Roma

2018’s Roma, written and directed by Alfonso Cuarón.

Starring Yalitza Aparicio, Marina de Tavira, Fernando Grediaga, Verónica García, Diego Cortina Autrey, Carlos Peralta, Marco Graf, Daniela Demesa, Nancy García García, Jorge Antonio Guerrero, and José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza.

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director (Alfonso Cuarón), Best Actress (Yalitza Aparicio), Best Supporting Actress (Marina de Tavira), Best Original Screenplay (Alfonso Cuarón), Best Cinematography (Alfonso Cuarón), Best Foreign Film, Best Production Design (Eugenio Caballero and Bárbara Enríquez), Best Sound Editing (Sergio Díaz and Skip Lievsay), and Best Sound Mixing (Skip Lievsay, Craig Henighan and José Antonio García).

What is it about?

Roma is director Alfonso Cuarón’s homage to his childhood experiences. Based in 1970’s Mexico City (Roma is a neighbourhood set within it) a housekeeper, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), works in a home with its Mother, Sofia (Marina de Tavira) and Father, Antonio (Fernando Grediaga), Grandmother, Teresa (Verónica García), and 4 children, Tono, Paco, Pepe, and Sofi (Diego Cortina Autrey, Carlos Peralta, Marco Graf, and Daniela Demesa). Amidst a chaotic political landscape, and in streets teeming with the clamour of everyday life, Cleo tends to the home and takes care of the children. The family has their respective domestic dramas that Cleo is a part of, while she has own private life that demands her attention. Inevitably the 2 worlds collide, as Cleo has to choose which one she is going to belong to.

Why is it worth seeing?

Roma was a film festival darling for obvious reasons. Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón‘s loving homage to his childhood is one of the most lavishly shot movies of the year. Shot in classical black and white, Cuarón focuses his auteur camera on the intensely personal lives of a housekeeper and the family, meant to represent memories of his childhood. While his subjects of adoration calibrate in his nostalgic foreground, Mexico’s frenzied political environment (and Mexico City’s bustling chaos) whirl around in the background. It’s as much a love letter to his housekeeper and family, as it is the city and country he grew up in.

Like any patient love letter, Cuarón takes his time in delving the personal, mundane features of everyday life for a nanny. Amidst a background of chaotic political unrest and class warfare (a Cuarón staple), we marinate in a languid milieu of washing floors, cleaning up after others- and saving children’s lives. It’s a tapestry of the ups and downs of every day life, through the lens of a confident master who seems to be peaking in his career at the same time as when he’s telling the auto biographical.


Centred in that tapestry, we are introduced to the subject of Cuarón’s childhood, the nanny as played by incredible newcomer, Yalitza Aparicio. It’s a moving performance, as natural as a leaf floating down a river, and it pays great tribute to the stability the housekeeper must have provided Cuarón who grew up in a home with estranged parents. She says little- but goes through so much. Anyone who isn’t impacted by some of her more life (and death) affirming moments, is made of stone.


I came to Roma with great expectations. As mentioned, it features a gargantuan amount of art house hype, and Cuarón’s Children of Men is probably my favourite movie of all time (not to mention my love for Prisoner of Azkaban as my favourite Harry Potter, and of course, the sublime Y Tu Mama Tambien). So despite its technical mastery (seriously, is Cuarón’s usual cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, out of a job now?), it was difficult to say why some it left me a little flat. Now, a slightly underwhelming Cuarón film is still better than 95% of the movies out there, and basically my challenges with the picture are essentially reasons why it won’t be my #1 favourite film of the year. They are:

-While the movie is clearly Cleo’s, it feels like Cuarón’s emphasis on the background, that is, the political and sociological themes of 1970’s Mexico, whether it be the crowded city streets or a rally going on that emphasizes what people are up in arms about, takes away from us being able to identify as well as we could with Cleo. She’s a quiet figure who keeps to herself, but her attempts to connect with a baby’s father suggest that she wants to start a family for herself, to do more than simply exist and clean up dog shit, and have some degree of control over her life. These kind of character motivations are undermined by Cuarón’s emphasis on showing her as a tiny figure being engulfed by Mexico’s chaotic everyday life. The scenes where we do get to focus intently on just her are too few, and she gets lost in the hubbub. Do I want to watch her, at times silently watching her masters, or a bunch of shadowy figures throwing water on fires? In Children of Men and especially Y Tu Mama Tambien, the background is always an accompanying supporting character, but here the background at times threatens to diminish our quietly amazing protagonist.

-A lack of redeemable male characters. We know whose show this is, as Cuarón clearly has a sanctity for the women in his life who helped to raise him, but to see this movie is to assume that men are generally good for nothing. The most positive things that were witnessed from the men in the film, is putting out forest fires, and Cleo’s cousin, Ramón, taking Cleo to see her ex-boyfriend, Fermín, against Fermín’s wishes. That’s it. If Children of Men was about a world without children, this is what a world looks like without men. Oh, they’re around- squabbling, violent, entitled, overgrown boys in search of entertainment (or a cause). But there are no men. Masculine figures, full of leadership qualities who support their family, love their partner and children unconditionally, step up to the plate when needed- zilch.

-To some extent, I agree with Adam Nayman’s assertion that it feels at times like we’re supposed to be applauding the long, panning takes from the camera. They’re nice, and patiently engrossing, but they aren’t that memorable- save for the ocean scene.

Again, all of this isn’t to bury Roma- but to determine its place in history. Cuarón (already well established in Hollywood) takes us on a ride that we are helpless not to be affected by, and we are the better for it. There are some who will find Roma overrated as a masterpiece- but flawless in its technical merits. It has a lot of heart, and as a biographical time capsule it’s one of the most moving memorials to the past you will ever see. It’s clarity may be obscured by time- but its heart never is.

Rating:

4.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Sicario: Day of the Soldado

2018’s Sicario: Day of the Soldado, directed by Stefano Sollima.

Starring Benicio Del Toro, Josh Brolin, Isabela Moner, Jeffrey Moner, Jeffrey Donovan, Catherine Keener, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Matthew Modine, and Shea Whigham.

What is it about?

In the sequel to 2015’s Sicario, terrorist activities cause U.S. government operative Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) to be recruited by Secretary of Defence, James Riley (Matthew Modine). Graver brings back the Sicario, Alejandro Gillick (Benicio Del Toro), and they come up with a plan to kidnap the daughter, Isabel Reyes (Isabela Moner), of a drug cartel czar, with the idea that they can blame the kidnapping on a rival cartel, and then watch the cartels wipe each other out in retaliation. While the off the map operatives attempt to execute their subterfuge in Mexico, they’re double crossed, and Alejandro and Isabela end up on the run together. Hunted by various cartels, both governments, and oblivious gang members, will Alejandro and Isabel be able to survive life on the run on foreign soil?

Why is it worth seeing?

My number 1 movie of 2015 (unless you count the short film, World of Tomorrow), was Sicario. Its macabre story about the horrors of the drug war being fought by frustrated government officials featured equal parts top notch scenes of suspenseful dread and taut action. Emily Blunt was amazing, as her character discovered the ramifications of trying to fight fairly in a fixed fight, while Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro’s shadowy characters had no qualms about getting dirty. Its final message seemed to be that paradise hadn’t just been lost- but that hell was effectively here.

That’s where we find ourselves now in Sicario: Day of the Soldado. Its 2 biggest absentees from the previous film are star Emily Blunt, who’s talented presence provided the audience a relatable surrogate to experience the perils of the drug war, and visionary director Denis Villeneuve, who was not only skilled at slam bang action but more importantly at crafting tension. Stefano Sollima steps into the director’s chair, and despite a decent sequence of a cross that double crosses, just doesn’t have the verve of the steady handed Villeneuve.

One of the more baffling returns from the previous film, is writer Taylor Sheridan. We know, after the previous film, not to mention Hell or High Water and Wind River, that Sheridan knows how to write (and direct) a good yarn. So what’s with the limp imitation of himself? Making the film not only another (compromised) parable about the drug war, but also adding in acts of domestic terrorism (and Islam and refugee phobias) feels more relevant- in an age where the president likes to tweet from his toilet his intelligent thoughts on putting children in cages. But that doesn’t mean it’s better. There are some elements of interest, such as the relationship that develops between sicario Del Toro and his mark, and the walls closing in on the morally compromised Brolin and Del Toro’s characters, but the whole exercise generally feels like an updated version of the Reagan-era inspired Cobra. Violence just begets violence.

Packed with unanswered questions, and devoid of meaningful answers, S:DotS’s lust for revenge travels multiple countries, but has very few places to go. Its themes of betrayal, revenge, and utter nihilism towards one’s beliefs are hardly inspiring, and considering its source material the strongest emotion is that of disappointment. But not for the next one, as that iteration will be devoid of expectations. Hollywood has a habit of endlessly repeating itself far worse than any drug war.

Rating:

3/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Sorry To Bother You

2018’s Sorry To Bother You, written and directed by Boots Riley.

Starring Lakeith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Jermaine Fowler, Terry Crews, Danny Glover, Steven Yuen, Omari Hardwick, Michael X. Sommers, Armie Hammer, Patton Oswalt, and David Cross.

 

What is it about?

African American have-not Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield) and his artist girlfriend, Detroit (Tessa Thompson), begin jobs at a call centre. He has aspirations of impressing his boss, Johnny (Michael X. Sommers), as well as being able to pay his overdue rent to his Uncle (Terry Crews). Unlike the rest of his down trodden wage slave coworkers, Cassius has a secret weapon to elevate his sales pitches- a white voice (voiced by David Cross). With his sales volume up, Cassius needs to make a choice: will he join the ranks of his pro unionizing workforce (lead by a revolutionary minded Steven Yuen) and be an agent for change, or will he elevate to the power caller floor above the call centre to get himself paid?

Why is it worth seeing?

Writer director Boots Riley creates what is likely the strangest and most satirical movie of the year. In the above synopsis, I’ve purposely left some of the dramatic left turns that the movie engages in, as STBY in its incomplete form could sound almost like a Saturday Night Live sketch stretched to feature length movie. Rest assured it is not- it starts off odd, and then gets odder (and more intriguing).


But it’s not about just being strange for strange sakes. Riley’s script creates a incendiary satire of capitalism, and behind all the dirt poor sight gags and comic slights against the working class, comes the attached ebb and flow of revolutionary fervor. Beyond knowing what is in the sausage, is how the ruling class always has another ladder for you to climb, and another snake to slide down just when you think you belong with the 1%.

Like all great satirical works, actor Lakeith Stanfield and company play it straight in the face of bizarreness. Costar Tessa Thompson is hysterical as well, as she engages in performance art shows that would make Yoko Ono blush while wearing some outfits that cycle through various stages of gaudy coolness. All of these sight gags and the tomfoolery regarding one’s position on the corporate ladder becomes all the more surreal when anything is possible- both in the confines of the film’s frightening universe, and in real life (which is the scariest). That’s what makes it so unnervingly comic. Somewhere out there is a eerily powerful person who is trying to figure out how to fool people into bondage- and then how to spin it so that we think we all benefit from that person’s involuntary sacrifice.

Heavy on oddness and metaphor (its vibes and community minded protagonists make nods to 2008’s Be Kind, Rewind), Riley’s satirical views on capitalism raise both laughs and eyebrows. It’s always a treat to have someone challenging you when the laughter dies down- its lack of apology for bothering you is timely enough to interrupt dinner.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

A Star Is Born

2018’s A Star Is Born, directed by Bradley Cooper.

Starring Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga, Sam Elliot, Andrew Dice Clay, Dave Chapelle, Rafi Gavron, and Anthony Ramos.

What is it about?

Popular rock star Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper)’s best days are likely behind him. Spending his days so under the influence that he is barely able to stand, he cranks out rock concerts like Picasso churned out paintings. Bombed after yet another show, Jackson dives into a dive bar, and locks eyes with amateur musician, Ally (Lady Gaga). He’s instantly smitten, and while they fall in love, he encourages her to start her own career in the music business. As she becomes more popular, he continues to spiral into his addictions, despite the aid of supports such as his brother, Bobby (Sam Elliot), and friend, “Noodles” (Dave Chapelle). With Ally’s manager, Rez (Rafi Gavron) unsympathetic to his cause and her pleas for originality, will Jackson and Ally’s relationship last while their careers diverge?

Why is it worth seeing?

A Star Is Born is the 3^rd remake of the 1937 film (all together now: 1954, 1976, and 2018). Despite the well worn story (that has had its share of permutations), there are a couple of firsts here. It’s star and cowriter Bradley Cooper’s debut as a director, as well as costar Lady Gaga’s first leading role as an actress. While it's not perfect, the end result is as galvanizing as it is impressive.


Full disclosure- I always thought of Lady Gaga as Madonna 2.0. Can you blame me? She might have been born this way, but I saw a slickly assembled package of musical talent nearly obscured by gargantuan levels of production and social media savvy. But it was tough to say what she would be like as an leading role actress. Would the results be closer to say, Cher (who eventually won an Oscar), or Mariah Carey? It turns out to be much closer to the former, as Gaga’s breakout performance here BREAKS OUT. While paired with the equally charismatic Cooper, she more than holds her own and even ups him at some points. Her scene of the insecure but uber talented Ally breaking out of her stage fright to address a concert crowd and finish the song that Cooper’s character started will go down as 1 of the most popular scenes of the year- and it might not even be the most memorable one in the film.


With Cooper and Gaga humming on both cylinders, it makes for a can’t miss event that dares you to tear your eyes from the screen- there’s something just so elemental about movie stars showing you why they’re movie stars. And that’s before an appearance from a shockingly understated and potent Dave Chapelle (more please), and the ever reliable Sam Elliot. Cooper assembles all of this magnetism, and we are (thankfully) helpless to its pull. His direction is surprisingly confident, and with the aid of cinematographer, Matthew Libatique, they create an intoxicatingly comfortable experience that makes it look as easy as it is sexy. It sways, it rocks, it jukes- I’m in.

Its charms out of the way, after an addictive first 2/3’s, ASIB’s third act suffers from mental lapses. Its almost as if in the telling of its story that it itself becomes drunk on pheromones. For a just over 2 hour movie, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions- like it was in a bleary hurry to get to the credits after the phenomenal meet cute sequences. For example, the script hints at Ally’s character having some disagreements with her manager, over the perpetual question of selling out for bubble gum chart topping success vs. staying true to yourself- but we rarely actually witness any of the conflict. Does Ally stand for anything (other than by her man)?

With that said, it’s tough to say whose movie this belongs to. We know from the title that it’s Ally’s character who is being birthed to stardom (and see that it’s Gaga’s coming out party), but the story seems more focused on Jackson’s journey- which is odd given that his star is clearly descending. Ally goes away on tour- seen by an imagined wealth of peoples, and barely by us at all, and we instead focus on his sobriety (its scenes of the recovery process are also something that the movie whiffs on). Its almost like the script hasn’t been updated for the #metoo movement.


It’s after all of the drama plays out that we realize- we don’t really know either of these characters that well at all. It’s frustrating, because after falling in love with these 2 firecrackers of visual serotonin, that we would get something more akin to stars imploding. It’s frustrating, because the movie is still 1 of the better films of the year, and it makes you wonder what could have been had they not missed the dot on the exclamation point.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

You Were Never Really Here

2017’s You Were Never Really Here, written and directed by Lynn Ramsey.

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Ekaterina Samsonov, Judith Roberts, John Doman, Alex Manette, and Alessandro Nivola.

What is it about?

Set in present day New York, traumatized Iraq war veteran Joe (played by Joaquin Phoenix), works as a hitman who rescues kidnapped children, with the help of his handler (John Doman). When at home, he takes care of his senile mother (Judith Roberts). Joe is approached by a Senator (Alex Manette), who’s adolescent daughter (Ekaterina Samsonov) has been kidnapped and placed in a brothel. While attempting to finish the job, the Senator ends up dead, and Joe is crossed. Will Joe be able to finish the job while what little he has left is taken away from him?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director Lynn Ramsey doesn’t pull any punches in her tale of a clearly wounded battering ram smashing through a world of corruption and malaise. For a film of such disquieting feelings, it’s packed with intimate moments that make it tear all the more jagged. Joaquin Phoenix has never been better, and Jonny Greenwood’s score kicks it up another notch.

Scottish director Lynn Ramsey (who’s filmography of “feel good moments” such as Modern Callar and We Need To Talk About Kevin are great warm ups to YWNRH) and editor Joe Bini expertly cut between a geographical world of slummy bodegas, chaotic streetscapes, and elegant mansions interspersed with internal shifts of reality and memory for our protagonist. When not showcasing what he can do with a simple but brutal tool, we see him having memories of his experiences overseas or traumatic childhood, or having visions obsessed with death, or of saving souls. Ramsey’s focus on tight close ups sucks us in to a world both ugly and beautiful- and leaves us to figure it out for ourselves. Penning the script as well, Ramsey presents no speeches, reason, or clear direction for anyone- except forwards into hell.

It’s a real shame that when discussing the state of Hollywood’s domination of men over women working in the industry, that Ramsey’s name doesn’t come up more often. She’s ripe with talent and has a clear vision of what she wants to say- she doesn’t get included in the conversation as much as say, Kathryn Bigelow.

Modern treasure Joaquin Phoenix feels underrated these days. How else to explain a guy who continually seems to challenge himself and metamorphosis into various roles, while rarely getting the buzz? Here, he puts on a fair amount of weight to showcase a quietly psychotic character with heart who is as likely to off himself as he is somebody else. He is… intense- and unpredictable. It’s a fascinating turn, and it’s not hard to guess why Cannes awarded him best actor for his efforts. His quiet and fast speech which may include a sternum shattering punch tends to make an impact.

With Jonny Greenwood’s score, at times it’s difficult to not be reminded of his music for There Will Be Blood- that other film he scored about a psychopathic monster rampaging through our world. Greenwood adds a modern electronic thrum to the proceedings, but not lost on me is how at times he approaches something that is closer to horror than action thriller. Either way, it’s effective.

The fusion of Ramsey’s sensibilities with Phoenix’s intensity makes for a haunting (and straight forwards) meeting to a damaged but defensible mind. The segment of a loved one in memorial will likely make my Scenes of the Year list, and why not? Some of the images here tend to get imprinted in the mind as if pounded in with a hammer.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Mandy

2018’s Mandy, directed by Panos Cosmatos.

Starring Nicholas Cage, Andrea Riseborough, Linus Roache, Ned Dennehy, Olwen Fouéré, Richard Brake, Bill Duke, Line Pillet, Clément Baronnet, Alexis Julemont, and Stephan Fraser.

What is it about?

Mandy takes place during the 1980’s and is centered on an American couple, Red Miller and Mandy Bloom (Nicholas Cage and Andrea Riseborough, respectively). They live an idyllic life in the country side, with him working as a lumberjack and her idling away her time drawing William Blake-like compositions and reading fantasy books. One day, Mandy catches the eye of a bizarre cult leader (Linus Roache) and his drugged out disciples (Ned Dennehy, Olwen Fouéré, Richard Brake, Line Pillet, Clément Baronnet, Alexis Julemont, and Stephan Fraser). The cult does a home invasion, and there are fatalities. The cult leaves Red for dead- will he have his revenge on the deranged cult?

Why is it worth seeing?

Mandy may be one of the most self assured genre flicks ever made. It’s a grisly love letter to rock and roll hair metal of the 80’s, and it just goes for it. It’s not afraid to let its monster sized freak flag fly- from outer space.

Here, director and Co-writer Panos Cosmatos essentially creates a diptych. The first portion, is essentially a languid, pastel-smeared story about 2 people meant to be together. Aided by composer Jóhann Jóhannsson’s mellow score, we meet a couple in the midst of a great run of comfort and healing that is ended as prematurely as it is convincingly.

The second portion, is when things become unglued. Switching to a colour scheme that’s closer to someone like Nicholas Winding Refn, we take a trip, not unlike the trips some of the characters take, aided through what appears to be homemade LSD. It’s not a pleasant trip, or at least it’s a trip comprised of such images such as demons, people being burned alive, and chainsaw assisted death. I guess it depends on what you’re into- if it’s a blood soaked descent into the bowels of hell, then this is the film for you (some of it’s unpleasantness reminded me of the ugliest parts of Hobo With A Shotgun).

If you’re going to be descending into the bowels of hell, you’re going to need a tour guide. Who better to point out the grisly sights, than the warped genius of Mr. Nicholas Cage himself. After years of taking roles in dreadful anti-products, here he is perfectly matched with the material, and it’s actually almost sad to see him return to an approximation of his peak mid-90’s form. Not even Bruce Campbell could pull this role off without comically stumbling into satire.

I’m not always a fan of revenge flicks. We typically watch a hero, aided by moral justification, put staggering amounts of bodies into the ground. I always rhetorically wonder if the character could ever feel better after the burials are done, while knowing that your fatalistic actions have created similar justifications of revenge for future crusaders- a Russian Doll of misguided consequence. Regardless, Mandy skillfully goes for a unique kind of broke, and then dials it up to 11- it doesn’t care if you approve or not. It knows what it is.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

The Thin Red Line

1998’s The Thin Red Line, directed by Terrence Malick.

Starring Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, John Cusack, Elisa Koteas, John C. Reilly, Nick Nolte, Elias Koteas, Adrian Brody, Ben Chaplin, John Travolta, Woody Harrelson, and George Clooney.

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director (Terrence Malick),

Best Adapted Screenplay (Terrence Malick), Best Cinematography (John Toll), Best Sound (Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer, and Paul 'Salty' Brincat) Best Film Editing (Billy Weber, Leslie Jones, and Saar Klein), and Best Original Score (Hans Zimmer).

What is it about?

Set in Guadalcanal during WWII, a group of soldiers fight against the Japanese to secure the island, and… against themselves. Rebel Private Witt (Jim Caviezel) is reintegrated into his outfit after AWOL’ing, and as the company advances, faces the horrors of war. Whatever from the perspective of grizzled Colonel Gordon Toll (Nick Nolte), noble Captain James “Bugger” Staros (Elias Koteas), or numbed Sgt. Maynard Storm (John C. Reilly), will our heroes of the last “great war” be able to eke out victory for the allies?

Why is it worth seeing?

At the time of its release, The Thin Red Line featured a great deal of expectation after its director, Terrence Malick, had disappeared from the public eye after stunning the world with his 1970’s features, Badlands and Days of Heaven. 20 years later, a murderer’s row of actors came forward once it was announced that Malick had started a new film, about American soldiers fighting against the Japanese. It’s not hard to see why- even with just 2 movies to his name, Malick’s poetic vision showed a way of transcending mere narrative and plot.

I have to admit- I didn’t care for TRL when I originally saw it. Saving Private Ryan, the other epic WWII film released that year, got all the box office and Oscar swag. Its story about a mission being a man was so much more straight forwards, and featured memorably vibrant characters amidst tragic sacrifice. Conversely, TRL was meditative in some parts, requiring patience at times. It featured a number of characters who are never identified, some of whom show up and then disappear for stretches, amidst flashbacks for some of these characters, in the middle of firefights. Standard exposition was replaced instead by artful narration by multiple characters. There is at least equal time spent on composing scenes of light shining through leaves and wind soughing through grass, as there were of men running into exploding detritus. It took me another viewing to realize that Malick was going for something so much more, than merely the thrilling awfulness of war.

Just to be clear, TRL has its share of pulse pounding moments. Malick knows how to use his dolly to give a sense of movement, where to place actors, how to pound the ground with shrapnel and bodies needing to be buried. But he’s after more- even more than the admirable theme of war being mankind’s most natural tragic state of being. His spiritual vision of what awaits us, in life or otherwise, wrestles comfortably with the fury and the calm.

I haven’t seen every single war movie out there, but I’m willing to wager TRL is the most beautiful one ever made. Most war movies are either kinetic, full of carnage, or anti climatic, with a lack of action- but most carry the standard message of, “War is Hell”. TRL is both of these things, but suggests the possibility that there is a beauty not only surrounding us, but embedded in us, even at our most destructive. As a character muses about what it is that is keeping us from touching the glory, the magic of Malick isn’t that he thinks heaven is a place on earth- it’s that we believe him.

Rating:

5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

BlacKKKlansman

2018’s BlacKKKlansman, directed by Spike Lee.

Starring John David Washington, Laura Harrier, Robert John Burke, Topher Grace, Adam Driver, Michael Buscemi, Ryan Eggold, Isiah Whitlock Jr, and Alec Baldwin.

What is it about?

Set during 1972 in Colorado Springs, the first police officer of colour for the municipality, Ron Stallworth (played by John David Washington), attempts to infiltrate the KKK. He is able to penetrate the organization on the phone, but for his physical presence needs help from his white Jewish undercover partner, Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver). Zimmerman has success convincing Colorado chapter head Walter Beachway (Ryan Eggold) of his identity so that he can meet the KKK grand wizard, David Duke (Topher Grace), but fellow Klan member Felix Kendrickson (Jasper Pääkkönen) suspects his brethren may not be as pure as advertised. Stallworth also meets student union/Black Panther activist Patrice Dumas (Laura Harrier), and needs to keep his occupation secret from her. Will Stallworth and Zimmerman be able to keep their covers, and prevent a terrorist attack the KKK have planned?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director Spike Lee returns in his latest “joint”, which is (mostly) based off of the unbelievable true story of Ron Stallworth, himself black, posing as a member of the white supremacist group, the Klu Klux Klan, for months. Making supercharged films about racial tension is nothing new for Lee, and he couldn’t have picked a more appropriate time to bring light to the kind of hate filled power that is exceeded in intensity only by its wielders’ stupidity.

With the importance of historical relevance established, Lee (and co-writers Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz. Kevin Willmott) embellish a large part of the (sometimes comical) story, inserting both a literal bomb plot, and a love interest in Harrier’s character. While the love story fizzles and gives Harrier little to do other than to shake her fist in the air and require saving, Lee brings a lot of panache to the movie’s final third, putting together scenes of crisp tautness to keep things explosive.

While no expert on Lee’s filmography, I notice here that he brings a sense of clumsiness in some of his editorial choices- such as tacky grad photo-like depictions of the audience during a Panther rally, or JCVD kick styled multi cams of scenes involving hugs.

Also disconcerting is the musical score by Terence Blanchard, which feels handpicked from a cop potboiler from 20 years ago- oddly at ends with the film presented here.

But what is not clumsy is the collection of actors assembled. Relative newcomer John David Washington is confidently charismatic as a black man running uphill in a white world (I guess talent runs in the family), and only Adam Driver, as the dude who has to pretend he’s not as tolerant (or Jewish) as he looks, upstages him. His scenes of effortlessly not losing his cool as various Klan members try to unravel his secrets showcase why he’s one of the hottest actors working today. Also terrific is Topher Grace (cast properly), as a man of great power who is actually pretty chummy (as long as you’re not unfortunate enough to choose the wrong race or religion).

Quibbles with the plot’s window dressing aside, Lee’s real achievement here is bringing an essential true story to the screen, that brings attention to the never ending racial tension grinding on in the United States of America. After the events of Charlottetown (and others) in 2017 (and onwards), it’s tempting to say that despite massive efforts to desegregate America and criminalize hatred- racism continues to burn with a flame of unbridled stubbornness. It’s tough to not criticize the film’s choices of victory laps- not when the larger threat looms outside, setting fire to the society we share.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Scream 4

2011’s Scream 4, directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Aimee Teegarden, Marley Shelton, Rory Culkin, Alison Brie, Adam Brody, Anthony Anderson, and Mary McDonnell.

What is it about?

Set back in the town of Woodsboro, California, it’s been a decade and a half since the events depicted in Scream. Promoting her new autobiographical book about her survival, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) arrives in town to find a new generation of high school kids influenced by both her experiences and the movies made based off of her story, the Stab franchise. Young cousin Jill (Emma Roberts), and best friend Kirby (Hayden Panettiere) do their best to avoid being victims to another version of the ghostface. They’ll have the help of promoted to Deputy, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and his assistant Judy (Marley Shelton), along with his wife, writer Gail Weathers-Dewey (Courtney Cox). Will they be able to stop the pop culture inspired psychopath, or end up being ineligible for future sequels?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director Wes Craven returns in the fourth entry of the slasher pastiche franchise. The trusty trio of Neve Campbell’s heroine Sidney Prescott, David Arquette’s humble Dewey Riley, and Courtney Cox’s investigative Gail Weathers, are joined by a new generation of teenagers, in the sequel that no one asked for.

Writer Kevin Williamson photocopies his previous works, that of the self referential and too hip for thou vibes, and introduces a new generation to celebrate the irony of mocking irony. Featuring tropes such as live web casting murders, cheering the nihilism of how there are no rules anymore, and craving social media exposure over life itself- one is thankful we’ve made it this far in the franchise at all.  

After 4 movies, it’s tough to say where we’ve gone after all of this carnage - Campbell’s heroine has little to do but get angry at yet another killer messing with her mojo, and Cox’s journalist gladly tosses her half hearted attempt to become a writer and instead (again) plays detective with her husband- although Arquette is weightier in stature after 3 previous movies of being a schmuck. But with the veterans of the cast feeling past their primes, the kids forget to show up to take their places. As always, the kids bring their attitude, their entitlement, and their pop culture encyclopedias- but it gets harder and harder not to empathize with the killer, as the increasing body count means the credits come rolling faster.

Scream 4 exists in a strange place. Unlike Scream 2, it’s competently made, and it could be even more entertaining than Scream 3 (it definitely doesn’t have the heart), as it pounds away to it’s cynical conclusion. But it’s most salient fact seems to be that it was conceived as the opener to a trilogy that never happened. With the studio unhappy with making a measly $100 million on its $40 million budget, there would be more no further sequels, and none of them really topped the original (itself a good film but hardly a seminal classic).

Wes Craven was a horror pioneer, so it makes it all the more galling that this was his last movie before his death. Perhaps he meant it as 1 last (cough), stab towards the Hollywood establishment, that of its never ending sequels and lazy money grabs. But the Scream franchise’s biggest legacy might be the lack of impression it made on the genre. It was mocked itself by the hugely successful (and dreadful) Scary Movie franchise, but seemed to influence little of the horror genre, being eclipsed instead by so-called torture porn and found footage sub genres. Some people will do anything to leave their mark.

Rating:

3/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Scream 3

2000’s Scream 3, directed by Wes Craven.

Starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Parkey Posey, Patrick Dempsey, Emily Watson, Scott Foley, Patrick Warburton, Melissa McCarthy, Lance Henrikson, Liev Schrieber, Carrie Fisher, and Jamie Kennedy.

What is it about?

Haunted by her dreams, perpetual victim Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) hides in anonymity in the hills of Los Angeles. While production of the horror sequel, Stab 3, continues, people on the movie set start to die. Convinced that he can find the killer, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) becomes a consultant on the film set, and journalist Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) senses (another) story in the making. Together the 3 of them reunite to uncover yet again the person responsible for bringing back the Ghostface killer. Will Sidney continue her streak of being one of horror’s most resilient final girls?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director Wes Craven returns in the third entry of the slasher pastiche franchise. Reuniting with his trio of Neve Campbell’s heroine Sidney Prescott, David Arquette’s humble Dewey Riley, and Courtney Cox’s investigative Gail Weathers, they forego the writing of Kevin Williamson (who did the previous 2 movies) for scriptor Ehren Kruger. The results, while not quite matching the originality of the original, are superior to that of Scream 2.

By the third movie in the franchise, you probably have a decent idea of the ground covered in the Scream canon. Dripping with self awareness of both the genre AND the series’ effects on the horror genre, Scream 3 doubles down on the meta factor through its Los Angeles based film shoot setting. Having “actors” portray the characters (such as Parker Posey’s mimicry of Gail Weathers) side by side while trying to escape the advances of yet another ghostface killer in a Hollywood set made to look like the homes depicted in the original, enhances the irony that much further. With little left to do but to try to top its self references, the Russian Doll structure accompanies the now practically standard jump scare fake outs, red herrings, and rampant speculation as to whom this time is behind the (comically clumsy) killer.

While never straying from the formula described above, writer Ehren Kruger brings aboard a different sensibility to the screenplay. There’s a coherence, and momentum, so absent in the second film, that is most welcome- making for a smoother ride. However, the Cox and Arquette relationship remains baffling. For the third movie in a row, they display chemistry, and work through yet another estrangement from each other (these past 2 films), that again is never explained or commented upon. You’d think the 2 of them would have the sense to actually stick together, since they spend the whole movie playing detective to find the killer. Campbell on the other hand, whom just wants to get over her trauma and move on, continues to be tormented. As capable and exciting to watch as ever, the movie’s closing shot of Sidney is a tribute to the power of resilience.

With more ironic death, more thrilling chases, and enough self reference to make Hollywood blush, some new wrinkles are overshadowed by the series’ contractual obligation. At the time, it was thought that this would be the last entry in the series. But you know how hard it is to keep the incompetent imitators at bay.

Rating:

3/5

Trailer: Click Here.