Category Archives: Movie Reviews – P

REVIEW: “The Purge: Election Year”

by

8

PURGEPOSTER

There wasn’t much subtlety in the political messaging of the first two Purge movies. There isn’t a hint of it in the third installment “The Purge: Election Year”. In fact this film is so laughably direct from the start that it’s tough to take any of its characters or dramatic moments seriously.

I’ll admit, I do consider the Purge movies guilty pleasures while also fully admitting their mediocrity. Yes, the concept is preposterous, but each of the first two films did interesting things with it before flying off the rails in their own way. “Election Year” never fully gets on the rails. It does tap into some of the things the other films did right, but it never completely gets its footing.

Writer and director James DeMonaco returns and gives us his most heavy-handed critique of everything he dislikes about America. Leaving nothing to the imagination, DeMonaco vilifies every right-leaning persuasion, baits every like-minded group, and beats his class warfare drum at deafening levels. Yet among his smothering lecturing is a fairly interesting story that desperately needed more room to breathe.

PURGE2

In the not to distant future America is preparing for the 23rd annual Purge. For those not familiar, the Purge is one designated night of the year where all crime is legal including murder. Its stated purpose is to lower the crime rate, but Purge detractors believe it is meant to target low-income and minority citizens. With elections on the horizon, Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) has pledged to end the barbaric Purge if she is voted in.

The establishment isn’t happy with the outspoken Senator. The New Founding Fathers of America party (a group of evil suit and tie wearing white guys) have control of the government and decide to use the Purge to kill their political threat. Against the wishes of her head of security Leo Barnes (a returning Frank Grillo), Roan determines to stay in her unsecured Washington DC home on Purge night. That proves to be a bad idea and soon Leo and Roan are on the streets running for their lives.

At the same time we get the story of an inner city deli owner named Joe (Mykelti Williamson), his helper Marcos (Joseph Julian Soria), and a tough as nails EMT named Laney (Betty Gabriel). In a clever bit of writing their story intersects with Leo and Roan and the two groups are forced to depend on each other to survive against purgers and the FFA’s white supremacist hit squad (conveniently sporting swastika, white power, and confederate flag patches to keep us from missing the point).

PURGE1

While advertised as a horror movie it really isn’t. The horror is confined to a handful of cheap jump scares and the lightly creepy masks worn by some of the purgers. This is an action thriller with a lot of bullets and blood. In fact DeMonaco sometimes undercuts his message when his gunplay and violence goes beyond satire.

The cast definitely gives it their all and they often keep the film afloat. That’s no easy job. They are frequently tasked with delivering some of silliest, most on-the-nose lines you will hear. Grillo’s tough, businesslike approach to literally everything is a lot of fun, and Mitchell is earnest and authentic. A few other characters tend to be likable but flimsy and you know exactly how their stories will play out. They need and deserve more thought.

And once again that brings me back to the writing. Whether DeMonaco is visualizing a reflection of our current condition or providing a cautionary tale, his dependency on his high-minded message ultimately drowns out the drama. It could even be said he is sometimes careless, irresponsible, and borderline militant in his exploitation. I’m not delusional. I know America is a nation with problems and I don’t mind movies that address them. In fact I often love films that intelligently challenge society within the framework of a good story. DeMonaco’s cynicism isn’t implied. It isn’t subtle. It isn’t cleverly implemented. It’s just there smothering out everything else the film tries to do.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2 Stars

REVIEW: “Poltergeist” (2015)

by

19

Polter poster

The popular practice of remaking movies, all kinda of movies, has proven to be more than a fad. That’s unfortunate. There doesn’t seem to be movie that modern filmmakers won’t try to remake. The horror genre has been particularly fond of this fairly unoriginal practice. “Halloween”, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, and “Friday the 13th” are just some to receive a modern (and inferior) redo. So why not “Poltergeist”?

Normally I would automatically dismiss a movie like this but several things intrigued me, namely an interesting trailer, Sam Raimi’s attachment as co-producer, and the casting of the always likable Sam Rockwell. Unfortunately the movie itself isn’t nearly as intriguing as the trailer. Raimi’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found. Rockwell feels terribly out of place.

 

POLTER1

After losing his job Eric (Rockwell) and wife Amy (Rosemarie DeWitt) are forced to move their three children to a more affordable home. Unfortunately they pick a housing development built on an old cemetery. Talk about a terrible idea. Soon the family begins to notice a series a spooky occurances, many linked to the house’s lights and electronics. Obviously in the age of flat screens, tablets, and iPhones that is a bad thing.

But things get dramatically worse and even more unexplainable. Unable to go to the cops, the family seeks help from paranormal specialists who discover the house is haunted by angry and violent poltergeists. The bumps come more often, the screams get louder, and ultimately the danger escalates as Eric and Amy try to protect and save their children.

DF-08561.CR2

Minus a couple of the performances, there is nothing inherently awful about “Poltergeist”. But at the same time there is nothing new, unique, or innovative to make it stand out from the run-of-the-mill horror flicks we get by the dozens. In fact its greatest sin may be its blandness. Much like the majority of the modern PG-13 horror flicks, “Poltergeist” plays it safe and depends on too many traditional and predictable scares. I never jumped, squirmed, or was caught off guard.

So I’m left with a question I have asked numerous times. Why did we need a “Poltergeist” remake? This version is very swift and easy to watch. It has some good moments and there are a few fun nostalgic winks. But it doesn’t do anything new or exciting. It follows the same tired blueprint and fails to capitalize on its potential. Even though it’s not a bad movie, it’s not one that you will ever remember past its first viewing. That’s a shame.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

2.5 stars

2016 Blind Spot Series: “Paths of Glory”

by

25

PATHS POSTER

It was 1957’s “Paths of Glory” that first placed Stanley Kubrick among cinema’s prominent directors. It was his first true commercial success and critics praised it for its bold and unflinching anti-war message. But not everyone loved it. In a very crafty way the film would be banned in France until 1975 due to its depiction of the French military and government. In some ways you could say that is a testament to the power of its message.

The film is based on a 1935 novel by Humphrey Cobbs. MGM heads were impressed with Kubrick’s previous film “The Killing”so they hired him to write and direct a film which would later become “Paths of Glory”. But the project was almost derailed by MGM’s reluctance to finance another war picture. That changed when new heads were brought in and Kubrick was able to entice Kurt Douglas to star in the film. He and his production buddy James B. Harris were then given the green light.

PATHS1

The story is tight and straightforward. It’s about a French military unit led by Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) who are given an impossible mission. General Mireau (George Macready) is offered a nice promotion by his superior General Broulard (Adolphe Menjou) in exchange for taking a German fortification known as the Anthill. That would require Mireau’s men led by Colonel Dax to sustain substantial casualties.

There is a great early scene where Mireau weighs the loss of so many soldiers against the glory of a new promotion. In a cold and callous conversation he and Broulard estimate as many as 55 percent of Dax’s men would lose their lives. For Mireau it’s a worthy risk especially when the personal gain is so significant. He agrees to the mission knowing the costs but also aware of the probability of failure.

PATHS2

I won’t give too much away, but suffice it to say the mission goes poorly and a livid General Mireau takes action to protect his reputation and his promotion. Colonel Dax who has fought for his men on the battlefield now finds himself fighting for them in a kangaroo court of French military officers hungry to make examples. In many ways this battle is more appalling and vicious than the one on the battlefields. In one scene a general causally reasons “One way to maintain discipline is to shoot a man now and then.”

There are several different ways this movie could have went but Kubrick deserve credit for not caving in to a more conventional approach. I think I have been wired by many contemporary filmmakers to expect the routine and the predictable. Here Kubrick stays true to the film’s intent by not wimping out and abandoning the story’s sharp and pointed commentary. To have done differently would have dulled the edge and made this a much lesser picture.

PATH3

The film also excels thanks to Kubrick’s visual choices particularly his decision to shoot in black and white. It is perfect considering the harshness of the material and the morally murky waters we navigate through. There are also a number of scenes that stand out due to Kubrick’s cameras. The well known battle sequence was shot with six cameras placed around a huge war-torn battlefield. It offers up one of the most intensely arresting war scenes you’ll see.

The ending is a bit of a strange shift that may at first catch you off guard. It features a young German woman singing a song to Dax’s men in a small club (the woman is Christiane Harlan who later married Kubrick). Within this scene is a subtle shift in mood that works perfectly as a conclusion to this story. It’s a satisfying fit with Kubrick’s fluid and economic storytelling and it ends this powerful film with a poignant prick of the heart.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

REVIEW: “Le Passé” (“The Past”)

by

16

PAST poster

Asghar Farhadi is without question one of my favorite working filmmakers. Watching a Farhadi film is unique. He doesn’t make movies intended as escapes. He offers intense examinations filled with truth and reality. Farhadi possesses a sensibility towards the human experience that you rarely sense from other filmmakers. He features a bold and unbridled approach to storytelling that focuses on complex relationships and deep personal narratives.

While his brilliant 2009 picture “About Elly” opened in the United States last year, technically Farhadi hasn’t made a film since 2013’s “The Past”. Like his previous work, “The Past” is a dialogue-rich, plot-driven film focused on the secrets and inner turmoil of its connected characters. The film marked Farhadi’s first cinematic venture outside of Iran. The French language film was shot in Paris but it intentionally strips away any glamorous or romantic view of the city. It is said Farhadi directed through an interpreter since he didn’t speak French. It’s also said that he lived in Paris for two years prior to filming in order to get a better gauge of the French life and the flow of the language.

PAST1

The story begins with an Iranian man Ahmad (Ali Mosaffa) arriving in Paris after a four-year absence to finalize the divorce with his wife Marie (Bérénice Bejo). Marie has two daughters from a prior marriage including the embittered Lucie (Pauline Burlet). Marie and Lucie have a strained relationship mainly due to Marie’s live-in boyfriend Samir (Tahar Rahim). Samir struggles to balance running a cleaning business with raising his discouraged pre-teen son (played with stinging authenticity by young Elyes Aguis). Even more, Samir’s legal wife has been in a coma for eight months following a failed suicide attempt.

Each of these interconnected characters are effected in different ways by ‘the past’. Each are damaged either by their own poor choices or, in the case of the young children, the choices of others. Each are also carrying their own burdensome secrets which Farhadi reveals in small and strategic doses. This great approach allows for the characters to slowing unfold for us over time. And in doing so, the script (written by Farhadi) causes our sympathies to change as we get more information.

Farhadi’s labyrinthine story gives us a lot to navigate and process. It is rich with heavy dialogue and plot that is constantly building upon itself. It takes no ‘feel good’ shortcuts. The piercing reality of its topics and themes leaves an ever-growing cloud of depression and sadness over the characters. But every ounce of it feels earned and natural. Farhadi has a knack for drawing us in and wrapping us up in his characters, their situations, and their moral complexities.

PAST2

“The Past” features several other Farhadi signatures. His use of reaction and expression sometimes tell as much as his dialogue. Also there may be no director as adept and effective at shooting in tight, confined spaces. Farhadi forces his characters together and places us among them. He forces them to deal with each other on a close personal and emotional level. It offers up a unique intimacy but also a boiling intensity. So many scenes in the film employ this technique but not without a point or reason.

As with his other films, Farhadi allows “The Past” to show a social conscience that speaks to greater ills in modern society. At the same time this is a very ground-level story between several damaged yet culpable characters and the young innocent casualties caught in the crossfire. In the beginning everyone is a mystery. Over time we learn alarming secrets. We witness emotionally toxic exchanges. We see one bad decision after another. All of it is linked to the brutal consequences of the past. This is the where the film takes us, and it pulls no punches and gives us no passes. I appreciate that.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Phoenix”

by

20

 

PHOENIX poster

It seems that any movie that deals with the Holocaust, either directly or indirectly, automatically assumes a special level of scrutiny. Undoubtedly the solemnity of the subject matter comes into play. There is also a caution towards anything that may be deemed exploitative or irreverent. I respect that although I do think the defensive stance can sometimes be a bit too harsh in judging a creative vision. That being said, I like that filmmakers are still exploring the Holocaust in unique ways.

Christian Petzold does just that. He directs and co-writes “Phoenix”, a simmering drama set in post-World War 2 Germany. Petzold favorite Nina Hoss plays a Holocaust survivor named Nelly who sustains a gunshot wound to her face while at Auschwitz. Once the concentration camp is liberated Nelly is cared for by her friend Lene (played with a calculated quietness by Nina Kunzendorf). Lene arranges for Nelly to have reconstructive surgery in hopes that she will look exactly as she did before. Unfortunately the trauma is too extensive and the surgeon can’t quite recreate her past appearance.

Phoenix1

The two return to Berlin where Lene finds them an apartment. Lene tells Nelly that she is due a substantial inheritance and recommends using it to go to Palestine where as Jews they can feel safe. But all Nelly can think about is her husband Johnny (cryptically played by Ronald Zehrfeld). Against Lene’s wishes, Nelly seeks out Johnny who is working at a night club called Phoenix. What follows is a twisty, melancholic story that plays with the ideas of identity, betrayal, loss, and discovery.

One of my favorite things about “Phoenix” is the ever-present cloud of uncertainty and mystery. I wouldn’t call this a thriller, yet it has this potent, understated suspense that exudes an almost Hitchcockian vibe. We even get this from the characters particularly Johnny. The film lures us in to make judgements about him only to later cast doubt on our perceptions.

PHOENIX2

And then there are the performances, a collection of some of the year’s best. Hoss’ tempered, haunting portrait conveys a woman who is a shell of her former self but who desperately grasps to reclaim her former life. Hoss visualizes her mental trauma without an ounce of flashiness or mendacity. Kunzendorf is equally good in her handling of a character hurt and hardened by the atrocities and frustrated by the quick willingness to forgive. And then there is Zehrfeld who flawlessly works with the material to give us a character so fully hard to read.

These three performances keep the story moving at a hypnotizing slow boil right up to what is the most subtly devastating final scene of the year. The story sometimes pushes the bounds of implausibility yet it is never a problem within the film’s parable-like framework. “Phoenix” deals with the aftereffects of the Holocaust without digging too deeply into the particulars. Instead it stays focused on Nelly, a character every single one of us will have no trouble sympathizing with.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

2015 Blind Spot Series: “The Pride of the Yankees”

by

15

YANKS poster

The are some actors who are forever connected to their movie characters and you can’t fathom anyone else in the role. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone. Jon Heder as Napoleon Dynamite? For me Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig in “The Pride of the Yankees” is another prime example. Cooper has that all-American quality that seemed to be present in Lou Gehrig. It also didn’t hurt that Cooper was a fantastic actor with the exact personality the role required.

“The Pride of the Yankees” is unique within its genre. It’s not your prototypical biopic. It’s more of a memorial to the beloved and respected star player from the New York Yankees. The film was released in 1942, only one year after Lou Gehrig died of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (what is now commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease). He was only 37 years old. Naturally his death was fresh on the minds of audiences and there were reservations about the film. Producer Samuel Goldwyn had the now famous opinion that baseball movies were “box office poison”, but he was convinced to go along with it and the end results were respectful and satisfying.

YANKS1

The film doesn’t spend much time following the baseball aspect of his life. Instead the intent is to show his relationships with his wife, his parents, and his teammates. It puts the spotlight on his rectitude and character, on his rise from an unassuming and earnest New York City boy to an unassuming and earnest Major League Baseball player. Screenwriters Jo Swerling and Herman Mankiewicz and director Sam Wood clearly understand Gehrig’s popularity and beloved status. Instead of trying to exploit or manipulate that, their movie aims to build upon the public’s respect by opening up Gehrig’s life which in turn validates his veneration.

The film spends a little time with Lou Gehrig as a young boy before moving to his days at Columbia University. Gehrig (Cooper) has already shown the knack he has for playing baseball, but it conflicts with the plans of his muleheaded but well-intended mother (Elsa Janssen) who wants him to be an engineer. Lou pursues baseball behind her back with the help of his more objective father (Ludwig Stossel) and soon finds himself in the New York Yankees minor-league system. It doesn’t take long for the shy and nervous Lou Gehrig to make it to the big leagues.

Lou is like a child among his heroes. Actual Yankee players Babe Ruth, Bill Dickey, Bob Meusel, and Mark Koenig play themselves which had to be a ton of fun. At first Lou is treated with the normal rookie disregard, but before long his talents on the diamond earns him the respect of his teammates. He quickly becomes one of their best players and a fan favorite. It’s at a game in Chicago where he meets a woman named Eleanor (Teresa Wright). Their playful relationship soon blossoms into a full blown romance and soon they are married. It’s easy to believe and invest in them which makes it tougher once the news of Lou’s illness comes and it makes the ending absolutely perfect.

YANKS2

The movie spends a lot of its time developing the relationship between Lou and Eleanor. From the awkward but charming dates to their lives as a loving and devoted married couple. At first the two couldn’t be more opposite, but over time the film reveals the confident and spirited Eleanor and the shy and reserved Lou to be “companions for life”. Cooper is such a perfect fit sporting a tall athletic build with that signature common man personality. Surprisingly he knew nothing about baseball and had to learn the game for the role. He even learned how to bat left-handed – not an easy task. And the more I watch Teresa Wright the more I think she is one of the true greats. She received an Oscar nomination for this performance. She was also nominated that very same year for “Mrs. Miniver” and won. Several other supporting performances really work including the previously mentioned Babe Ruth as himself and Walter Brennan as a sportswriter and close friend to Gehrig.

It would be easy for a cynical moviegoer of today to dismiss the emotional pull of “The Pride of the Yankees” especially after being nurtured by modern biopic formulas. It would be easy to dismiss it as overwrought melodrama or cheesy sentimentality. But this is a movie that should be looked at through a unique lens. Its sensibility and relevance to the audiences of 1942 cannot be understated and that is an impact the filmmakers were specifically targeting. While I certainly wasn’t around during the time it was released, I’m still easily able to make that connection. That’s just one reason “The Pride of the Yankees” works so incredibly well.

VERDICT – 4.5 GAMES

4.5 STARS