when you make the decision to rewrite well known characters and their history you better make sure you have a good story to tell. Unfortunately this is an painfully long and dull origin story and not a single new element offers anything of value.

When I say this is a long origin story I mean it is a LONG origin story. The film starts with Reed Richards meeting Ben Grimm in elementary school. The two build a close friendship around Reed’s garage-based teleportation experiments. Next we jump ahead seven years to Reed (Miles Teller) and Ben (Jamie Bell) showing off the experiment at a high school science fair. They are approached by Professor Franklin Storm (Reg Cathey) of the Baxter Foundation who recruits Reed to help work on a dimensional portal called the Quantum Gate. Reed joins the research team consisting of Storm’s daughter Sue (Kate Mara), his rebellious son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), and a disillusioned young protégé Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell).

FF3

I had the same reactions…

The film then lumbers through the completion of the Quantum Gate giving us loads of monotone exposition. It takes a few breaks for personal exchanges meant to add some life and emotion to these characters. It doesn’t work. Not one single relationship feels authentic and the emotionally inert characters are void of any compelling personality. Trank and Company want us to believe that Victor has a thing for Sue. They want us to believe that Sue and Johnny are actually brother and sister. They want us to believe in the inevitable team camaraderie that we get later on. But that’s tough to do when the characters are as interesting as tree stumps.

It’s a full hour into the movie before we get to the experiment that grants them their powers. With the evil U.S. government and specifically scientist and government liaison Dr. Allen (Tim Blake Nelson) breathing down their necks, the team decides to use the Quantum Gate and stake a claim on their discovery. Obviously things go terribly wrong. Each are imbued with unique powers but their reactions to their new abilities fractures the team. It’s only when they face a powerful and unexpected threat that they realize the strength they wield as a team. Blah, blah, blah.

FF4

Mara’s expression…through the entire film.

It doesn’t help when the performances are as drab as the story. People are high on Miles Teller but here he flatlines and is embarrassingly bad once the action ratchets up in the final act. Jordan doesn’t offer an ounce of charisma or good humor vital to his character. Cathey’s ultra-serious monotone dialogue is robotic. Mara is strikingly mundane. Yet it’s Tim Blake Nelson who gets the ‘prize’ for the worst performance. He constantly flashes this odd snarky smirk meant to show he’s the man in charge when actually looking like he just sucked on a dozen lemons. In his defense he does get some of the worst lines of dialogue in a movie full of bad dialogue.

Trust me when I say this – reading about the movie is a lot more fun than watching it. You don’t always expect these types of films to be narrative masterpieces, but you do expect them to be spirited, whimsical, and energetic. “Fantastic Four” is a lifeless bore, devoid of any of the ingredients that make these pictures work. Trank has already started pointing fingers at the studios and the studios are already bracing for what looks like a big loss at the box office. I can’t say I’m surprised. Simply put, this is a bad movie and 20th Century Fox should be on the phone with Disney making a deal and getting whatever they can from this now dead-in-the-water franchise.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

1.5 stars

REVIEW: “Furious 7”

by

20

FURIOUSPOSTER

The evolution of the “Fast and Furious” franchise has been an intriguing thing to watch. It went from being a goofy street racing franchise that I easily dismissed to a huge scaled, amped up action series that I have enjoyed. It’s a franchise that banks on its silliness and absurdity but succeeds because it never takes itself too serious and it knows what it now wants to be. I can appreciate that. Part of the charm of what it has become revolves around how cinematically insane they can make things.

2011’s “Fast Five” was the turning point for me. The drastic change in formula was welcomed and that film still has some of the best action sequences of the last ten or so years. It was followed by the less satisfying but still entertaining “Fast and Furious 6”. Now we reach the seventh film because naturally there has to be another film, right? Unfortunately the path to bringing “Furious 7” to the big screen has been a tragic and complicated one. On November 30, 2013, halfway through filming “Furious 7”, Paul Walker was killed in a car accident while on Thanksgiving break. Understandably this threw the film’s likelihood in doubt. After the film was confirmed to be still on, script rewrites and cast changes caused a number of delays.

FURIOUS1

But now it has hit theaters and the question becomes can it sustain the crazy, fuel-injected fun that has won me over to the franchise? In a nutshell, yes. “Furious 7” hits every note that you would expect from this reinvented series. The characters are formulaic and cliche. The dialogue is sometimes silly and hokey. The action blows believability to smithereens. But (and this may sound nuts to some readers) those things are part of the weird charm that these films have. James Wan takes the directing reins from longtime helmer Justin Lin and he doesn’t make the mistake of tinkering too much with the formula. This is definitely ‘more of the same’ but for fans that’s a good thing.

The film begins by reintroducing us to the crew and giving us a quick rundown of where they are and what they have been up to. Dom (Vin Diesel) is working hard to help Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) with her amnesia. Brian (Walker) is struggling to put aside his love for ‘the ride’ for the white-picket fence, mini-van family life. It also addresses the killer mid-credits scene from the last film. As it turns out Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), the older brother of the last film’s antagonist, is hot under the collar and seeking revenge on Dom, Brian, and their crew. After Shaw’s attacks get personal and deadly, Dom and company set out to get him.

The hunt for Shaw also pulls in Agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) who quickly feels the full force of Shaw’s resolve. Other familiar faces like Roman (Tyrese Gibson) and Tej (Chris Bridges) show up and fill their established roles. Their automotive adventure takes them all over the world – The United States, London, Tokyo, Abu Dhabi, and a host of other places. Say what you want about the series, but their recent use of locales is one of its real treats. It’s not simply that it has a global feel. The locations are beautifully shot and injected into the storyline.

FURIOUS2

The story itself is pretty simple and the structure is basically set around moving things from point A to point B. It’s nothing innovative or new when it comes to the storytelling. When it is focused on its main revenge-versus-revenge thread it hits on all cylinders. But there are some moving parts that don’t quite work as well. Kurt Russell shows up has a US shadow agent apparently with limitless government resources. He’s after the ultimate hacking tool called God’s Eye. A well-funded terrorist (Djimon Hounsou) is also after it for obvious nefarious purposes. The entire side plot isn’t particularly well presented or compelling. They do serve to fill-in necessary potential plot holes and to set the table for some of the better action sequences, but that’s about all they have to offer. There are also couple of weird, almost obligatory, diversions meant to reflect back to street racing roots of the franchise. Personally I wish they would get past that.

The performances are about what you would expect. They range from steady and serviceable to pretty shaky. This installment does try to inject more emotional weight than the previous films and that’s when the performances struggled the most. But ultimately they get the job done and with the exception of Ronda Rousey (who to be fair is just there for a glorified cameo) none are distractingly bad. And I have to say that despite the flimsiness of his character, it was a load of fun to watch Kurt Russell having a blast with what he was asked to do.

FURIOUS3

But let’s be honest and true, nobody goes to a “Fast and Furious” movie for the performances. It’s all about the cars and the action. We get a lot of both. You almost get the feeling that each movie wants to top the other one in terms of the craziness of the action sequences.  This one definitely takes things to a higher level and most of the sequences are pure adrenaline-fueled excitement. Even when they pull something totally absurd out of their hat, it works within these reality-defying scenarios. That being said, the big action finale was the weakest. It certainly has its moments but it’s too long and overthought. Ultimately I was ready for it to end.

The movie ends with the fitting tribute to Paul Walker and his character, something I was expecting. It’s done really well and that could be said for most of the movie. It’s not perfect and there are stumbles that keep it from being an action movie classic. But these movies have embraced this new direction and this installment stays loyal to that. If you didn’t like the last two films I would be shocked to hear that you like this one. It definitely does the same things. But if you are a fan of their new model, and you enjoy just sitting back and going with its wildness, I have no doubts that you will find some of that same entertainment in “Furious 7”.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Fault in Our Stars”

by

22

FAULOT POSTER

It’s a shame that the modern movie culture in Hollywood automatically causes me to be leery of films like “The Fault in Our Stars”. Sure it’s based on a novel loved by millions, but countless times Hollywood has shown its ineptitude in realizing these kinds of stories on screen. Well this film turned out to be a huge success raking in over $300 million at the box office. But we all know that a hefty box office take doesn’t always signify a quality movie. Thankfully “The Fault in Our Stars” tells a better story and features a compelling lead performance.

Shailene Woodley plays Hazel Grace Lancaster, a smart and witty teenager who happens to have stage four lung cancer. Her illness started in her thyroid at an early age and she has fought it since. There is no build up towards the severity of her illness. All of the cards are put on the table at the very beginning. We quickly know that she is dying. We quickly sense her day-to-day struggles. She can’t walk long without shortness of breath and we never see her without her oxygen. This is her life and we are given just enough exposition to ground us and prepare us for this story.

FAULT1

Her parents are played by Laura Dern and Sam Trammell and they are a breath of fresh air. There is no family dysfunction. There is no abuse. There is no absentee dad. They are stable and loving parents, something rarely depicted in Hollywood these days. Overprotective and obvious? Perhaps. In fact in an early scene Hazel’s mother is convinced her daughter is depressed. She encourages Hazel to join a support group. As fate would have it, she meets a hunky fellow named Gus Waters (Ansel Elgort). At first he reminded me of a stalker, but he soon wins Hazel over with his charming personality and his pearly white smile which the camera captures over and over and over….

Despite being a bit corny, Gus is a good, earnest guy. He lost part of his leg to bone cancer, but it doesn’t seem to dampen his spirits. That’s exactly what Hazel needs. She needs his honesty, his positivity, and of course his love. It’s not that she doesn’t resist. She does show hesitation, but thankfully the film doesn’t wander down that overused and familiar path. Instead it actually presents us with situations and a relationship that feels genuine yet uncertain because of the dark cloud hanging over it.

There is something else I found refreshing about “The Fault in Our Stars”. It was nice to see two teenaged characters without the same hackneyed problems and attitudes that we often get in teen movies. Aside from cancer, Hazel and Gus are smart, well adjusted teens without a host of personal or emotional problems. It was a nice change from the routine damaged bad boy or smart, sharp-witted loner girl. The characters of Hazel and Gus are quite different than that.

FAULT2

Overall the film tells a good story, but it doesn’t mind flipping a few conventional switches. There are a handful of scenes that are so clearly intended to bring on the tears. Some were incredibly cheesy and felt out of place and false. One particular contrivance appears at the end and is too much of a stretch. Then there is Elgort’s performance which is uneven and sporadic. For the most part he has an undeniable charm, but there are also moments where he looks stagy and uncertain. It also doesn’t help that he shares scenes with Woodley. She’s a fabulous young actress who manages this material with conviction and wit. She makes Hazel feel true and authentic even during those few times when the movie doesn’t.

“The Fault in Our Stars” will definitely have many people reaching for their tissue. In fact even I got a bit misty during the moments that played out naturally. Unfortunately the movie doesn’t always feel natural. But I still give it a lot of credit. It has some refreshing components that distance it from the normal teen tripe. It also handles a very difficult subject tenderly and responsibly. And it is yet another showcase for Shailene Woodley, a young actress who seems to get better with every role she takes.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS