REVIEW: “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

ROMAN POSTER

Some actors work on a higher and entirely different plane than others. I’m convinced Denzel Washington is one of those actors. Over the years Washington has shown himself to be in tune with his craft. So much so that even when the material he works with may not be the strongest, he has a way of making it better. Take his new film “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”, a legal drama that could have collapsed at several points yet you have Washington, injecting every scene with life.

That’s not to take away from writer/director Dan Gilroy. He wrote the part specifically for Washington and he’s well aware that his star is the linchpin. Similar to Gilroy’s first turn as directing, 2014’s “Nightcrawler”, this is an engaging character study and morality play revolving around an intriguing central character. It’s a great fit for Washington who enjoys digging deep into his roles. For Roman he gets to go full throttle.

ROMAN1

For 36 years Roman J. Israel has worked as the behind-the-scenes brains of a small, two-man Los Angeles firm. He’s an earnest go-getter with a photographic memory and an impressive history of civil rights defense. He’s also a bit of a wild card which has kept him in the office instead of the courtroom.

Washington pulls everything out of this fascinating, off-kilter character and then adds some flavor of his own. His Roman is rich with personality and is always operating within his own world. His eccentricities are evident from his lumbering stroll, unfashionable wardrobe, retro headphones, or his strong affection for peanut butter sandwiches. But it’s when Washington and Gilroy give him a voice that his peculiarities shine.

When his boss (who is also the face of the firm) suffers a heart attack, Roman is ready to take the helm, but he is blindsided when secrets begin to surface regarding his boss’ practices. Even worse, Roman learns the firm has been left in the hands of an ambitious hot-shot attorney George Pierce (Colin Farrell). With no plans to keep the practice running, George offers Roman a job at his big downtown firm out of pity. Strapped for cash Roman accepts, but in doing so is put face-to-face with the very things he has crusaded against.

ROMAN2

Gilroy’s story puts Roman through some pretty tough situations which compound his frustrations. Does he stay true to his convictions or does he give in to the hand he has been dealt? Carmen Ejogo plays a civil rights activist who is intrigued and inspired by Roman. In many ways she plays his conscience – a representation of the ideals he has held close. Both she and Farrell offer up some good supporting work.

Let us be enraged by injustice but not destroyed by it.” It’s a Bayard Rustin quote framed on the wall of Roman’s meager apartment. We revisit it a couple of times, each with a more stinging relevance than the last. It gets at the core of Roman J. Israel, a man of dignity but idealistic to a fault. Gilroy and Washington deftly open up this character’s quirks and complexities, and even when the narrative begins to wander Roman is still the focus. That alone was more than enough to keep me glued to the screen.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4-stars

REVIEW: “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”

rogueoneposter

When Disney bought the Star Wars franchise I don’t think anyone expected it to be three movies and done. You don’t exactly spend $4.06 billion just to make three films. Of course Disney being Disney means that Star Wars has become an annual cinematic event featuring new installments/episodes of the main story mixed with one-shot movies meant to fill in some of the gaps between previous films. The first of these one-shots is “Rogue One”.

These stand-alone ‘Star Wars stories’ will apparently be aplenty. Already rumors of a young Han Solo adventure and a Boba Fett origin story are swirling. “Rogue One” notches in just ahead of Episode 4 on the Star Wars timeline. It tells the story of how the original Death Star plans were stolen from the Empire. You know, the ones Princess Leia hid inside of R2-D2 just before being captured by Darth Vader. Just from that you can probably tell fan service is at a premium, but “Rogue One” packs plenty more to give it its own identity and a firm standing among the Star Wars films.

rogueone2

“Rogue One” introduces a new band of characters living within this vivid established world Star Wars fans know well. A strong and heady Felicity Jones plays Jyn Erso, a young woman with a history marked with distress, most notably the separation from her parents as a young child by the hand of Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn). He’s the Empire’s weapons research director who’s tasked with creating a planet-killing superweapon. Years back Krannic forced Jyn’s father Galen (Mads Mikkelsen), a weapons designer, to help complete what would become the Death Star essentially leaving Jyn to be raised in hiding.

Jump ahead 15 years. Jyn is rescued from an Imperial prison by Cassian (Diego Luna), an officer in the fledgling rebellion. Aware of her identity, the rebels have a very specific yet complicated purpose for Jyn which leads her from being a pawn to a potential hero. But to make that journey she will need the help of a good cast of characters – Donnie Yen as the blind mystic Chirrut along with his sidekick/protector Baze (Jiang Wen), an Empire defector named Rook (Riz Ahmed), and the deadpan, scene-stealing droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk).

rogueone1

Gareth Edwards directs and follows up his 2014 reboot of “Godzilla”. In that film Edwards’ deliberate and slow-revealing tempo invigorated some audiences (like me) while frustrating others. There is a bit of that approach here, but for the most part this is an energetic, steady moving picture. Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy’s screenplay at first feels like a very different Star Wars movie yet over time its place in this beloved far, far away galaxy is much more cemented. By the end “Rogue One” not only feels like a Star Wars film, it holds its own within the franchise.

Now I’ve already heard the frustrations of some who desperately wanted this film to be something boldly unique. Complaints that Edwards and company play it safe have merit but there is a reason they do so. “Rogue One” is unshakably tied to Episode 4 and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that this film stays within that same style and framework. It’s a wise creative decision which actually helps the film effectively meld into the Star Wars macrocosm. With so many other Anthology films coming, there will still be plenty of opportunities for risk-taking. I don’t think this is it.

rogueone3

“Rogue One” looks amazing, the effects are stunning, the action is energetic, the nostalgia is delightful, there’s the right amount of humor, and it tells a good story. But what surprised me the most was how much I liked its characters. They’re fun and compelling with each having a good franchise footing. Each are easy to root for (or against) particularly as they navigate the film’s themes of loss, sacrifice, heroism, and war. Jones, Mikkelsen, Luna, Mendelsohn, Yen, and Tudyk – great performances and that’s not including the handful of familiar faces we meet along the way.

The original 1977 film alluded to the mission to steal the Death Star plans and the brave rebels who carried it out. The danger was intense and the cost was high. “Rogue One” tells that story with spirit and at times grit. I had confidence this could be good but with a degree of caution. I’m so pleased that my caution proved unwarranted and “Rogue One” turned out to be an absolute treat. Time will tell whether Disney’s Star Wars saturation wears thin, but as for now one thing is for sure – “Rogue One” is a sound reminder that the franchise is in very good hands.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

2016 Blindspot Series: “Rio Bravo”

RIOPOSTER

The great Howard Hawks set out to direct “Rio Bravo” after a four year hiatus. Following the box office failure of his 1955 film “Land of the Pharaohs”, Hawks left Hollywood feeling he had lost his touch. But despite his uncertainties, his return to filmmaking resulted in one of the most entertaining and influential Westerns ever made.

The film was originally titled “Bull By the Tail” and was made as a rebuttal to 1952’s “High Noon”. Reasons for John Wayne’s dislike of “High Noon” were well known, but Hawks spoke specifically against the film’s cowering weak-kneed sheriff begging his reluctant townsfolk for help. Hawks and Wayne set out to make a film featuring a similar danger, but with a hero unafraid and willing to fulfill his public duty no matter what the threat.

RIO1

“Rio Bravo” also marks an interesting turn in John Wayne’s career. It could be called the second stage of his career in Westerns. In the film you see him poking fun at the public image he had developed over the years. We see him as older, a little slower, not quite as fit, but ever the strong, stoic figure of his past films. Hawks utilized Wayne’s stardom but wasn’t afraid to shake it up a bit.

The story has Wayne playing John T. Chance, sheriff of Rio Bravo, Texas. Chance arrests Joe Burdette (Claude Akins) for murder and puts him in jail until the U.S. Marshall can arrive six days later. Joe’s brother, a wealthy cattle rancher named Nathan (John Russell), surrounds the town with his thugs waiting for his opportunity to bust Joe out of jail before the marshals arrive. At Chance’s side is Dude (Dean Martin), an alcoholic struggling with sobriety and Stumpy (Walter Brennan) a crippled elderly jailer.

BRAVO2

You also have Ricky Nelson in a fun bit of casting. He plays a young gunslinger named Colorado who comes into town but is reluctant to get involved in the sheriff’s problems. A well known star from his work in television and music, Nelson may have been the biggest global star in the film.

Angie Dickinson (in what would be her breakout role) plays a traveling gambler named Feathers. Despite an obvious age difference,  she and Wayne share a playfully combative onscreen relationship. Dickinson’s character fit the description of a ‘Hawksian Woman’. They often bucked the normal gender roles by presenting tough women who could easily hold their own with their male counterpart whether in character or in the performance. Dickinson more than holds her own.

The script was handled by Leigh Brackett and Jules Furthman. Both had previously collaborated with Hawks on his film noir classic “The Big Sleep” (later Brackett would co-write “The Empire Strikes Back”). Their story seamlessly moves through its 140 minute running time, never wasting a scene or bogging down. The story’s premise is naturally intense and several films would pull inspiration from it including Hawks’ own “El Dorado” from 1966, 1970’s “Rio Lobo”, and even John Carpenter’s police thriller “Assault on Precinct 13”.

RIO3

It also looks fantastic. The film rarely steps outside of its small western town setting and that serves as a strength. It allows the camera to focus more on the characters while giving much of the town an identity. Hawks’ camera is also instrumental in building up the tension in a number of different character interactions. Frame after frame features the director skillfully serving his story in one visual form or another.

Howard Hawks was one of the most versatile filmmakers of his craft. He made quality films in nearly every genre, from screwball comedies to gangster pictures. “Rio Bravo” marked a significant return for him as well as giving us a transforming performance from John Wayne. But the glue of the film may be the supporting performances. There is no way “Rio Bravo” would be as good if not for Dean Martin, Ricky Nelson, and Angie Dickinson. When you put all of these pieces together and view it as a whole it’s easy to see why “Rio Bravo” is considered a classic.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

K&M RETRO REVIEW: “Rambo III”

rambo

“Rambo III” holds a very distinguished position within my movie history. It has the honor of being the first R-rated movie I watched in the theater. It was 1988 and I was 16 years-old. My uncle was down for the weekend and offered to take me to a movie. This was a big deal because there was no theater in my small town and going to the movies was a real treat. Being a huge fan of 80s action movie icons Schwarzenegger and Stallone, naturally I went with “Rambo III” when asked to choose. To my surprise my uncle agreed and the rest is meaningless movie history.

For me the Rambo franchise ended after “Rambo III”. Sylvester Stallone attempted to bring it back in 2008 with the profoundly mediocre and generically titled “Rambo”, but it lacked the feel and (yes I’m going to say it) the charm of the original three flicks. For me “Rambo III” is a satisfying  way to finish a testosterone-fueled, biceps-flexing, action-packed exercise that fits nicely into the over-the-top 80s action catalog.

RAMBO2

The Rambo series will never find its way onto drama school curriculums, but by this time Stallone was pretty in tune with what his character needed. The screenplay (co-written by Stallone) gives us a more grounded John Rambo (aside from the one-man-army awesomeness of course) and Stallone isn’t asked to stretch beyond the bounds of his acting abilities. For example, gone are the schmaltzy end of the movie theatrics he gives us in the first two films. Well meaning but laughably bad scenes and slightly worse acting.

But that doesn’t mean the film is free of cheese. We get plenty of it especially from Richard Crenna who delivers several lines dripping with Velvetta. My personal favorite: (speaking about Rambo) “God would have mercy. He won’t”. This goes hand-in-hand with the film’s attempt to inject a touch of humor. It tries not to take itself too seriously as evident by Rambo’s numerous jokey one-liners, some that work, some not so much.

The film starts by giving us a disillusioned Rambo who has finally found a degree of peace working at a Buddhist monastery in Thailand. His mentor and one true friend Colonel Traitman (Crenna) finds him and tries to recruit Rambo to join him on a special mission. Rooted in the politics of 1988, the mission is to deliver supplies to rebels fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Rambo declines, Trautman goes anyway and ends up captured by a brutal Soviet officer named Zaysen (Marc de Jonge). Rambo gets word and sets out on a solo mission against all odds to rescue his friend.

RAMBO22

This bromance takes Rambo to the toughest terrain he has faced. Filmed mostly in Israel and a bit in Arizona, the locations offer themselves up to a believable setting and some great action sequences. This also may be Stallone’s most physically demanding performance of the series. Sly runs, jumps, climbs, fights, and unleashes an insane amount of carnage. In several ways he tries to outdo the second film – bigger stunts and bigger action. For me it absolutely works.

“Rambo III” was hammered hard by critics but still made good money at the box office. I can see some of the criticisms now better than before. It is loud, violent, and mindless. Also the film doesn’t have an ounce of strategy or subtlety with its political messaging. Perhaps it’s the jaws of nostalgia tightly clamped on my perspective, but I still have a ton of fun with this film. It’s lighter, the action is energetic, and the cheese adds to the experience. I was the target audience back in 1988 and I had a blast with “Rambo III”. Maybe the ability to still look at it through that lens enables me to appreciate it for exactly what it is.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

REVIEW : “The Revenant”

REVENANT POSTER

The last two years have been pretty kind to Alejandro González Iñárritu. 2014 saw the release of “Birdman”, his showy, indulgent black comedy/drama that caught fire during awards season eventually earning him Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay. Now we get 2015’s “The Revenant”, a dark frontier western that once again finds Iñárritu at the heart of the Oscar conversation.

Iñárritu’s films require a unique taste. They often wallow in pessimism, anguish, and despair. He often gives us miserable characters with little to no emotional complexities. And to varying degrees, each of his films carry their own pretentious self-awareness. But at the same time Iñárritu deserves to be called a visionary. While it could be said Iñárritu has no sense of modulation and he sometimes milks a technique dry, he does put a ton into his narrative structures and visual presentations.

REV1

“The Revenant” is undeniably Iñárritu. Modulation is as hard to find as mercy and hope across his cold, bloody, and unforgiving landscape. The story overextends itself while the characters and audience are incessantly battered by the director’s almost sadistic infatuation with suffering. Doesn’t sound too good, right? Here’s the catch, it’s actually quite good. None of those things keep “The Revenant” from being an exhilarating experience. In fact, in a bizarre and twisted way many of Iñárritu’s indulgences fit perfectly with this dark and violent story.

The story was inspired by the true experiences of fur trapper Hugh Glass and loosely based on Michael Punke’s “The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge” from 2002. The concept saw several casting and directing changes before Iñárritu landed it in 2011. He worked with Mark L. Smith on the script and Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy were brought on board as the stars. Filming began in 2014 and spanned various locations in the United States, Canada, and Argentina.

At its core the story is fairly simple. The setting is 1823 in the unsettled Northwest. A military sponsored trapping expedition under the command of Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) is attacked by a native tribe. Only ten men manage to escape including trapper and guide Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) and his Pawnee son played by Forrest Goodluck. The situation worsens after Hugh is violently attacked by a grizzly bear. Maimed and helpless, Hugh is buried alive in a shallow grave but not before witnessing the murder of his son by a vile, scurvy fellow trapper played by Tom Hardy.

REV2

The trailers frame the rest of the story as a revenge tale and that’s partially accurate. Eventually Hugh escapes his shallow grave (the word revenant actually refers to the rising of the dead) and sets out to avenge his boy. But the film doesn’t put a heavy stress on that until later. Instead it becomes what I would call a survival procedural as Hugh methodically navigates one harrowing obstacle after another – his broken body, starvation, the freezing cold, hostile natives. The film certainly puts a heavy emphasis on the survival element of his story.

In doing that Iñárritu runs DiCaprio through a torturous gamut of challenging scenes. Leo has said several of the scenes were some of the hardest he has ever done. That’s easy to believe. Iñárritu emphasized authenticity and felt greenscreens  would hurt his vision for the film. That meant Leo trudging through actual deep snow, being swept away in an ice cold river, gnawing on raw fish and buffalo liver. DiCaprio goes all-in and gives an intensely committed performance that relies more on physicality and expression than dialogue. It’s something to behold.

REV3

While on the subject of beholding you can’t speak of “The Revenant” without talking about its stunning presentation. As I mentioned Iñárritu is often obsessed with how his films look, almost to a fault. But here that obsession pays big dividends. The first smart move was bringing in the great Emmanuel Lubezki to shoot the film. Lubezki’s technique is so perfectly calibrated to this frontier world of beauty and violence. The action scenes are ferocious and filmed with a lyrical energy. They are veritable ballets of muskets, hatchets, bows, and blood.

But that is only one aspect of the film’s phenomenal visuals. There is also the way Iñárritu and Lubezki shoot the land. Scene after scene focuses on the astonishing beauty of the territory while also distinguishing it as threatening and untamed. It may be a slow panning shot of sun breaking through a forest’s canopy, a still shot of an ominous but beautiful snow covered mountain, or maybe a tracking shot of an icy, slow moving river. The imagery is stunning. It reminded me of Terrence Malik only colder, harsher, and bleaker. And I’m not sure any camera has ever captured the feeling of cold, wet misery better than here.

REV4

If anyone feels that effect it’s the cast. Moreover if suffering on screen can win you an Oscar Leonardo DiCaprio has it in the bag, and Tom Hardy should at least be in the awards conversation. DiCaprio’s thirst for revenge is painfully earned and Hardy’s cauterized emotions feeds his repugnancy. Both are sturdy anchors for this patient, sweeping frontier epic. Both meld perfectly into Iñárritu’s dark, gloomy, overcast world.

It’s always pretty obvious where “The Revenant” is heading, but it’s that journey from the main story point to the finale that is so captivating. It isn’t an easy film to watch. The images are often shockingly gruesome and Iñárritu’s fascination with sorrow, misery, and loss pummels with one emotional gut-punch after another. But yet there is a seductive allure the kept me glued to every struggle, every conflict, and every encounter. I was overwhelmed by the scenery more times than I can count. But most importantly everything feels rich with meaning and emotion whether it was the ugliness of humanity or the beauty of nature. That’s not an easy thing to convey and Iñárritu deserves a ton of credit for doing it.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Ridiculous 6” (2015)

Adam Sandler is an living, breathing enigma. He started as a young, fairly entertaining comedian on Saturday Night Live who eventually put out a couple of fairly entertaining movies. Since then has put out one painfully awful film after another. A quick gander at his embarrassingly bad filmography should leave you wondering how this guy is still making movies. Here is why he is an enigma – his movies make a lot of money. People go see his stuff and many find it funny. That is a mystery I may never be able to crack.

Sandler’s latest is the western spoof “The Ridiculous 6” and you have to give the guy this – he’s consistent. This has every bit of the stupidity, annoyances, and laziness identified with Sandler’s previous ‘comedies’. The Wild West offers a new setting but Sandler and company do nothing more than stain it with their brand of asininity. I only managed a few grins in this entire dopey and overly long slog.

RID6

Sandler plays Tommy who has been raised by the Apache after the murder of his mother. Tommy is given the name “White Knife” and is set to marry Smoking Fox (Julia Jones). A man named Frank Stockburn (Nick Nolte) arrives at the village claiming to be Tommy’s father. He reveals he is terminally ill and that he has $50,000 buried nearby. He wants Tommy and his village to have the money but before they can dig it up bandits arrive and take Frank away because of an outstanding debt. Tommy can’t find the buried loot so he sets out t0 swipe $50,000 in order to save his father.

Along the way Tommy finds that his father has been….active. He meets five different men claiming that Frank Stockburn is the father they have never met. They each join Tommy in his absurd quest to find enough money to pay off his father’s captives. Of course each have their on goofy quirk. Rob Schneider plays a Mexican with a gassy burro (it’s just as offensive as it sounds). Taylor Lautner is a village idiot with a strong neck. Terry Crews is a piano player who hides that he is black. Jorge Garcia is a hairy mute wildman. Luke Wilson is a guilt-ridden boozer.

Then there is the laundry list of cameos and brief appearances which Sandler movies are known for. Harvey Keitel, Jon Lovitz, Blake Shelton, Steve Buscemi, David Spade, Will Forte, Vanilla Ice, Chris Kattan, and John Turturro to name a few. Occasionally one of these will offer a mildly amusing moment, but most are just wedged in as a recognizable face. Why some of these guys signed on for such dumb roles and lame material is beyond me.

RID62

“The Ridiculous 6” is supposedly a satire of the western genre and all of the formulas and stereotypes they often used. I tend to give movies a lot of leeway and feel some people are often too easily offended. But this film doesn’t have the smarts to sell itself as convincing satire and it’s no wonder some have viewed the characterizations as offensive. When material is this poor it’s hard to accept it as good satire.

Ultimately “The Ridiculous 6” is more of the same from a guy perfectly content with delivering cheap overused gags and the same boring, unfunny formulas. I suppose Sandler is happy cashing the big checks and as long as people still flock to these things I don’t see him challenging himself or changing directions. So we can expect more films like “The Ridiculous 6” – juvenile, aimless, and consistently idiotic wastes of time. Lucky us.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

1.5 stars