Last Flag Flying(11/19/2017)

The “New Hollywood” era of the late 1960s and 1970s was a marvelous moment in filmmaking, the one by which most serious American films today is judged against, and it’s also a great entry point for budding film buffs to get into movies that are more challenging than the mainstream blockbusters we’re often fed today.  That was certainly true for me and filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola did a lot to shape my interest in cinema and the deeper I went the more I was able to see the importance in some of the names that never really went on to be major institutions like Arthur Penn and Bob Rafelson.  However, if there was one fairly major figure from that era whose films I was never quite able to get into it was probably Hal Ashby.  I can see some of the boundaries he broke and I can see his influence but he sure made a lot of “classic” film which I don’t actually particularly enjoy watching.  His cult classic Harold and Maude always just sort of struck me as a redo of what made Mike Nichols’ The Graduate work, Shampoo sort of bored me, and while some of his later 70s work like Coming Home and Being There are neat movies that both have their charms they still aren’t really movies that sing to my soul.  The same sort of goes for his 1973 film The Last Detail, a movie I know I’ve seen but which I don’t particularly remember outside of the general plot setup and a few scenes. I had meant to give that film a re-watch in preparation for my viewing of its new unofficial sequel to that movie from director Richard Linklater, Last Flag Flying, but I didn’t manage to fit that into my schedule but now I wish I had because Linklater’s film has certainly renewed my interest in these characters.

Last Flag Flying is not a direct sequel to Ashby’s The Last Detail, but it is based on a novel by Darryl Ponicsan which was published in 2005 to be a follow-up to his previous novel which was the basis for Ashby’s film.  The character names are different here, possibly for legal reasons (hence “unofficial sequel”) and they’re being played by different actors but it’s very clear that the people here are meant to be echoes of the characters from The Last Detail plus thirty years of aging.  It begins with Larry “Doc” Shepard (Steve Carell) walking into a bar owned by Sal Nealon (Bryan Cranston) and re-introducing himself.  He tells Nealon that he spent two years in the brig after having been escorted by him and his fellow soldier, but that since then he’s settled into civilian life and actually has a military-adjacent job in New Hampshire.  Deciding to catch up Shepard drives Nealon out over to a nearby Baptist church, where Nealon comes to realize that the reverend speaking is none other than Richard Mueller (Laurence Fishburn), the other soldier who escorted him to the brig thirty years prior.  After catching up with Mueller Shepard explains his reasons for re-uniting the three men: his wife had recently died of breast cancer and his son had apparently enlisted in the marines the prior year and was killed in action two days prior in Bagdad.  The three then decide to go with him to Arlington cemetery to oversee the funeral and provide support.

Though the names and actors have changed it isn’t hard to tell what each character’s counterpart from The Last Detail is supposed to be.  Steve Carrell’s Larry “Doc” Shepard despite having matured into a rather plain suburbanite is plainly based on Randy Quaid’s Laurence “Larry” Meadows, the young and possibly disturbed young man being escorted to the brig for stealing $40 from a collection plate.  Bryan Cranston’s Sal Nealon is plainly meant to be Jack Nicholson’s Billy “Badass” Buddusky, and he remains an aimless hedonist who has spent the last thirty years running a dive bar and chasing women.  And Laurence Fishburn’s Richard Mueller is meant to be a vision of what became of Otis Young’s Richard Mulhall, who unlike Nealon has left his hard drinking ways behind and found a new life as a respected reverend and family man.

These characters have changed in a number of ways since their time in Vietnam but also stayed the same in certain notable ways which is probably the main tension of the film.  Linklater has said that he was inspired to make the film after he caught up with some of his old college baseball friends while researching his last movie Everybody Wants Some!! and making certain observations about what these reunions of old friends are like.  At a certain point it becomes, in typical Linklater fashion, a bit of a hangout movie in which these men just talk to each other, catch up and think back on the Vietnam experience and its similarities and differences from the war in Iraq.  Here Mueller and Nealon take on a perhaps more obvious role as the sort of angel and devil over Shepard’s shoulder with Mueller suggesting he follow the usual process of military decorum and mourning while Nealon encourages him to rebel against the marine corps who killed his son and conduct a funeral devoid of the pomp and circumstance of a state funeral.  Added to the mix is the character of Charlie Washington (J. Quinton Johnson), one of the deceased son’s fellow soldiers who accompanies the men on part of their journey and adds the perspective of a younger generation of marines in some interesting discussions.

It is perhaps unfortunate that Amazon and Lionsgate have opted to release Last Flag Flying in late November when it is likely to get lost in the shuffle of flashier prestige films with hookier premises because it’s certainly another very solid entry in the Richard Linklater filmography.  The connection to The Last Detail is ultimately something that shouldn’t distract the viewer too much as the movie stands alone and is ultimately a film more in line with Linklater’s usual style than that of Hal Ashby.  Like Linklater’s other movies Last Flag Flying does a great job of placing its audience into the shoes of a certain kind of people and allowing them to observe their interactions like a fly on a wall.  The characters here are a bit more blue-collar than some of his usual characters and there’s no obvious Linklater analogue here like there are in some of his other movies but that doesn’t seem to hold him back from presenting interesting and three dimensional characters and he proves to have unexpected insights (possibly Darryl Ponicsan’s contribution) into the meaning of military service.  It doesn’t have the entertainment value of something like Dazed and Confused (though parts of it are funny), or the audacity of something like Boyhood, or the universality of the Before trilogy, but it does still work in much the way some of his other movies do and continues this little win streak he’s suddenly amassed.

Advertisements

Lady Bird(11/18/2017)

Warning: Review Contains Spoilers

The thing about coming of age movies is that they’re written by people who have already come of age looking back at their youths.  This means that they’re generally set in the past, often about ten or twenty years ago, which just so happens to be the peak period for an entire generation’s nostalgia interest.  That’s why George Lucas set American Graffiti in the early 60s, why Richard Linklater set Dazed and Confused in the late 70s, why Noah Baumbach set The Squid and the Whale in the 80s, and why… I actually can’t think of too many set in the 90s (The Wackness, I guess) but you get the point.  Well, after years and years of watching other people’s memories of bygone eras things have finally come around: I’m finally old enough that they’re making nostalgic coming of age movies about the era when I was actually in high school.  The new film Lady Bird, directed by 34 year old Greta Gerwig, is about the high school experience of someone from the class of 2003 and while that is still technically about three years older than me (class of 2006) it’s still basically the era I knew compete with watching news about the Iraq War, seeing people talk on non-ubiquitous flip phones, and hearing Justin Timberlake songs get played at parties.  It’s kind of freaking me out, but I won’t hold that against the movie, which is one of the year’s most critically acclaimed.

The film is set in 2002 and 2003 and takes place over the course of the senior year of Christine McPherson (Saoirse Ronan), who insists on going by the self-applied nickname “Lady Bird” for some teenagery reason.  Lady Bird lives in Sacramento, a city she does not have much appreciation for, and goes to a catholic school despite her parents only barely being able to afford it.  Lady Bird is a character who could be called “quirky” but she’s not quirky in an unbelievable indie-movie sort of way, she’s more quirky in the way that brainy high school students actually behave when trying to find their own identity.  She wears red hair dye and occasionally rebels (though not too wildly) against the rigidity of the nuns and priests who run her school.  Her mother Marion (Laurie Metcalf ) can be a bit much to handle and her father Larry (Tracy Letts) often struggles financially and otherwise while acting as something of a “good guy” when dealing with Lady Bird.

Lady Bird is kind of a hard movie to talk about.  Many of its qualities are readily apparent but sound kind of mundane if not cliché when their described on the page.  Much of its appeal comes down to little details that make it feel very true to life and just generally make its central character a bit more… I don’t know that lovable is the word (at the end of the day she is still a dumb teenager) but certainly more fully realized and human.  Saoirse Ronan’s performance is one of the movie’s biggest assets.  I had assumed that Ronan was done playing teenagers after having played someone in their early twenties or thereabouts in Brooklyn but she seems able to slide right back into playing an 18 year old despite being 23.  Lady Bird, the character, is in some ways less a real person than the self-image that people construct of a sort of ideal of what they would have been in high school if they could live it all over again.  Fun and arty, cool but not necessarily part of the unpleasant “in-crowd” for the most part, extremely self-confident and rebellious but not is a way that’s really dangerous.  Much of the film focuses on Lady Bird going through typical teenage stuff over the course of her senior year like making new friends and going through boyfriends, but what the movie ultimately comes down to is her relationship with her parents and especially her mother.

This is actually where the film both gets interesting and also kind of falls short for me.  It’s not unusual for these coming of age films to feature conflicts between teenagers and their parents but usually the films implicitly side with the parents and view the teenager’s rage against them to be the result of a youthful failure to appreciate legitimate parental concerns, and if they don’t it’s because the parents are straight up abusive or something.  Here Lady Bird’s mother doesn’t exactly seem like a terrible person but she does kind of suck.  She’s someone who constantly nagging her daughter over goofy little things like how quickly she washes her school uniforms while being seemingly uninterested in helping her with the bigger problems in her life.  The mother’s key flaw seems to be the gigantic chip she has on her shoulder about money and class.  She’s constantly going on about how the family is “poor” even though they really only appear to be, at worst, lower middle class and this also leads her to have an incredibly snobby attitude about public schools and anyone who’s actually poor.  This manifests itself in its worst way when she actively discourages her daughter in her ambitions and begins acting like a petulant child herself when Lady Bird ends up surpassing expectations.

The fact that I was actually on the side of the rebellious teenager by the end of the film is a big part of why the film’s ending didn’t quite work for me.  In some ways I feel like the movie should have just ended with Lady Bird getting on the airplane and left the conflict between her and her mother as this messy thing that simply isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon and will probably linger with the characters for years.  On some levels I do think Gerwig wanted that but for whatever reason she added on this little post false-ending coda about her first few days in college leading up to an attempt at reconciliation that frankly felt unearned.  If anything it was the mother who owed the daughter an apology and the notion of a college student who frankly has nothing to apologize for having some epiphany to be the bigger person and end the conflict just because she had a wild night or two.  Whether or not the movie sticks the landing though, this is plainly the best look at adolescence since Linklater’s Boyhood and is in many ways a joy to watch.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer(11/4/2017)

Warning: Review Contains Plot Spoilers

There are weird filmmakers and then there’s Yorgos Lanthimos, who’s proven to be one of the more outlandish voices in modern cinema and who has managed to bring his curious visions to the screen on a larger scale than I would have expected without making any compromises.  Lathimos first emerged when his controversial 2009 Greek film Dogtooth showed up in Cannes and surprisingly won the Prix Un Certain Regard despite being a crazy disturbing movie.  It fascinated fans of international cinema so much that it even garnered a nomination the next year for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, a choice that was almost certainly made by the special selecting committee.  His follow-up, Alps, was something of a sophomore slump.  People didn’t dislike it, but it just didn’t really cause the stir of his nominal debut.  He did, however, rebound with his English Language debut The Lobster.  That movie didn’t fully work for me but it was certainly interesting and provocative and made me interested to see more.  Fortunately that “more” has arrived in the form of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, another English language film starring Colin Farrell and quite possibly his darkest film yet and that’s saying something.

The film looks at the life of a successful heart surgeon named Steven Murphy (Colin Farrell) who lives in Cincinnati with his wife Anna (Nicole Kidman), teenage daughter Kim (Raffey Cassidy), and adolescent son Bob (Sunny Suljic).  The family is mostly happy despite a couple of strange quirks like Steven’s curious role-playing fetishes.  As the film begins Steven has recently reconnected with a strange sixteen year old boy named Martin (Barry Keoghan) whose relation to Steven is not immediately clear.  He tells his anesthesiologist Matthew (Bill Camp) that Martin is a classmate of his daughter with an interest in medicine who he’s been sort of mentoring, but he stills his wife that Martin is the son of a former patient of his who ended up dying in a car accident.   Wherever it was that Steven first encountered Martin it becomes clear that Martin is more and more finding his way into Steven’s life whether Steven wants him to or not and when his son mysteriously stops being able to walk it becomes all the more urgent to understand who or what Martin is and find out just what it takes to get rid of him.

This movie is basically impossible to talk about meaningfully without getting into spoilers so I’m going to get right to it.  The title “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” is a reference to the Greek myth of Agamemnon, who found himself invoking the wrath of the goddess Artemis after he unknowingly kills a deer that was under her protection and was eventually forced to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia in order to satisfy her, thus allowing his troops to move on to the Trojan War.  A similar dilemma comes into place here when it’s revealed that Martin has cursed Steven’s wife, son, and daughter through some form of unexplained magic in retaliation for Steven having killed his father through malpractice and will let them all three of them die unless Steven chooses one of the three and kills them himself.  There are of course noticeable differences between the myth and the film, most importantly the fact that Steven is given less of an out than Agamemnon (who could have chosen to forgo going to Troy despite the incredible blow it would have dealt to his honor and reputation) was and unlike Agamemnon’s wife the wife here is ultimately on board with the sacrifice even if self-preservation is part of her reason.

The myth, at least in Aeschylus’ rather influential telling of it, is something of an exercise in an eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.  Agamemnon’s wife never forgives him sacrificing their daughter and upon her husband’s return from the war she conspires to kill him and in turn her surviving children, Orestes and Electra conspire to kill her and are then only themselves saved from the furies through divine intervention.  Needless to say much of that isn’t paralleled in the movie so this probably shouldn’t be viewed as a complete one to one parallel of the myth but the film does have a similar interest in the morality of revenge and of what an eye for an eye truly means.  There’s a point in the film where Martin bites Steven on the arm and then suddenly bites his own arm similarly out of some kind of warped sense of needing to restore the balance of power.  I don’t, however, know that the film necessarily delves too deeply into the morality of this kind of revenge outside of the general ghastliness of Steven’s situation and perhaps the ending in which the family essentially turns the other cheek rather than perpetuating the cycle of violence that the myth descended into.

I found the overall plot of The Killing of a Sacred Deer fascinating and I also liked the way a lot of it was constructed.  The sticking point for me is probably the same thing that tripped me up about The Lobster: the way that Lathimos has his characters interact it weird and off-putting.  Where most writers and directors strive for conversational naturalism Lathimos is a filmmaker that tends to have his characters who speak in somewhat blunt and stilted dialogue and just do strange things when talking to each other.  This wasn’t as clear in Dogtooth, firstly because it was in a foreign language and secondly because it was assumed that the family at its center was a sort of aberrant cult in the middle of a world of otherwise normal people.  It also kind of made sense in The Lobster given that that movie was set in an otherworldly dystopia but was still a bit of a distraction that I pegged on Lathimos’ adjustment to making movies in English.  With his latest film I’m pretty sure it’s intentional and it’s increasingly hard to explain given that the movie seems to take place in the real world despite the supernatural element strange psychodrama that the principal characters are involved in.  It’s also distracting here because it becomes increasingly hard to tell whether it’s an important part of the puzzle that these characters are willing, for example, to discuss body hair and menstruation without any kind of filter.  Does that make some grand statement about the kind of people these are or is it just a quirky red herring?

This is not an insignificant problem, it makes it kind of hard to get a real grasp of the characters when their personalities are prone to swing a lot and that becomes an issue when much of a film’s appeal is in seeing how its characters are going to respond to a fantastical situation.  The benefit of the approach, I suppose, is that it primes you for the strangely casual way that the film introduces the supernatural at about the halfway point and also just that it adds flavor to the movie.  Was that worth it?  I don’t know but I wouldn’t say it was a deal breaker.  In many ways this is a film I maybe want to give another look before making a final judgment, but it seems like another bold film from a filmmaker who is doing things that few other people are doing right now in cinema.  It is however a movie that’s hard to pinpoint an audience for.  It’s certainly not a movie that I’m going to recommend to random movie-goers and even among cinephilles it’s going to be a film that’s hard to describe without spoiling, especially if I want to get across just how weird and dark the film can get.

The Lost City of Z(4/23/2017)

4-23-2017LostCityofZ

It’s always interesting to watch a good filmmaker as they pivot.  That’s what seems to be happening at the moment with James Gray, who’s not really a director I’m an expert on but whose work I know well enough that I can tell he’s in a transitional place in his work.  Gray began his career with a trilogy of crime films set on the gritty streets of New York and dealing with the Russian mafia.  He then seemed like he was going to transition into the realm of intimate contemporary character study when he made the movie Two Lovers but then he seemed to realize that that the indie film world already had more than enough intimate romance films so he switched things up again with his next film The Immigrant.  That film was another New York story but one set in 1921 and focusing on a female protagonist.  I was really fond of that movie when I saw it a couple of years ago but I’d be lying if I said that it had stuck with me as much as I had thought it would.  That movie did seem to indicate a new direction Gray would be going however as his next movie also seems to be taking a classical, if slightly modernized, approach to a familiar kind of period piece, in this case the “jungle adventure.”

That film, The Lost City of Z, is Gray’s first film to not in any way be set in New York.  The film is about a British military officer in the late 1800s/early 1900s named Percy Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam) whose career has been stunted both because he served in peacetime and because he comes from a family line that’s been previously tainted in scandal.  When an opportunity comes along to finally that would allow him to gain military rank and help overcome his family’s legacy he jumps at it and that opportunity comes in the form of working together with the Royal Geographic Society in order to survey the Amazon along the Brazilian/Bolivian border in order to settle those countries land disputes and maintain the peace.  While there he finds himself fascinated by the native populations and begins searching for evidence that would suggest that there was once a vast civilization he calls “Z” (which is pronounced “Zed” in the British fashion) in the Amazon which would prove to the other whites that that there was more to these people than it seemed.

The film is based on a recent non-fiction book called “The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon” by David Grann and seems to largely be a pretty close re-telling of the real history of Percy Fawcett… and this is kind of a problem.  It’s easy to picture Gray reading that book with rapt attention, falling in love with the story it told, and feeling compelled to make audiences the world over as interested in Fawcett as he is.  And indeed, this is a guy who did live a fascinating life and I’m glad to have learned about him but his life does not exactly fit into a three act structure, which is not an insurmountable obstacle but it would have forced Gray to either adapt the story a little more to fit into one or found some new creative way to get around it.  Instead Gray has opted to do a very straightforward adaptation that would let the facts speak for themselves, which wasn’t necessarily the worst idea ever but it does give the film a pretty awkward through line.  It’s very much a film told in simple factual prose instead of poetry more often than not.

That should not suggest that the film doesn’t have its share of redeeming qualities.  The film is at its best when it focuses in on that “obsession” that featured in the title of the film’s source material.  This manifests itself in some kind of hokey ways at times (looking at you fortune teller) but at its heart it’s pretty interesting.  Characters in the film frequently mentions that similar lost cities had also become the fixation of the conquistadors and driving them to ruin, which conjures up images of Aguirre drifting down river surrounded by chimps, and contrasts it with Fawcett’s own obsession for a lost city.  His reasons for looking for said lost city are certainly more “woke” than those of the conquistadors but is his obsession any less self-destructive?  His motives are also a bit curious.  He’s trying to prove that South American natives were capable of building large civilizations with big structures and pottery but it’s not exactly clear in the movie why that would have been such a revelation.  Europeans were already well aware of the Aztec, Incan, and Mayan empires at this point so what would a third civilization have really proved?  I’m sure there are answers to that question but if any of those answers are in the actual movie I think I missed them.  Still, there was something to watching Fawcett’s evolution as a humanitarian and anthropologist of sorts and I was interested to see him doing this to some extent.

Of course one of the things preventing the obsession theme from really reaching its full potential is that Charlie Hunnam’s performance is a bit weak.  I’ve never really been much of a fan of Hunnam’s work and while he’s not terrible here or anything but I don’t think he really gives this role the presence that would really make him pop from the screen and become something memorable.  Some of the adventure/travelogue elements of the film do work and manage to find a way to be interesting and entertaining without having the kind of Indiana Jones style serial action that often characterizes other jungle adventure films.  Still, even if the film is an interesting journey through the Amazon with some respect for the indigenous people, there is another movie that looms large over all this: Ciro Guerra’s Embrace of the Serpent, which was one of the best movies of last year.  For whatever The Lost City of Z does to try to be different from the colonialist narratives of this region it sure as hell isn’t that different and it also isn’t in much of a position to engage in anywhere near that movie’s level formal and narrative experimentation.  I’m not trying to just say “this movie with Robert Pattinson in it isn’t as daring as a black and white foreign film, therefore it’s bad” but it does put into perspective that there were more interesting ways to adapt this kind of material and Gray just wasn’t able to find them.

2-5_zpsn9coif22

Kong: Skull Island(3/9/2017)

3-7-2017KongSkullIsland

The 1933 film King Kong is pretty much an undisputed classic, but it’s also one that can be easy to take for granted.  That might be because it doesn’t really fit too cleanly into any of the other trends of 1930s cinema.  It has little to do with the horror films being made by Universal at the time, its stop-motion effects were largely relegated to B-movies after it came out, and its director Merian C. Cooper never directed another movie and relegated himself to roles further behind the scenes after he made Kong.  It wasn’t really until a new generation of filmmakers who grew up on Kong came to prominence that its influence really became known, and this has led to a number of highly reverent remakes which have tried to recapture what they see as the importance of the original film.  There was of course the 1976 version, which seems kind of corny in retrospect but it is clear that Dino De Laurentiis was trying to make it an event blockbuster in the mold of Jaws and he really wanted to make audiences cry when the gorilla kicked the bucket.  But the movie that really showed the reverence that a new generation of filmmakers had for that first movie was Peter Jackson’s 2005 King Kong, which worked really hard to remake the first movie into a prestige epic that audiences would take as seriously as he took the original.  I was on board for that, but I think Jackson’s zeal turned out to be rather off-putting to general audiences that didn’t share his reverence for the material just wanted to see a giant monkey smash things and move on with their lives.  That movie was also probably not what the studio was looking for as it, like every other version of the story, ended with Kong dying which doesn’t leave room for much of a franchise.  With the new film Kong: Skull Island filmmaker Jordan Vogt-Roberts has taken a different approach and decided to make a King Kong movie that fits more into the mold of a modern summer blockbuster that takes the series in a more populist B-movie direction.

For this iteration of the Kong story the setting has been moved to 1973 at the tail end of the Vietnam War.  With Nixon negotiating and end to the war a scientist named William Randa (John Goodman) and his colleague Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) believe they may be seeing their last opportunity to explore an uncharted island that has been the cause of many missing ships and airplanes.  After convincing a senator (Richard Jenkins) that they need to explore this mysterious island before the Soviets do he’s allowed to mount an expedition.  Because he knows this could be trouble he brings along a military escort led by a colonel named Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) who’s bitter about the end of the war and eager to do one last mission.  They also bring along an experienced Jungle tracker named James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and a war photographer named Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) as well as a whole bunch of other scientists and soldiers.  Once they get there however, they quickly find that the weather is hardly and most frightening thing about Skull Island and that they are once again in for the fight of their lives.

Previous films in the Kong franchise and movies of the Kaiju genre in general really tend to play the Jaws approach of delaying the appearance of their titular monster as much as possible so as to make its really satisfying when said creature finally makes its entrance.  Kong: Skull Island doesn’t really play that game.  Instead the military and the expedition members encounter Kong almost immediately after they get to the island and before they’ve even seen the rest of the monsters on Skull Island.  People who were disappointed by the relative lack of Godzilla from Gareth Edwards’ recent Godzilla will probably not feel the same way about this film.  This Kong walks fairly upright and as such more closely resembles the original Kong than the one in Peter Jackson’s movie, which more closely resembled the look of a real Gorilla.  Vogt-Roberts is very willing to give Kong close-ups and seems particularly fascinated by his teeth.  There’s nothing groundbreaking about the effects work here and it won’t amaze people the way that the effects in the 1933 film and even the 1976 and 2005 versions did to some extent but the CGI here is strong and confident just the same and watching Kong and the various monsters do what they do is definitely fun to watch with the emphasis being on action rather than raw spectacle.

One of the first thing you notice about the film is that it has a surprisingly large cast of characters played by a variety of fairly recognizable characters and it quickly becomes clear that this is because the movie is absolutely ruthless about killing people off and is kind of shockingly violent for the sort of lighthearted blockbuster that this is.  This was perhaps also true of the 1933 film, in which dozens upon dozens of nameless sailors are killed by various monsters and the Peter Jackson movie also killed off a whole lot of people but there was usually a certain gravity given to the scenes where the characters you’ve come to recognize were dispatched.  This movie on the other hand kind of revels in building up characters just enough so that you make some connection to them before it proceeds to kill them in fairly flippant ways.  I wasn’t exactly disturbed or offended by this but it did seem rather tonally odd, and this movie generally is not very precious about tone.  The movie invokes the novel “Heart of Darkness” by naming characters Conrad and Marlow (yet somehow has the restraint not to name Samuel L. Jackson’s character Kurtz), which was reference that didn’t make a lot of thematic sense when Peter Jackson made it before but at least the jungle adventure in that movie was appropriately dark, here it makes even less sense as the tone doesn’t resemble that book in the slightest and it has none of its themes about colonialism or psychology.

I suppose those references were included because of its association with Apocalypse Now which is definitely a movie this movie wants to be, except without all the darkness and politics.  There is pretty clearly some Vietnam allegory with the Samuel L. Jackson character once again stubbornly trying to win an unwinnable war, but it doesn’t have anything to profound to say about that conflict in general.  It also has an incredibly lazy soundtrack that hits seemingly every cliché of the “Vietnam movie.”  I mean, if you’re making a movie with Vietnam in the background and you think “Run Through the Jungle” by Creedence Clearwater Revival is a creative choice you should go back to the drawing board.  You also shouldn’t invoke “We’ll Meet Again” unless you want your audience thinking about nuclear war, and it’s probably just generally a mistake for any movie to use “Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress” by The Hollies for any reason, as that is seemingly in every movie set in the early 70s. In general, the film’s period setting does not add a lot to the movie at all and mostly just seems to be flavoring, but not necessarily bad flavoring and probably does give it a certain something a film set in 2017 wouldn’t have had.

This thing is coming out in early March but at the end of the day its best described as a movie that follows the template of what audiences expect out of an early 21st Century blockbuster for better or worse.  Its characters are fairly stock action movie types, it has a lot of CGI driven action scenes, it has the balance of drama and comedy that people have come to expect from these movies.  Jordan Vogt-Roberts isn’t a completely bland director and he does bring some interesting visual ideas to the film (looking at you Richard Nixon bobble-head) but he also doesn’t have a wildly bold vision either.  This is a very lightweight monster movie action movie and it will probably please most audiences and will subvert very few expectations.  People looking for a silly little monster movie to watch will probably not be disappointed: the monster fights are cool, the human parts are amusing, and the scenery is nice… it does pretty much everything it advertises.  People looking for more than that or for something that’s more of the lineage of the classic film that this takes its name from might be a little disappointed.  It’s an inelegant and kind of messy movie but it gets the job done and it has some very cool moments at times.

3_zpsyxg7shxf1

Logan(3/4/2017)

3-4-2017Logan

Is there any actor working today who has as consistently been as frequently featured in a single role as Hugh Jackman as Wolverine?  If you count his rather brief cameos in X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Apocalypse he’s played this character in no fewer than nine different movies now including two movies that are dedicated Wolverine solo movies.  Well, I suppose Robert Downey Jr. will exceed that count pretty soon if he sticks with the MCU and he’s certainly got nothing on historical examples of this like Shintaro Katsu’s 26 film run in the role of Zatoichi but it still seems kind of incredible in a film climate where the likes of Daniel Craig can’t seem to be convinced to play James Bond more than four times or Jennifer Lawrence seems to need endless pampering in order to be talked into playing Mystique more than three times.  Still, I can see why this role would appeal so much to him.  It’s a flattering role that makes song and dance man Hugh Jackman seem like the ultimate badass, an ultimate warrior who can win pretty much any fight and operate off of his id constantly.  His enthusiasm for the role has however led to some regrettable choices, namely the two solo Wolverine movies which were probably low points for the series give or take an X3.  The first of these X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a true embarrassment that few like to even remember, and the second called The Wolverine wasn’t bad so much as wildly forgettable.  That second solo film was directed by James Mangold and promised bigger better things with its simple title, and that is why I’ve maintained some skepticism about this new Wolverine movie, the Mangold directed Logan, despite its cool trailer.

Logan is set years after the events we saw in previous X-Men movies and it’s not entirely clear where it fits within the various complex timelines of that series.  The very first X-Men is referenced but otherwise the film avoids talking continuity.  I’m pretty sure it’s actually meant to be what they call in DC comics an “elseworld” story, sort of a “The Dark Knight Returns” for the movie version of Wolverine.  In this future mutants are no longer being born for some reason and many of Wolverine’s compatriots have been killed off by government hit squads.  Logan himself (Hugh Jackman) is hiding out as a limo driver in Texas and many of his powers have been failing him in old age.  He has however maintained contact with one person from his past, Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), who is now in his 90s and in his semi-senile state has had his powers become unstable.  He’s now hiding out in a water tower with a mutant named Caliban (Stephen Merchant) and is being kept medicated to keep him stable.  One day Logan is approached by an unknown woman named Gabriella (Elizabeth Rodriguez) who is offering him money to escort a little girl named Laura (Dafne Keen) to a sanctuary she believes exists in North Dakota, which Logan considers because he could use the money to move Xavier but soon it becomes clear that Laura is being pursued by an agent named Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook) who intends to steal her.

That Logan is a notably more gritty and stand-alone take on the X-Men universe would be notable enough but as you watch it you also quickly notice that these characters have suddenly learned how to say the word “fuck” more than once in a movie and also this strange red liquid is now pouring out of all the injuries that Wolverine has been stabbing with his claws.  That’s right, Hugh Jackman and James Mangold have somehow convinced the fine people at 20th Century Fox to let them take off the safety wheels and make this thing as a hard R-rated movie with a high body count and graphic violence and it does feel like they were dedicated to this direction rather than sort of hedging their bets and trying to decide whether or not this would just be a PG-13 release with an “unrated cut” down the line.  One could argue that they should have been filming these action sequences like this from the beginning given that this is a character whose defining feature is metal blades on his hands but it does become quickly apparent that this bloody violence feels more at home in the world of this movie than in the sort of half-dark half-lighthearted world of those other X-Men movies.

Logan is in many ways a movie that’s doing everything we’ve been asking the makers of big budget super hero movies to do.  It tells a smaller scale yet still action packed story that doesn’t end with a city about to be blown up, it doesn’t feel too much like a setup for a million other sequels, it narrows in on its characters and their individual issues, and of course it doesn’t compromise in its violence and language.  You can also tell that the people making the movie realized that they were being given something of a gift with this opportunity and didn’t want to waste it.  Hugh Jackman is pretty committed to this worn down and cynical version of Wolverine and director James Mangold (a guy who has been a pretty inconsistent journeyman director over the course of his career) works hard to make this look different than your average superhero movie and to take full advantage of this opportunity.

However, for all the film’s merits it really only seems as creative as it does when compared to the incredibly cookie-cutter world of 2010s superhero movies and when you start comparing it to the wider world of entertainment it starts to have a bit of an originality problem.  In fact the movie seems shockingly similar in tone, story, and imagery to a recent video game called “The Last of Us” right down to the look of the protagonists and of course that game was itself highly derivative of movies like Children of Men and The Road which were in turn inspired by movies like The Road Warrior, and the movie also has similarities with other “road trips with powerful children while pursued by the government” movies like Midnight Special or Firestarter.  If this had been the first movie in recent years where a grizzled man finds redemption through escorting a young girl who represents hope for humanity through an apocalyptic landscape I’d be over the moon for it, but it’s not, and that does kind of bring the movie down a few pegs for me.  Still, Wolverine is a cool-ass character and his presence does elevate pretty much any scenario you put him in and this is far from the least creative stock scenario they could have gone with.  I’m willing to bet there are some younger viewers for whom this will feel a lot less familiar and they’re probably going to love this thing.  It’s a movie that’s probably going to be over-rated in general in certain quarters but its accomplishments should not be discounted too much either.  The fact that we live in a world where we can have a hyper-violent $100 million dollar post-apocalyptic western starring Marvel’s pre-eminent badass is pretty awesome and I’d rather enjoy that than nitpick it.

4