Category Archives: Movie Reviews – S

REVIEW: “Spectre”

by

34

SPECTRE POSTER

In a way I owe Daniel Craig a debt of gratitude. His tenure as James Bond is what lured me into the hugely popular franchise. Purists will likely scoff, but Craig’s iteration of the British super spy has featured less cheese and more humanity and vulnerability. An argument could be made that the high-energy cheese is what made those earlier films great. I believe that to a degree. But ultimately it has been Craig’s Bond run than has drawn me and given me an greater appreciation for the franchise as a whole.

This is Craig’s fourth turn as the dapper 007 and his second Bond film with director Sam Mendes. Their previous installment “Skyfall” was a global juggernaut at the box office becoming the 14th film to earn over $1 billion dollars. It was also well received by critics many of whom called it Craig’s best Bond picture. So now comes the next film and the unenviable task of matching the success of its predecessor. To do that the film was given a budget that has made it one of the most expensive movies ever created. But throwing money at a project doesn’t automatically equal good results.

SPECTRE1

“Spectre” starts off firing with Bond in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead. He’s on a deeply personal mission which leads him to a terrorist named Marco Sciarra (Alessandro Cremona). Sciarra is connected to a sinister secret criminal organization called Spectre which is led by the shadowy Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). At the same time M (Ralph Fiennes) is battling to protect MI6 from the aggressive head of the Joint Intelligence Service who wants to do away with the 00 program.

Bond tracks Spectre to Rome, the first leg of his globetrotting search for answers. He discovers that he may have a deeper connection to Ernst and his organization. As 007 hunts to unearth the truth, Spectre is out to stop him at all costs. They go head-to-head in a number of exotic locales including Rome, Morocco, Austria, and London. One of the film’s strong points is how well it captures all of the fun and varied locations.

Spectre2

In fact all of “Spectre” looks good. Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography lives up to the franchise expectations and at times it absolutely shines. The Mexico City opening is exciting and energetic featuring several visual highlights. The same goes for a fun car chase through the streets of Rome and a thrilling plane vs. Land Rover chase down a snowy Austrian mountain. The film definitely has its moments.

Unfortunately “Spectre” also has its flaws and no amount of visual splendor can cover them up. While I liked “Spectre” as a whole, I was expecting more action, more energy, more drama, more character development, and more signature Bond moments. Compared to Craig’s three previous Bond movies “Spectre” feels hollow, inert, and terribly inconsistent. After the phenomenal Mexico City start, the movie is constantly fluctuating between excitement and slow stretches of vapidity.

Spectre3

You simply don’t expect this considering how well these movies have worked in the past. But as I sat in the theater I kept waiting for the film to gain its footing. I kept waiting for it to kick into gear. But there is a frustrating sluggishness to the screenplay – the collaborative work of four different writers. It wastes so much time that could’ve been better spent developing some of the characters namely the story’s villain.

Christoph Waltz is a superb actor but the amount of screen time he is given never allows him to flesh out a compelling villain. His villainy is mainly referred to more than shown and we never see that big Bond vs. Villain moment. The closest we get is an absurd torture scene that features one head scratching moment after another. I was so excited to see him as a Bond villain but this was a tremendous waste. As was Dave Bautista as Spectre’s hitman. He’s a stereotypical henchman who shows as much emotion as a house plant.

Spectre4

Craig gives another good performance but he isn’t offered any material to stretch his character. All of the supporting Bond cast members are here including Q (Ben Whishaw) who gets more screen time than before. He’s a lot of fun. Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) has a few good lines and Fiennes is good when wrangling back and forth for the 00 program’s survival. Unfortunately both feel underused. Lea Seydoux is the main ‘Bond girl’ this time around and her performance is solid. But her character is a bit flimsy and uneven.

That could be the best way to describe “Spectre” – uneven. It’s a film undoubtedly approached with mile-high expectations from many. Perhaps too high. But truthfully expectations aren’t the problem. This is a film that features some fine action sequences. It has a good story at its core and there are moments where it comes together in really interesting ways. But there are also moments where it makes practically no sense and other moments where it sputters and spins its wheels. Still I liked the movie, and I’m anxious to give it another look. But with this cast and this pedigree I can’t help but be disappointed with what we get.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3 Stars

RETRO REVIEW: “St. Elmo’s Fire”

by

25

fire

Rewatching “St. Elmo’s Fire” is like stepping into a time machine. As with so many films from its period, it contains numerous components that are unequivocally and distinctly 80s. “St. Elmo’s Fire” was released right in the heart of the decade, July of 1985, and that seems amusingly fitting. Its cast, its look, its mechanics all function like a movie made within those definable 10 years. In some ways that is a compliment because the 80s were so indelibly marked with a unique cinematic style and playfulness. In other ways it is not a flattering statement because many of these films drown in that style and never feel as imaginative or important as they try to be. They simply don’t stand up well outside the boundaries of their decade. All are true when it comes to “St. Elmo’s Fire”.

The film was directed and co-written by the ever so divisive Joel Schumacher and featured most of the major members of the unfairly branded “Brat Pack”. Along with “The Breakfast Club”, “St. Elmo’s Fire” is considered the centerpiece and measuring stick of the Brat Pack genre. Again, this actually contributes to the cool and nostalgic feel, yet watching this cast, all young and promising at the time, wasn’t without a certain amount of baggage (whether fair or not).

ELMO1

At first it would be easy to dismiss “St. Elmo’s Fire” as a film that does nothing and says nothing. Most of the film plays out like scenes of encounters and conversations pasted together and bound only by a thin semblance of plot. That’s actually pretty accurate. But to say the film says nothing would be inaccurate. Often times its storytelling and messaging is muddled and messy, but there is a deeper meaning that I still find effective.

The story follows seven close college friends who have recently graduated from Georgetown University. The film’s intent is to show us their transition from the comforts and structure of college life to the responsibilities and unpredictabilities of adulthood. Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Demi Moore, Andrew McCarthy, Rob Lowe, and Mare Winningham each play ‘types’ (as they were known to do in many of their films). We get the yuppie, the bad boy, the party girl, a buttoned up nerd, the brooder, etc. It is a bit surprising and frustrating as none of them stray too far from their types.

ELMO2

Still some of the characters carry some weight and their intersecting stories are interesting. Ally Sheedy is the most compelling of the bunch and she has the most interesting and thoughtful story. On the opposite end you have Estevez and his throwaway character. His weird and sudden obsession with a past college crush (played by Andie MacDowell) is silly and disjointed. Most of the other characters fall anywhere in between, but ultimately it is their group dynamic that the film banks on and for the most part it works. The performances are pretty solid and even when the material flounders a bit they are often able to salvage the scene.

“St. Elmo’s Fire” was trampled by many critics who saw it as a huge waste of time. The film doesn’t do itself many favors. It meanders a bit and you can’t help but recognize its feelings of self-importance. It simply isn’t as cool or as smart as it wants to be. But I still think its a good movie and I still think it contains a satisfying message. Perhaps some of my appreciation is rooted in unashamed nostalgia. I’m willing to admit that. Ultimately I think there is too much here to write off, even if it is a little rough around the edges.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3 Stars

REVIEW: “Sicario” (2015)

by

30

I think we have reached a point where we can watch a movie and confidently say “That is a Denis Villeneuve film”. The French-Canadian filmmaker can be defined as someone not afraid to claw deep under the surface of difficult subject matter. He also spares his audience no amount of discomfort or unease when telling his stories. His films are incredibly cinematic and are recognized by both their narrative and visual intensity. Several films have helped reveal his uniquenesses, but his new film “Sicario” is his best yet.

Every one of Villeneuve’s characteristics mentioned above are  present in “Sicario”, a border thriller that stings with relevancy. Emily Blunt is superb playing Kate Macer, an FBI field agent specializing in hostage rescue. The film opens with a gripping sequence featuring Kate leading a raid on an Arizona housing division. Her actions catch the attention of her superiors who then ask her to join a task force led by Department of Defense ‘advisor’ Matt Graver (played with amusing cockiness by Josh Brolin). The mission is to strike back at the drug cartels responsible for a number of brutal killings. Anxious to finally make a significant difference, Kate agrees to join Graver’s team.

SICARIO1

Also on the team is the mysterious and shadowy Alejandro played with unflinching precision by Benicio del Toro. Back in 2000 he won the Supporting Actor Oscar for “Traffic”, but this stellar performance rises above his past work. His Alejandro is impenetrable – a walking contrast of information and emotion. The vast majority of the film is shown through Kate’s perspective. Like her, we struggle to figure out Alejandro, Graver, and the entire mission for that matter. Screenwriter Taylor Sheridan meticulously feeds us small bits of information never allowing us the feeling of being fully informed.

“Sicario” is also strengthened by the sting of its moral ambiguity. There is no easy way to navigate the morality of what we see on screen. Kate struggles with it and Villeneuve forces his audience to struggle with it too. It casts a bright light on the drug war, border violence, and government policy painting each as murkier and far more complex than we normally hear through political talking points. It operates under the idea that we have lost the drug war. Now it’s about control and making sure it doesn’t consume us. But does that mean compromising our moral conscience and turning what we known to be ‘right and wrong’ into a much more gray area? These questions hit Kate like a crashing wave.

And there is no way to talk about this movie without mentioning its phenomenal presentation. Villeneuve has perfectly matched the intensity of his story and subject matter with a visual rendering that is truly absorbing and stimulating. It will come as no surprise that Roger Deakins’ cinematography is magnificent. When will this man finally win the Oscar he deserves? His camerawork is key in making many of these scenes work. There are no vanity or prestige shots. They all have meaning. Deakins visually infuses so many scenes with tension and potency.

Sicario2

There is one particular sequence that may be my favorite of the year. Kate joins Graver’s team in a extradition mission to Juarez. They are to move across the border, pick up a high value target, and make it back. Deakins’ magic takes over the moment they leave the military base. Through his lens, Deakins reveals to us the boiling tension of the location and situation – the same tension that Kate is experiencing for the first time. It is also helped by Jóhann Jóhannsson’s simmering score – one of the year’s best. The entire sequence is cinema at its finest.

“Sicario” is a searing and provocative thriller – visceral and unflinching in its depiction of a situation with no easy answer. Denis Villeneuve and company expertly craft a cinematic experience grounded in relevancy and unwilling to sugar coat its subject matter. Villeneuve, Blunt, del Toro, Deakins, and Jóhannsson all deserve Oscar nominations and the film itself is among the year’s very best.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Salvation”

by

22

Salvation poster

Several years ago Westerns saw a bit of a resurgence. It didn’t come close to matching the genre’s popularity of the 1950s and 1960s, but it was great to see the visions for Westerns from modern perspectives. We still get the occasional Western from time to time which brings me to “The Salvation”, a Danish revenge tale from co-writer and director Kristian Levring. The film tips its hat to several classic Western movie tropes, but at the same time it maintains an evocative and unique edge to it.

One of the film’s strengths is found in its charismatic lead Mads Mikkelsen. He plays Jon, a Danish settler and ex-soldier in 1870’s America. With the help of his brother Peter (Mikael Persbrandt), Jon establishes himself and then sends word for his wife and son to cross the Atlantic and join him at their new home in the American West. But shortly after reuniting with his family, an encounter with two thugs ends with his wife and son being murdered. Jon tracks down and kills the thugs responsible.

Salvation1

But Jon doesn’t realize that one the dead killers is the brother of a ruthless gang leader named Delarue (played with grizzled gusto by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) and the husband of the physically and emotionally scarred Madalaine (Eva Green). Delarue makes it his aim to find and pay back his brother’s killer. This sparks a conflict with the revenge-fueled Jon that (literally) bleeds into a small town held hostage by fear of Delarue. The town’s weak-kneed sheriff (Douglas Henshall) and opportunistic Mayor (Jonathan Pryce) are little help and they leave Jon to fend for himself.

Mikkelsen is the perfect man for his role. Jon is stern and rugged but also reserved and soft-spoken. Mikkelsen has always been able to convey through expression and Levring often relies on that. The story takes its lead character to some pretty grim places, and a quick gander at Mikkelsen’s filmography will show he’s familiar with taking characters to grim places. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the burly, gravelly voiced Morgan who seems to be channeling a nuanced Jack Elam vibe. Morgan’s character chomps up scenes with a playful abhorrence and he’s a nice counterbalance to Mikkelsen’s Jon.

Salvation2

Another strong point is the revolving aesthetic that defines the film’s dry and dusty world. In shooting the movie Levring and cinematographer Jens Schlosser move between classic Western imagery and a type of visual hyperbole. At times the film looks as if it were plucked out of a Sergio Leone picture. Other times things look stylized and experimental. We see it in backgrounds, camera techniques, and color pallets.

One could say “The Salvation” is too generic and cliché, but I don’t think Levring’s approach is that simplistic. The film certainly borrows from or pays homage (depending on how you choose to look at it) to certain Westerns that came before it. Yet the film has a unique feel and an intense visual flair that goes along with its violent self-awareness. Mikkelsen shines, Morgan is a hoot, Eva Green is a boiling mystery. When put together as a whole it is a stylishly focused and concise movie which happily embraces its influences.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

 

REVIEW: “Stalingrad”

by

10

 

Sifting through the various layers of  “Stalingrad” can be difficult. The Russian war drama from director Fedor Bondarchuk is one of the most visually stunning war pictures you will ever see and there are several interesting and compelling narrative choices. At the same time it struggles with a bit of an identity crisis. It can be hard to determine what kind of movie “Stalingrad” wants to be. This and other story concerns have made it tough for some critics to fully embrace the film.

Me, I didn’t struggle with the story Ike some did. Shortcomings become obvious as the film moves along, but I was never pulled out of the story by them. Still I would be interested to see this film as it was originally meant to be. Ilya Tilkin wrote the original script and heavily based his vision on museum archives, personal diaries of those who were there, and other historical documents. Just days before filming was to begin Bondarchuk and screenwriter Sergey Snezhkin made major changes to the story. This could be why the movie feels a bit scattered and unfocused.

stalin1

The film opens in the wake of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami which devastated Japan. A Russian rescue worker attempts to calm trapped survivors by telling them the story of his mother and his five fathers. The story shifts to 1942 and The Battle of Stalingrad which has been referred to as the bloodiest battle in history. It was a turning point in World War II, but at the end of the conflict nearly 2 million Allied soldiers, Axis soldiers, and civilians were dead.

The story sets us down in the early stages of the five month battle where a handful of Russian soldiers seek refuge in a large five story apartment building. The soldiers were part of a bigger Russian force attempting to cross the Volga River but were scattered by a firey German ambush. Based loosely of the famous Pavlov’s House, the film focuses on five soldiers who lead the small force holed up in the building. With limited supplies and weapons they fortify the building to the best of their ability in hopes of holding out until reinforcements arrive.

STALIN2

Adding to the drama is the presence of a 19-year old girl named Katya (Maria Smolnikova) they find holed up in the building. It’s her home and she refused to leave after her family was killed. One of the film’s central storylines involves the five soldiers (or the five fathers from the rescue worker’s story) and the relationship they form with Katya. The leader of the soldiers Captain Gromov (Pyotr Fyodorov) is frustrated with Katya’s stubbornness fearing that his men are no longer fighting for country but for her. It’s a really interesting angle but it’s also one part of the story that contribute to the film’s somewhat murky identity.

We also follow a decorated German officer named Kahn (Thomas Kretschmann) who is tasked with clearing the Russian soldiers out of the building. Kahn has grown frustrated with the war and with his badgering superior Colonel Henze (Heiner Lauterbach). Kahn becomes infatuated with a local Russian woman, much to the chagrin of Henze. Their complicated and uncomfortable relationship plays into the main story but it’s another story angle that contributes to the film’s identity issues.

Stalin3

While the various story threads may not harmoniously fit, it isn’t because any of them are bad. In fact they all offer some compelling drama. And that includes the incredible action sequences. “Stalingrad” has some of the most vividly arresting war sequences you will ever see on film. The visuals are a key component to the film. It’s the first Russian movie shot in IMAX and millions of dollars went into recreating the locations. The mind-blowing detail shows itself in every background, in every setting, and in every shot. And the war violence has an almost operatic quality to it. It’s intense and often brutal but never gratuitous.

“Stalingrad” has received various criticisms. In Russia some critics criticized for its lack of patriotic focus. In other areas critics felt it was too biased in its perspective. I don’t care to get into political criticisms. I look on it as a story that I really latched on to. It is a bit sentimental. It does lean heavily on its special effects. There are moments that feel a bit contrived. Still I found it to be a grand and ambitious production filled with great performances, intensely satisfying visuals, stylish action sequences, and sporadic yet compelling stories. Maybe “Stalingrad” is a flawed movie, but I appreciate any movie that sweeps me away like it did.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

REVIEW: “Slow West” (2015)

by

18

SLOWposter

“Once upon a time, 1870 to be exact, a 16-year old kid travelled from the cold shoulder of Scotland to the baking heart of America to find his love. His name was Jay. Her name was Rose”. This quick bit of narration opens and sets up the fairly simple story of “Slow West”. But while the story sounds pretty basic and familiar, it does several surprising things within its barely 80 minute running time.

“Slow West” is a Western with a European twist from first time writer and director John Maclean. Maclean plays with several of the genre’s well known staples, but he also brings several fresh ingredients to his film. Perhaps these contrasts are best realized in the two main characters. Jay (convincingly played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) is driven by emotion, his love for Rose guiding his compass. He’s a bit of a dreamer, seeing the American West through a naive but unique and spirited lens. He is also out of element and ill equipped for the dangers in the new world. At one point he is referred to as “a jackrabbit in a den of wolves”.

Slow1

Silas (Michael Fassbender) represents our familiar view of the Wild West. He’s a rough and tough bounty hunter who knows how to survive. But he has seen his sensibilities numbed and over time he has grown a bit calloused to the violence and dangers of his world. On a couple of occasions Jay simply refers to Silas as “a brute”. These two come together in a fitting way – with Silas saving Jay from a killer posing as a soldier. Jay then hires Silas for protection until he can find Rose.

The heart of the film is centered around this rather odd relationship. For Jay, Silas brings a reality check and an understanding that the West isn’t a pretty place. But at the same time Jay never loses his hope, optimism and spirit. For Silas, Jay reminds him of what it’s like to feel, to care, and to have emotion. Jay ‘s childlike exuberance clashes with Silas’ tough-as-leather exterior and begins to soften his hardened perspectives. Having this intriguing focus on the relationship gives a unique meaning to the different things they encounter along the way.

West2

Another thing that sets this film apart is its covertly quirky tone. There is something slightly off (and I mean that in a really good way). And even more surprising, there are moments when the film is really funny showing off a daffy, Wes Anderson-esque sense of humor. It can be found in the subtle, dry wit or in some of the absurd situations which oddly feel at home in the film. Maclean weaves these lighter threads in with serious and sometimes violent ones much like we have seen in films from the Coen brothers.

“Slow West” was an absolute treat. A compelling story set within familiar Western boundaries but strikingly original in the paths it takes. The choice to film in New Zealand provides a gorgeous landscape while Fassbender and Smit-McPhee ground the story with solid performances. Even the always fun Ben Mendelsohn pops up later on. Innocence versus reality. Which wins in the end? A true spirit versus a cold callousness. Which is most important to have? “Slow West” plays with these questions and answers them in its own fun, compelling, and thoroughly entertaining way.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

TEST star