“Loving”, the fifth film (and second of 2016) from writer/director Jeff Nichols, continues the Arkansas-born filmmaker’s impressive streak of well-received movies. Through his films Nichols has revealed a unique and refreshing cinematic voice and has emerged as a true rural America storyteller. The Mark Twain influences are undeniable.

“Loving” examines the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case that abolished state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. But the film does so not by stressing the court room. Instead it focuses on the love between Richard and Mildred Loving. Nichols trusts the potency of their story enough to keep his approach admirably subdued. It’s sometimes a bit too low-key, but there is no denying the film’s subtle power.

The performances from Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga are superb. Edgerton’s Richard is a simple but devoted man who wants to love and take care of his wife. Negga portrays Mildred with a quiet grace and dignity. She’s both sweet and gentle, but she’s also Richard’s emotional anchor. The Lovings saw their lives turned upside down in the summer of 1958. In the dark of night the Caroline County sheriff (here played by Marton Csokas) and his deputies stormed their home and arrested the newlywed couple for breaking Virginia’s laws on interracial marriage.

What followed was a series of arrests and court appearances until their case finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Nichols doesn’t spend much time with the legal wranglings. He sets them up but mostly shows their effects. It’s a wise choice since they are when the film is at its weakest. Contributing to this is the odd casting of Nick Kroll as a young, green ACLU lawyer who takes the Lovings’ case. It’s a strangely stiff performance with Kroll routinely looking as if he’s holding in laughter. John Bass doesn’t fair much better as a constitutional law expert helping with the case.

There are some fantastic supporting turns though. Nichols favorite Michael Shannon has a small but fun role as a LIFE magazine photographer profiling the Lovings and their case. And I adored Sharon Blackwood’s performance as Richard’s straight-shooting midwife mother.

Perhaps my favorite thing about “Loving” is this – Richard and Mildred aren’t activists. They aren’t vocal, aggressive crusaders for a cause. They don’t seek the attention. They don’t want the press. The Lovings just want to live their lives together. That simple innocent desire highlights the despicable nature of the Virginia law far more effectively than if this had been a more pointed activism film. Through this emotionally detailed couple we learn all we need to know about the true rights and wrongs of the story and it invests us on a much more intimate level.

While it can be a bit slow at times and the approach may not be abrasive enough for some people, “Loving” gracefully and truthfully tackles an issue by putting its focus on the human element. Nichols’ delicate portrayal is slyly potent and speaks volumes about its subject without leaning on layers of dialogue. Instead Nichols asks his audience to watch, observe, and feel a closeness with his two central characters. If you do that the power of the message will be unavoidable.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Peter Bogdanovich was 31 years-old when he first came across the book “The Last Picture Show”. The author was Larry McMurtry and the story was a semi-autobiographical novel about his life in small town Texas. Bogdanovich collaborated with McMurtry to pen a script that stayed true to the novel’s simple coming of age story.

Bogdanovich had spent time in film criticism and was heavily influenced by the writers of the French magazine Notebooks on Cinema. Many of those writers would spearhead the great French New Wave movement. Bogdanovich desired to follow the leads of Truffaut, Godard, and Rohmer by stepping outside of criticism and into filmmaking. “The Last Picture Show” was the perfect opportunity. It enabled him to not only step behind the camera, but to make a movie that was undeniably his own. It would be a critical success and would go on to earn eight Academy Award nominations.

Bogdanovich’s cast is a mix of first-timers, relatively unknowns, and seasoned dependable pros. Set in 1951, Timothy Bottoms (in his second career role) plays Sonny Crawford, a high school senior living in the small dried-up town of Anarene, Texas. Interestingly, Anarene is represented by McMurtry’s hometown of Archer City in northern Texas. Bogdanovich shoots it like a wasteland -dusty and barren minus its handful of residents. You can barely define what they are doing as living. They are existing – going through the motions dictated by their circumstances. You could say Anarene represents the lives of the citizens.

The film doesn’t get bogged down in plot because there really isn’t any. It more or less follows the everyday events of Anarene with Sonny at its centerpiece. Other townsfolk we meet include Sonny’s rambunctious best friend Duane played by a young Jeff Bridges. In her film debut Cybill Shepherd plays Jacy Farrow. She’s the prettiest girl in town and a bit of a tease. She uses her good looks (and bad judgement) to get whatever she wants. Bogdanovich cast Shepherd after seeing her on the cover of Glamour magazine. There’s also Randy Quaid playing the town goofball in his first movie role.

These kids are the focus but the adults play a big role as well and are just as misguided as the town’s youth. The one exception is Sam (played by the always reliable Ben Johnson). Sam is the beating heart of Anarene. He owns the town’s pool hall, diner, and corner movie house. He supplies the people some semblance of activities but even Sam seems beaten down by the dying town and life in general. Aside from Sam, Ellen Burstyn plays Jacy’s promiscuous and disillusioned mother Lois. Cloris Leachman plays the lonely, depressed wife of the town’s high school coach. Clu Gulagar plays a despicable oil field worker and Eileen Brennan plays a weary waitress going through life’s motions.

Bogdanovich and McMurtry take their characters through a cluster of shameful, unscrupulous acts often with little attention to motive or reason. While the characters are fascinating to a degree, the film sometimes lacks the introspection to keep the town from feeling like anything but a cesspool of immorality. This isn’t always the case. There are moments of conviction and internal struggle and some character’s motivations are crystal clear. But other times Bogdanovich’s intent is hard to discern and I routinely found myself wrestling with what felt meaningful and what felt exploitative.

But a true strength of the film is its visual presentation. As I mentioned, the town is shot as isolated and dated. Even the seemingly everpresent Hank Williams songs wailing in the background convey a dreary sense of hopelessness. The choice to shoot in black-and-white is also effective (a decision made after Bogdanovich discussed his film with Orson Welles). It sets the right tone while also giving the film a real sense of time. There is rarely a wasted shot.

“The Last Picture Show” has remained a beloved film since its 1971 release. Of its eight Oscar nominations it won two (for Johnson and Leachman, both in Supporting categories). To some degree I get the strong affections many have since there is a lot to admire. But it isn’t a movie free of issues and some of them I couldn’t quite shake regardless of how hard I tried.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

You could almost say Jane Austen adaptations make up their own small, intimate movie genre. Obviously you have the gushy, sudsy dramas such as “Sense and Sensibility” and “Pride and Prejudice” which together have been adapted nearly twenty times in film and television. You could also include the wide range of movies that found their inspiration in Austen’s work – movies ranging from “Bridget Jones’s Diary” to the wackier “Clueless”. To venture even further into absurdity just this year we had “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”. The title says it all.

The latest Austen film treatment may be the cleverest and best executed of the bunch. It’s “Love & Friendship”, a whip-smart period comedy named after an early Austen story but actually based her epistolary novel “Lady Susan”. It’s the fifth film from writer and director Whit Stillman and his first since 2011’s fabulous oddball campus comedy “Damsels in Distress”. “Love & Friendship” is very much a Stillman picture – intelligent, tightly focused, and refreshingly modern. That last description is especially impressive since the film perfectly fits within its late 18th century aristocratic setting.

Kate Beckinsale plays the conniving, opportunistic Lady Susan. A recent widow and completely broke, she makes her way to the estate of her brother-in-law Charles (Justin Edwards) and his wife Catherine (Emma Greenwell). They agree to let Lady Susan stay with them even though they are aware of her flirty, gold-digging history. Lady Susan instantly sets her eyes on Catherine’s younger, handsome, and (most importantly) wealthy brother Reginald (Xavier Samuel).

What follows is a comical mélange of scheming and manipulation as Lady Susan works to regain her rich, high society status. In the process she encounters a number of obstacles including Reginald’s parents who are well aware of Lady Susan’s reputation. Things get even more ‘complicated’ when Lady Susan’s young daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) pays a surprise visit.

“Love & Friendship” does a remarkable job of taking a Jane Austen period drama and lacing it with Whit Stillman’s signature snappy dialogue. The costumes, the settings, and even the characters seem pulled straight from the 18th century. More importantly Stillman doesn’t disturb or shy away from the traditional Jane Austen formula. He actually embraces it and looks at it from a variety of perspectives. The results are hilarious, lively, and surprisingly fresh.

For many the biggest revelation will be Kate Beckinsale who relays every ounce of Lady Susan’s physical beauty and self-serving venom with mesmerizing precision. Armed with the character’s razor-sharp deceptive tongue, Beckinsale cuts through every male she encounters but does so with a heartless grace. Her selfish callousness towards others is most clearly seen in her moments with her one friend and confidant Alicia (Chloë Sevigny). Yet despite her character’s toxicity, Beckinsale makes Lady Susan a captivating force.

Placed around Lady Susan are a host of fun supporting characters, each portrayed through some period-perfect performances. Xavier Samuel makes quite the turn from his “Twilight” days and the accomplished Stephen Frey adds a little more weight to the cast. Sevigny is a nice fit as Lady Susan’s crony and Greenwell is equally good as the sister-in-law caught in an unwinnable situation. But Tom Bennett is the real scene stealer. He plays Sir James Martin, an extremely wealthy, well-meaning suitor who also happens to be a blithering idiot. Bennett is given the broadest comedy but the small hysterical bursts we get from him fit in nicely.

It’s safe to say that “Love & Friendship” offers a very unique take on Jane Austen’s work while at the same time feeling right at home in the author’s written world. Whit Stillman’s latest has the appearance of a stiff, snooty, blue-blooded time piece. But wrapped within its opulent gowns, neo-classical furnishings, and stately manors is one of the year’s funniest movies and another home run for this gifted filmmaker.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

Whew, if you thought it was bad when Olympus fell you should see what terrorists do to the city of London in Gerard Butler’s action sequel “London Has Fallen”. And don’t let the laughably bad title fool you, the corniness isn’t just restricted to the name of the movie. It’s in everything from the performances, the dialogue, and the premise itself.

For the sake of full disclosure I admit that I enjoyed Antoine Fuqua’s 2013 action romp “Olympus Has Fallen”. It was a violent, cheesy, and unashamed throwback to the good old action flicks of the 1980s and early 90s. So now we get “London Has Fallen” which has some of the same entertaining silliness of its predecessor. But while not as wretched as some overly sensitive critics say, it is a much lesser movie.

Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service Superman Mike Banning. He still serves as the chief protector of President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart) but is contemplating retirement since he and his wife Leah (Radha Mitchell) are expecting their first baby. But he can’t retire quite yet. Following the death of England’s Prime Minister, President Asher and other world leaders head to London to attend the funeral.

Obviously things don’t go well in London. A terrorist group launches a calculated attack on the world leaders including Asher. It becomes Banning’s top priority to keep the President alive no matter the amounts of bullets, blood, and bone-breaking necessary. It’s really as simple as that. The bulk of the film is Banning leading Asher through numerous gunfights and close encounters.

The movie does try to throw in a few side ventures I suppose in an attempt to add more depth. There is an early hint that the film may explore the moral implications of drone strikes. That’s tossed aside pretty quick. There is also a side story about a mole inside English intelligence. It plays out about as flat and uneventful as possible. Basically anything they try to do to expand the story fails.

Few things other than the action works in “London Has Fallen”. The sense of humor isn’t that funny. The film is littered with dopey and abrasive dialogue. Several returning characters from the first film are given nothing to do. To be honest the wackiness of the premise and the intense action almost saves it. There are a couple of shootouts that are an absolute blast. It’s too bad there isn’t enough surrounding the action to make this worthwhile.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

There is a point in Pierro Messina’s Italian drama “L’attesa” (translated in English as “The Wait”) where I realized that the film’s title spoke not only to different significant plot points but also to my personal viewing experience. One character waits for another to arrive. One character waits to share important information. And I too waited, anxious to see exactly how and if the film’s emotionally combustible pieces fit together.

I bring that up because Messina (in his directorial debut) positions us and frames our connections to his film in such a way that we must patiently watch, wait, and absorb this enigmatic story. That can be a challenge since the film’s core is lean and simple working more as an intense emotional exploration than a tightly knit narrative. This has proven to be a problem for some. For me it was an arresting exercise in potent minimalist storytelling.

The idea for the film came from a story told to Messina by a friend. Gleanings from two specific works of writer Luigi Pirandello helped Messina and a team of three others finish the screenplay. Add to it a bold visual style clearly influenced by his mentor Paolo Sorrentino.

The film begins at a funeral with a mournful woman named Anna (played by Juliette Binoche) standing at the foot of a casket. We aren’t told who has died, but it’s no spoiler to say it is Anna’s son Giuseppe. Later Giuseppe’s girlfriend Jeanne (Lou de Laâge) arrives at Anna’s Sicilian villa expecting him there a few days later. Anna puts off telling Jeanne about Giuseppe’s death and the two wait for an arrival that Anna knows will never come.

Jeanne and Anna are waiting on two very different things, but in doing so they begin to develop a relationship. Mutual slow-growing sympathy, respect, and admiration is formed over conversations at the dinner table, in a car, on the banks of a lake, or in a Turkish bath. Yet as the audience we know the lingering secret and the potential devastating effect it could have.

Anna’s motivations behind withholding the truth are never spelled out for us and they don’t need to be. Binoche’s emotionally wrought performance vividly captures sorrow and mourning which roots her character’s reasons in her crushing grief. Binoche doesn’t need pages of dialogue. She pulls so much sentiment from her character through every expression and body movement. De Laâge is equally captivating. She is tasked with giving a much different performance than Binoche but an equally vital one.

I see Anna clinging to her son through Jeanne and she can’t bear the thought of letting go. But the film doesn’t have a singular conclusion. It offers other possible interpretations and even flirts with madness. Its effectiveness is helped in large part to Messina’s visual presentation. Much in the Malick vein, the visuals have a lyrical movement that flow hand-in-hand with the story rhythms. There is a subtle harmony between the pain and sorrow of the characters and the imagery we see. Each gorgeous and haunting image has purpose and are thoughtfully incorporated into what the film is conveying.

“L’attesa” is a challenge. It requires patience and a willingness to look beyond a mere surface impression. It doesn’t hold your hand or dictate how you should feel about the characters or the internal baggage they carry. What is does is lay bare these emotions in a way that draws the audience in. The effectiveness of that approach will probably determine your reaction to the film. For me, it worked in nearly every regard.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS