Tag Archives: richard jenkins

REVIEW: “The Shape of Water”

by

39

SHAPE poster

No one can deny Guillermo del Toro’s willingness to utilize every trick in the cinematic playbook to create a magnificent visual experience. He has built worlds through several genres including dark fantasy, gothic horror, superhero, and even creature features. Yet despite his keen eye, vivid imagination, and a consistent backing from critics, “Pan’s Labyrinth” is his only film I would call truly great.

His latest movie “The Shape of Water” has generated a ton of awards buzz and is even being compared by some passionate del Toro fans to 2006’s “Pan’s Labyrinth”. Regardless of some things it does well, “The Shape of Water” is no “Pan’s”. But enough with counterproductive comparisons. The point is “The Shape of Water” has a big following and a ton of momentum heading into Oscar season.

SHAPE3

“The Shape of Water” could be called many things – an offbeat fairytale, a political fable, an unconventional love story, an allegory for del Toro’s view of the world today. All of those descriptions fit to some degree or another, and del Toro plays with them with varying levels of success.

Del Toro’s story, with its pulsating Cold War vibe, takes place in 1962 Baltimore. The wondrously expressive Sally Hawkins plays Elisa, mute since birth, who lives in an apartment above an old movie house. She and her next door neighbor Giles (Richard Jenkins) spend their time together watching old musicals and sharing their struggles. Both fit into one of del Toro’s more obvious themes – the plight of the marginalized.

Elisa works the night shift as a janitor at a secret government facility along with her close friend Zelda (a very good Octavia Spencer) who also fits within the marginalized theme. The facility has just acquired an “asset” pulled from a South American river – a tall, gilled amphibian-man accompanied by Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon). He is there to oversee the study of the creature and he’s clearly the film’s chief antagonist. Shannon is great and it’s a role he could probably do in his sleep. And as you would expect he is completely committed.

SHAPE2

But while undeniably menacing, Shannon (of no fault of his own) is also terribly on the nose. Much of del Toro’s more cynical point of view is encapsulated in Shannon’s character. He’s written to fit the mean old-fashioned Red State stereotype and through him del Toro gets to comment on religion, race and a host of other topics. But there is no subtlety whatsoever. You can practically hear del Toro beating his pulpit through much of Shannon’s dialogue.

Elisa’s curiosity and empathy help her to form a bond with the creature (yet another among the marginalized). She sneaks in the labratory and shares her lunch with the creature and plays it music on a portable record player. How is she able to have so much unguarded access to what is called “the most sensitive asset to ever be housed in the facility” and something we find out the Russians are after? There’s not a good answer to that, but they form a bond nonetheless. And after Elisa overhears talk of dissection, she knows she needs to bust the creature out.

As you watch you can’t help but see allusions to “The Creature From the Black Lagoon”, “King Kong” and even “Beauty and the Beast”. But del Toro pushes his creature fantasy further than any of those pictures. For some the film is genuinely romantic but I never had that sensation. The pacing doesn’t give the relationship time to germinate. And there are other things that get in the way – del Toro’s weird use of sexuality; a brief but bizarre dance number (I’ll leave it at that); and one scene which some have called the most beautiful moment in the film yet I couldn’t get over the sheer absurdity of how it played out. For me all of this underserved the romance the movie is trying to establish.

SHAPE1

While it has it’s narrative imperfections you can’t help but love the world del Toro visualizes. Inside the laboratory has a cold, harsh, metallic look. But outside the film takes on a gorgeous glow. Many images stand out for their beauty. It may be a bead of water dancing down a bus window or a brief camera pan across a movie house marquee right after a rain. The creature itself (played by long-time del Toro collaborator Doug Jones) is a fantastic creation made from traditional effects over CGI. Then you have Alexandre Desplat’s lovely, waltzy, heart-warming score which may be the best of the year. And of course the performances which are top-to-bottom fabulous.

It’s tough to know where to land on “The Shape of Water”. On one side you have a world so beautifully visualized, an enchanting classic movie vibe, top-notch performances, and a score that swept me away. On the other hand you have some glaring storytelling issues – an underserved romance, heavy-handed messaging that spells out instead of engaging, peculiar injections of nudity and graphic violence (sorry kids), and key scenes undercut by their goofiness. Yes, I know this is a fantasy picture and maybe I should be more imaginative, but when I’m thinking about these things as the movie plays – that’s a bummer. But did I mention how pretty the world is?

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

2-5-stars

REVIEW: “Bone Tomahawk”

by

27

BONE POSTER

Some movies are beyond categorizing. They simply can’t be kept within the bounds of a single genre. It is a tricky thing to do well and I have always enjoyed it when a movie pulls it off. The bizarrely titled “Bone Tomahawk” may be this year’s biggest example of that. This unique genre-jumping concoction could best be described as an action, horror, comedy, western, thriller. To fail to emphasize any of those components would be to fail in accurately describing this wild movie.

Is 2015 the year of the subversive western? Earlier this year we had “Slow West” and “The Salvation”, two well made films that dared to do unique and different things in the western sandbox. “Bone Tomahawk” blows the sandbox to smithereens. Writer and director S. Craig Zahler (perhaps better known for his novels and heavy metal music) makes an impressive directorial debut as he juggles genre and tone to give us a film we can never quite figure out. Every time I felt I had figured out what it was, “Bone Tomahawk” would pull the rug out from under me.

BONE1

While fleeing a posse, two murderous and thieving scoundrels (amusingly played by David Arquette and Sid Haig) stumble across a mysterious burial ground. Only Arquette’s character survives and he flees to the small town of Bright Hope. Unbeknownst to him, savages from a clan of hill-dwelling cannibals follow him to the town. They butcher a stable boy and kidnap three people. Among those taken is Samantha O’Dwyer (Lili Simmons) wife of Arthur O’Dwyer (Patrick Wilson).

Kurt Russell ventures back into the wild west playing Sheriff Hunt. He and his insistent and loyal deputy Chicory (played with humorous precision by Richard Jenkins) prepare a rescue. Arthur joins their venture as does John Brooder (Matthew Fox), the town’s dapper dandy with his own violent baggage. This ragtag posse of sorts begin the three day trek to find their people unaware of the horrors that may lie ahead.

Zahler’s vision for his film is fed to us in small parts. In one moment it will feel like a traditional western. In another moment it is a suspenseful thriller. Then a subtle yet hysterical bit of dry or dark humor makes it seem like something else altogether. Also the film will occasionally hit you with a scene of gruesome horror, something akin to a B-movie cult film. Fortunately all of these work within the bounds of Zahler’s vision.

BONE2

The film also surprises with its patient, slow-burning storytelling. The intensity ratchets up in the final act, but prior to that there is a surprising amount of quality character development. For Zahler his characters are clearly a main focus and he smartly anchors them with a small but impressive cast. Kurt Russell is effortlessly superb and obviously comfortable with this type of role. Richard Jenkins is an absolute treat – a pleasant mix of humor and humanity. The underappreciated Patrick Wilson is very good in what is in many ways the main character. And Matthew Fox really impresses. At first he looks a bit too stiff for his character, but over time as layers are peeled back, Fox shows a noteworthy range. He is a lot of fun.

I’m not sure how big of an audience there is for a movie like “Bone Tomahawk”. In no ways does it bow to convention or crowd pleasing. It is far from formulaic. It certainly doesn’t follow any familiar blueprint. It does meander a bit in the middle which does make it a tad longer than it needs to be, but it still manages to be something absorbing and strikingly unique. Just go into it expecting the unexpected because that is exactly what you are going to get.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

4 Stars

“Jack Reacher” – 3 STARS

by

20

Jack Reacher

You wouldn’t know it by looking at his string of recent films, but Tom cruise is still a bona-fide movie star. His newest effort is “Jack Reacher”, a crime thriller that’s based on the popular series of novels by Lee Child. Released in the shadow of the box office juggernaut “The Hobbit”, “Jack Reacher” has received little fanfare. That’s a shame because compared to much of the stuff that passed for movies this year, this is a good, solid film and a perfect vehicle for Tom Cruise. It’s a sleek and snappy movie that features a bit of everything even though it doesn’t go far enough to really state its own identity. It’s also sure to leave you scratching your head at some of the things you’re seeing. Nevertheless, I had fun with this picture.

On the surface “Jack Reacher” resembles something pulled right out of the late 1980s. Reacher is a hard-as-nails, ex-military type turned drifter and ghost. He has the deductive skills of Sherlock Holmes and the butt kicking ability of Jason Bourne. I’ve never read any of the books so I’m uncertain of who Jack Reacher is beyond that. The movie never clearly says. Instead it plays up the character shrouded in mystery. Is he a vigilante? Is he a hired gun? Is he an off the grid cop? Well, maybe a little bit of “yes” to all. Cruise does a nice job handling the character. One of the biggest concerns about this movie with some folks was his height. Fans of the books quickly noted that Cruise’s build doesn’t match with the picture that Child creates in the series. I can’t speak to that, but I had no problems with what Cruise was doing on screen.

REACHER1

“Jack Reacher” isn’t a title-to-credit, nonstop, action movie. That may be one reason why Cruise worked out so well. Most of the film centers around the investigation of a brutal mass sniper shooting of five random people at a Pittsburgh promenade during broad daylight. While not graphic, the opening sequence depicting the shooting was incredibly intense and even more sobering in light of current events. It’s brilliantly shot and sets the table well. Reacher pops up and enters the investigation due to a past connection with the chief suspect. He works alongside an idealistic defense attorney (Rosamund Pike) who agrees to take the case against the better judgment of her district attorney father (Richard Jenkins). As with any decent movie mystery there are several twists and turns that keep this from being the clear-cut, open and shut case that it first appears to be.

The story moves at a snappy pace and never bogs down even though it may not have needed all of its 2 hour plus running time. As mentioned above, it never develops its own real identity. At one point it feels like a crime drama with elements taken from the 1940s. But at other times it seems to want to be an action picture, a revenge movie, or even a comedy. Luckily none of these changes in tone and direction jars the movie too far off course. It kept me interested and involved even when things begin to get a little preposterous.

Christopher McQuarrie, who worked with Cruise on “Valkyrie”, wrote the screenplay and directed the film. He’s a very capable writer as evidenced by his work on “The Usual Suspects”. But even though I was never bored with his script or his pacing, there were a few things that seemed surprisingly off, specifically the characters played by the great filmmaker Werner Herzog and Robert DuVall. Herzog plays a shadowy Russian mobster who is more of a cartoon character than a real menace. Both he and his intentions and motivations feel terribly underwritten. DuVall is a lot of fun when we first see him as a blustery gun range owner. But he turns into Reacher’s gun-toting sidekick during the big bullet-ridden action finale, a move that felt about as conventional as you’ll find.

REACHER2

There are also several instances of cheesy dialogue that Cruise actually handles well. Whether some of them were intentionally or unintentionally cheesy I can’t answer, but it reminded me of many of the movies I grew up watching. These few scenes left one critic saying that “Jack Reacher” belongs in a bygone era of movies. I disagree. For me, the cheese worked. I also have to praise the slick and stylish action sequences. Caleb Deschanel’s camera work is often times stunning. In fact, he stages and shoots one of the best car chase sequences I have seen in a long, long time. The movie is worth seeing just for this amazing chase.

In the end, “Jack Reacher” is a tough movie to review. It’s an engaging and entertaining movie but a slightly flawed one. It’s also a film destined to be lost in the crowd of December movies and awards season entries. I liked this picture and I liked Cruise’s performance. But the movie doesn’t end up being the one it starts as. The intense opening sequence sets the movie up as a serious and gritty crime thriller. It evolves into sheer Hollywood escapism. That certainly doesn’t kill the movie, but I would be interested to see how the other “Jack Reacher” would have played out. Still, I have to commend the movie for engaging me and giving me a good time at the theater. I would have no problem seeing this again, but I still can’t help but feel that it wasted some of its potential.