#CIFCC | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New Written Review from Mike Crowley on You’ll Probably Agree: 10 Reasons Why ‘Blade Runner 2049’ is better than ‘Blade Runner’

If you haven’t’ seen the movie, see it then read this. No intro, let’s jump right in.

1. K is a replicant

The reveal of K’s genetic code, or lack thereof, flips everything we assume the movie will be on its head. We are learning along with K what it means to exist. Do we as humans, live like replicants? Do we obey a society that treats us like trash but breath anyways out of the fear of death? Where we viewed “Blade Runner” mostly through Deckard’s eyes who didn’t have much of a personality, K’s lack of a character is his entire purpose for existing. For K to emote is to face death.

Where Harrison Ford’s Deckard entire arc was us questioning if he’s human or not (despite what Ridley Scott unequivocally says), there’s nothing much of substance to Officer Deckard. He gets drunk, retires replicants, that’s it. Name one thing that makes Deckard standout? I’ll wait. Ryan Gosling’s Officer K goes from a machine that is dying spiritually on the inside to someone wanting to have a purpose in life. All while maintaining his composure, if perhaps too much poise for the film. Anything with a conscious can feel. Whether or not how it was made is as relevant as where you were born or what skin color you are. The importance is that you’re here.

K doesn’t seek gratitude nor affirmation. He doesn’t suffer from a narcissistic personality. All he wants is not just to be another useless piece of metal.

2. Deckard has depth this time

Being a daddy changes you a lot. Rick isn’t just a slouchy drunk who likes to shoot robots out of legal obligation. He’s a man who’s principles and love for forbidden things cost him his life. What kind of soul did Deckard have in the first film? Who did he care for? Please don’t say, Rachel, we all know why he was attracted to Rachel. Like Winston in 1984, Deckard rejects Big Brother for a life of pain to gain a glimmer of happiness.

3. It’s horrifyingly relevant

Denis Villeneuve based the imagery in 2049 on a planet that has become degraded with pollution. The buildings are extrapolating enormous amounts of water into the atmosphere, the sea wall at the end of the picture will be our new Mount Rushmore, the orange Vegas is happening now. Denis Villeneuve didn’t predict the earth looking like this, but his production team was still spot on. A picture that transcends its very style, developing a look that will be discussed on its merits separate from the ubiquitous original, is a stunning achievement.

Everything isn’t dystopian because that’s the way it was in the book. It’s what will happen to us in real life, why we’d look for colonies to live on if we had the technology or funding towards NASA to do so. God help us all.

4. The love story questions the essence of relationships

The story between K and Joi further examines the meaning of love, sex, and mortality, with the two being different versions of artificiality. When the default sexed-up version of a naked Joy pops up on the screen, we are emotionally mortified. Some of us may be repulsed to observe a character we care for utilized like a thirsty Godzilla.

The towering ad tries to seduce K tempting him to buy it, rendering everything Joi said to K throughout the picture questionable. Its manipulation solidifies his final decision in life to help another man. We’re not sure if she loved him or said what it thought it wanted him to hear throughout the narrative. Possibly Joi herself didn’t know her intentions. An unusual amount of nuance and uncertainty rests in the love story. Who do we love? Why do we love? Do we love by the heart or the heart of our designers whom we don’t know?

Meanwhile, Deckard was just drunk and horny when he bashed Rachel up against the wall. Sorry, that really was all there was to their passion despite what Wallace says.

5. The movie was an honest commentary about how the world views woman

Here’s a controversial one. A lot of women were disgusted by the way they were depicted in the film. Outwardly watching the movie, I can’t blame them. I’ll let Mr. Villeneuve speak for himself. “I am very sensitive to how I portray women in movies. This is my ninth feature film and six of them have women in the lead role. The first Blade Runner was quite rough on the women, something about the film noir aesthetic. But I tried to bring depth to all the characters. For Joi, the holographic character, you see how she evolves. It’s interesting, I think. What is cinema? Cinema is a mirror on society. Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today. And I’m sorry, but the world is not kind on women.”

Villeneuve is right. Women today are still sexualized. Even with the Me Too movement, women are continually seen as sex objects or subservient slaves in a male-dominated society. Villeneuve isn’t interested in painting a rosy picture that Hollywood does for female roles to make the audiences feel comfortable. It’s an honest reflection on who we are. What we see is what we don’t want to see, but that’s part of the honesty of cinema.

6. The score is mesmerizing

Another point in which I may face some contention. Yes, Vangelis’ score is iconic, but it only works for the era it was composed in. Much of its mixture of bleeps, blops, and wind chimes are a product of its time. A lot of emotion is missing from the score other than the opening theme and “Tears In Rain.” Hearing much of the soundtrack while on the road, I sometimes thought I was listening to something from a porno. Take a listen to “Wait For Me” in the soundtrack and tell me otherwise. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Walfisch’s score is timeless while also paying respect to Vangelis’ synthetic use in the original. It dives into the character’s mind providing a replication of something more human than what Vangelis composed.

7. It thematically ties more directly to “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” than “Blade Runner” does.

“Blade Runner” got the overall gist of Phillip K Dick’s novel. Replicants are scared, trying to find a way to survive as Deckard hunts them down. However, the Andies in the movie almost deserve to die. In their quest for more life, they torture and kill multiple civilians. What did the guy making the eyes do to deserve being frozen to death? What about J.R. Sebastian? He was nothing but pleasant to Roy and Pris. Did Roy eye gauge him when he was done with Tyrell?

Aside from Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), our replicants are fully rounded people. Sapper Morton is a watchful protector who was meant to be a NEXUS 8 combat medic; Joi’s true intentions come into question for herself and us. K’s inner conflict is the central core of the story. All of this revolves around the meaning of existence within a world that has forgotten about you. The introduction of Robo procreation is an evolution of Dick’s ideas, widening his notion of why life exists in the first place.

8. It doesn’t get lost in the scale

Many sequels love scope over characters. Remember “The Matrix”? Remember how they talked about Zion and all these other things we didn’t see? When the sequels brought in Zion, the focus got lost in the spectacle. “The Matrix Reloaded” was a bumbling CGI mess of Agent Smith Clones and cave orgies. “The Matrix Revolutions” was a glorified “Space Invaders” game. Shoot as many sentinels as you can before becoming overwhelmed. Amidst the sequels bumbling chaos, I missed the smaller scale of the Nebuchadnezzar crew.

The story of “2049” could have focused on the replicant uprising with thousands of robots slamming into humans. We could have gone off-world to finally see what all these other colonies we’ve heard about are like. Some have argued that the movie could have borrowed some of its source material from the later novels about replicants creating humans, so on and so forth. All of that sounds incredible in theory. In execution, you would likely get “The Matrix” sequels.

A movie that overreaches in scope, attempting to please fans by showing everything. What we got was an incredibly meaningful story that further explores the themes of the original while building upon its world without going too far. We see what’s beyond L.A. on the dilapidated west coast. The answer is not much. The film aims at minimalism over extravaganza.

9. We’re still talking about it

After being MIA for decades, “Blade Runner 2049” isn’t forgotten. I can’t say the same for “Superman Returns,” “Monsters University,” “The Incredibles 2,” “Live Free or Die Hard,” and “Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull.” In fairness, people do talk about Indy 4, but not in a positive fashion. “Blade Runner 2049” returned to the limelight with disastrous box office results yet high accolades, even gaining the Academy’s attention. Ironically it seemed destined to live the life of its predecessor.

“2049” may have tanked because it was a multimillion-dollar art film that respected its audience’s intelligence. Maybe “Blade Runner” was too far gone amongst the public to gain an interest geared almost entirely towards comic books and Disney. I think the trailers after the reveal teaser looked too generic for my own two cents, turning me off from the film for a short while.

Here we are with Honest Trailers in 2020, making a video about a film that came out in 2017. Bloodsoaked orange skies from the headlines mention the atmosphere of this film. Somewhere, about 100 other people are writing their analysis of “Blade Runner 2049” as I type right now. Seven years from now, we’ll be talking about why the world is still like “Blade Runner 2049.” Villeneuve made a timeless sequel to be remembered.

10. It’s better than the first film and one of the best films in the last ten years

Here’s why you’ll probably agree with this one when you put your pitchfork down. Remove your nostalgia goggles. I know it’s hard to do, please, trust me. Look at the points I made above. Think about how ironic the love story is to our lives. The layers of meaning behind K’s existence is lightyears beyond the featureless Rick Deckard. The picture isn’t flawless. Niander Wallace is spectacularly corny in his scenery-chewing grim monologues. Dr. Eldon Tyrell had some ambiguity regarding the morale of his intentions. For that, I’ll give the original the benefit of my doubt. I understand Ryan Gosling was cast to be intentionally deadpan, but it’s okay to emote once. His distant stare in all of his other performances made it difficult for me to discern myself from the actor’s rather dull persona.

With this said, “Blade Runner 2049” understands cinema. Its atmosphere is why we venture into a dark room that takes us to a different place. Denis Villeneuve’s masterful follow up is one of the most orgasmic cinematic experiences I have witnessed in the last ten years that demands a re-screening in 2022 when theatres reopen at an entirely safe capacity. The style doesn’t overshadow its substance, which is far richer in detail than the original without grasping at blatant metaphors. “Blade Runner 2049” is slow cinema at its finest, letting us into the character’s heads, knowing when to be quiet and when to be loud.

Like “The Empire Strikes Back,” not everyone appreciated the movie at first. Time has been incredibly kind to it, though. I wish the Academy recognized “Blade Runner 2049” beyond its technical marvels in 2018. I suppose it wasn’t the type of picture that catches Oscar voter’s eyes. But it has acquired the audience’s to this day. Now, if you could just look up and to the left for me?

from you’ll probably agree website https://ift.tt/3kxHs7O via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3kG03i7 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

5 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Robert Daniels on 812 Film Reviews: ‘The Painted Bird:’ Unflinchingly Speaks The Truth of War

Rating: 4/4

Countless adaptations of WW2 literature exist in cinema. Come and See, The Bunker, Truman, Patton, HBOs seminal mini series Band of Brothers, the list is seemingly infinite. War, spies, the drama and bloodshed of heroes, villains, and the horrors of the Nazi and Imperial Japanese occupations.

What you almost never see is the aftermath, the wind down, and the lasting impact the war had on the thousands of innocents across Europe, and Eastern Europe in particular. Well, director Václav Marhoul has brought us that in his punishing, heart rending adaptation of Jerzy Kosiriski’s post WW2 novel, The Painted Bird.

The Painted Bird follows a nameless Boy (Petr Kotlar) as he wanders through the countryside and cities of war torn Eastern Europe after the death of his aunt and destruction of their farm house, in search of first his family, then a home, then…he doesn’t know. Along the way he meets, discovers, and is taken in by several people for whom each chapter in the film is named for, and sees how the war has changed or enabled them to be the dregs or spots of sunlight left in humanity.

Calling this film a war movie would be a mistake. Calling it a meditation would too, in my opinion, be a mistake. The Painted Bird in all its horror and darkness is a Truth. A truth of how war abandons, spits out, and traumatizes children. A truth of the abject vileness and evil of humanity. A truth also, however, in how even when these things strive to beat humanity out of us, the strength in the goodness that can still show through in the unlikeliest of people. “Fair is foul and foul is fair,” the oft quoted Shakesperian adage from Macbeth proves abundantly true in this story. More often than not, the most kind, beautiful, or benign looking people who come into the Boy’s life are the ones who harm him most, whether through rape, beatings, attempted murder, or neglect. On the other hand, some of the most assumedly vile and cruel people are the same that offer him the most compassion, protection, and a potential salvation of the little spirit left in him as we slowly watch him descend into apathy and potential sociopathy.

For saying very little, almost nothing at all in fact, Kotlar is an incredibly dynamic force on screen. He emotes so much with so little, and has incredible instincts for a child of his age in a film of this tonality. You want him to finally have a release so desperately, to have rest, an end to the seemingly endless torrent of suffering that falls like so many dominoes around him, and when he seems like his spirit is finally broken and lost, you crave for it to come back to him even as he does horrible things. The Boy is any child, any traumatized war victim regardless of age, and he and Kotlar’s performance grips at the very core of our empathetic nature and makes you sick at the suffering and pain he is made to endure, through no fault of his own but being different, a Jew in the 40s, a painted bird who the flock turns on and kills for being made into an enemy by an indifferent, cruel outsider; and we see so many painted birds.

In fact, basically anyone who is seen as socially different or unacceptable is often tortured and/or murdered in front of his eyes, from a farmhand who threatens the ego of a miller enough to earn a gruesome mutilation, to a promiscuous woman who is violated by older women with a vodka bottle, to the dead Jewish people he sees shot down by Nazi soldiers, the painted birds are beaten and battered until they die and fall into their lonely graves.

The cinematography and sound design helps drive this point home, even in the way the lighting alters something so simple as the shadows playing along a beautiful girl’s face, making her formerly kind smile into a cruel sneer. The lack of color in the film allows us to focus on everything in hyper-detail, allowing the emotional acting of otherwise silent characters like the Boy shine in the forefront where they may have been drowned out by distractions in a colorized format, as well as evoking the mood and tone of classic WW2 newsreel and documentary footage. It also keeps a slight blockade between the violence and cruelty displayed on screen and the viewer. There is so much going on at any given time, and so much of it horrific, on so many primal levels, that if even a fraction of it had been in full-color, it would have been entirely too much; nigh unwatchable in perfect honesty.

At the same time, there is no peppy soundtrack or backing orchestra to keep us detached and distract us from the brutality on screen. The bread and butter of this film’s tension is the masterful uses of long, uncomfortable, horrible blocks of silence that feel like you should be hearing nails on a chalkboard. They make you beg for sound, and when you finally get it, more often than not you beg for the silence once more. Anything to take you away from the tragic journey of this young, naive, and slowly broken child.

But, none of this would coalesce into the masterpiece that is The Painted Bird without one very important detail: this film was made by Eastern Europeans, in Eastern Europe, and the dialogue is, unless it comes from outside invading forces, Eastern European dialects and languages. This is because you could not make a film like this in the US, Western Europe, hell even Germany.

The Painted Bird is a Slavic film in every sense, down to the bones of its skeleton and the soul of its inspiration: the understanding of a shared trauma, crossing countries, dialects, and souls. The shared pain and suffering of those who were in the camps, occupied first by Germany, then Russia, never their own again until the 1980s, and still called backwards and treated like jokes. In the post war period, there was no illusion of glorious celebration, Allied parties and kissing girls in the street. Cities were decimated, Warsaw was razed, the Czech republic had been brutalized, one could go on and honestly, documentaries in the West rarely do. It’s a blip, as though the landmass between Germany and Russia is a miasma of strange languages and stranger customs that don’t bear repeating, whose stories of their own post war suffering and struggle with the horrific aftermath of war have scarcely merited an adaptation worthy of winning something like Best Cinematography at Tribeca 2020. It’s time. It has been time, and the quality of this film has absolutely been worth the wait.

Like the Boy who looks silently at the concentration camp survivor’s tattoo and acknowledges their shared struggle by at last writing his real, Jewish name on the frost in a nameless bus on a nameless road in the middle of nowhere, The Painted Bird is an olive branch from us to those long past. We remember, we understand, we share your suffering and doubt and pain, even in the uncertainty of now. All of us, painted birds.

The Painted Bird becomes available on VOD 7/15/2020

youtube

from 812filmReviews https://ift.tt/30f3GD5 via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/32osDPq via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

2 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Jeff York on The Establishing Shot: A SOLDIER’S SACRIFICE DRIVES THE EARNEST “FATHER SOLDIER SON”

While watching the compelling new Netflix documentary FATHER SOLDIER SON, I couldn’t help but think about the bounties Putin is paying for Afghanistan rebels to assassinate American soldiers and the fact that our American president has yet to address such savagery. Our military men and women do not serve in vain and this doc by filmmakers Leslye Davis and Catrin Einhorn demonstrate their respect for such duty from the first second to last. (Perhaps the POTUS could check out this doc opening today and learn a thing or two about patriotism.)

Brian Eisch of Green Bay, WI felt a higher calling than just finding a job when he enlisted in the army shortly after high school graduation in 1999. He became a devoted soldier and was deployed to Afghanistan in 2010 as a master sergeant. The doc starts with him returning home to the States after six months overseas to reunite with his boys Isaac, 12, and Joey, 7. Their reunion is both joyous and strained. The family bond is tight, but in many ways, they’re virtually strangers.

A loving single father, divorced from a troubled woman the doc doesn’t illuminate or dwell upon, Brian expresses worries about missing out on his son’s formative years. Indeed, the boys’ uncle is taking care of them while dad’s away and key moments in their lives are happening without a paternal presence. Both boys love him nonetheless and are proud of his service, but it terrifies them too. Too many sleepless nights dwell on their fears for his safety.

The film clearly sympathizes with Brian and admires his service, but it doesn’t shy away from showing how his career takes a toll on everyone involved. That point is driven home all the more when Brian returns from Afghanistan crippled from an ambush while saving a local medic. That bravery earned him a Purple Heart, but it netted him little at home. Brian is relegated to a wheelchair and his rehabilitation is extremely arduous. His family struggles along with him as he battles to return to some sense of normalcy.

Ultimately, the maimed soldier agrees to have his left leg amputated below the knee to lessen the excruciating pain. The film charts the intricacies of working with prosthetics, squeamish as they may be, but his courage is never less than admirable. Brian learns to walk with an artificial limb, but it leads to depression, weight gain, and struggles to find a new vocation when he can no longer serve.

It’s difficult to watch this proud warrior taken down so many pegs over the 10 years that this doc filmed him and his family. (It might remind you of the movie BOYHOOD where Richard Linklater told his story about a family over a decade’s worth of filming too.) Yet even with such harrowing chapters in the story, there are wonderful moments of joy on display as well. Brian cultivates a loving relationship with a single mom named Maria he’s met and it makes for the loveliest moments in the story.

And while spending more time with his sons gives him joy, Brian’s machismo cannot help but put pressure on them, especially when he tries to encourage both of them towards military futures. His masculine pride gets in the way too when he has difficulty processing his son Joey’s tears after the boy’s loss at a school wrestling match.

There is an eerie sense of foreboding during the film, a feeling of continuous heartbreak awaiting this soldier. Brian’s marriage to Maria and the blending of their respective families are wonderful to witness, the highpoints of the film, but they are quickly usurped by the story’s biggest tragedy. Reality makes for crueler storytelling than any fiction that can be written, and the harrowing twist in Brian’s story will leave you in tears.

Yet despite such ups and downs, FATHER SOLDIER SON never loses sight of the courage in Brian’s growth as a man and father. The documentary doesn’t shy away from showing his faults, including the baked-in macho traditions that run through such families, but it sympathizes with them wholly. Serving country isn’t just a calling for some, it’s practically in their DNA, and while it may seem absurd to some, there is unmistakable nobility in it.

The music is minimal and there’s no outside narration framing everything to tell us exactly what to feel. Davis and Einhorn let their cameras do the work as fly-on-the-wall observers, letting the raw footage and economical editing stand on their own. The filmmakers also ensure that the nuanced moments have as much power as the bold ones too.

Ultimately, the film reaffirms one’s belief in the American spirit, if not the American military entirely. The specifics of politics involved in such skirmishes overseas don’t matter as much to the Eisch family as being drawn to something patriotic. Ultimately though, Brian learns that being a father trumps his service as a soldier and his truest battle is that of the day-to-day variety at home. It’s a heartening lesson, one that isn’t lost on those of us watching who are now battling to make it through the COVID-19 pandemic, record unemployment, and a recession. We’re all soldiering on as best we can and this admirable film makes that abundantly clear.

from The Establishing Shot https://ift.tt/2ZzUGJM via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3fD82ug via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Jeff York on The Establishing Shot: “NORMAL PEOPLE” IS A SEARING EXAMINATION OF LOVE AND PAIN

Love stories are a rare find these days on the big or small screen. If there’s a couple together in the story, they’re usually surrounded by a family or plopped down into some adventure together. That’s why NORMAL PEOPLE, the new Hulu/BBC miniseries, is so unique and welcome. Based on Sally Rooney’s international bestseller, it tells the story of two Irish teenagers and their on-again-off-again relationship from high school to grad school. The narrative not only concentrates wholly on their relationship, but it brings an honesty, intimacy, and immediacy to the screen that is almost unheard of these days. It’s a stunning piece.

The miniseries, which debuted on Hulu on April 29, consists of 12 half-hour episodes. Each is a dramatic chapter in the course of the complicated relationship between Marianne Sheridan (Daisy Edgar-Jones) and Connell Waldron (Paul Mescal). He’s well-liked and popular in the high school of their Irish town. Connell’s smart, but quiet, bordering on shy. Still, he’s a talented writer and a gifted rugby player. Marianne, on the other hand, is not well-liked by the student body or the faculty. She’s incredibly smart, but mouthy, a constant contrarian. It doesn’t help that she comes from money, a fact that makes the majority of working-class students shun her.

Despite their differences, Marianne and Connell are drawn to each other. He’s easy on the eyes, with understated charm, but Marianne likes his intellect and soulfulness just as much. Connell, in turn, finds her both attractive and intimidating but is jazzed by her smarts and the warmth she shows him. When they gaze at each other, their connection is electric, and it’s something neither has experienced with anyone else in their lives.

Yet, despite their burgeoning connection, one that will encompass mind, body, and soul, there are plenty of gaps between them. He’s working class, proud, and keenly aware of the macho requirements to be a regular bloke at his school. She’s often strident and has little use for the locals or their small-town mentality. When the two start their relationship, Connell asks Marianne to keep it hush-hush. He doesn’t want the grief from his judgmental friends. Marianne goes along with his wishes, because she wants to be with him, but also because she’s battling issues of self-worth. Her mother is a cold as ice and her older brother is little more than an entitled bully.

The series is wise to show them circling each other, getting to know each other through school events, and their private conversations. Theirs is a slow build, but when they finally have sex, the story doesn’t cut away as soon as it starts as so many movies and shows do. Instead, the scene goes on for ten minutes, moving effortlessly from their conversation to gentle kissing to fumbling disrobing. Director Lenny Abrahamson (ROOM) keeps the camera close to their faces the whole time, making for one of the most intimate and erotic set pieces ever captured on screen.

Connell has strong feelings for her, and vice versa, but he ruins the good thing they’ve got going when he invites a girl from his clique to a school dance instead of his secret girlfriend. A hurt and pissed Marianne dumps him, hard, and it takes Connell a while to realize what he’s lost. Even his mother, played knowingly by Sarah Greene, in a terrific supporting turn, lambasts her son for his immaturity. When it finally dawns on how awful he was, he breaks down and messages Marianne, begging for forgiveness. But she’s just as proud and gives him the cold shoulder. Not long after, he heads off to the university at Dublin to pursue a writing career, still pining for Marianne and ruing his stupidity.

From there, the two weave in and out of each other’s lives throughout college and grad school. Their truest education ends up being how they learn to mature alone and in their relationship, whatever form it happens to be taking at the time, through its many ups and downs along the way.

What makes the series so compelling is its entire concentration on the two of them. There is no distracting B story, or subplots, just the study of these two people and their complex lives. What makes the series even more enthralling is its willingness to show how flawed they are both as individuals and when they’re together. These two are good people, but their egos and baggage keep getting in the way of their own best interests.

The show is called NORMAL PEOPLE, conjuring up comparisons to ORDINARY PEOPLE, another story about people dealing with extraordinary abilities to self-inflict wounds, but its title also knowingly speaks to its empathetic audience. Everyone has experienced both joy and pain in equal measure in their relationships, and the problems that Connell and Marianne face are utterly relatable even if sometimes they lean towards the extreme.

The series faithfully adapted Rooney’s vaulted prose, and indeed the author herself is one of the screenwriters of the miniseries, along with Alice Birch and Mark O’Rowe. Abrahamson directed the first six episodes, while the equally talented Hettie Macdonald (BEAUTIFUL THING) helmed the final six. The cinematography by Suzie Lavelle and Kate McCullough is exquisite and sophisticated, more evocative than most series or films ever are, and the editing by Nathan Nugent and Stephen O’Connell never cuts away from a character reaction too soon. The story never feels rushed but a lot happens in each half-hour of its twelve episodes.

Of course, a love story, no matter how well written or produced, comes down to how good the two leads are together and the chemistry between Mescal and Edgar-Jones is sublime. They’re especially good at making the little moments feel as vivid as the big ones, like when they’re enjoying ice cream novelties together or watching each other fall asleep in separate settings via their laptops.

Newcomer Paul Mescal is brilliant in a tricky role. Connell is not verbose and suppresses so much, but Mescal wisely uses his body language and eyes to convey his character’s true thoughts and feelings. As for Daisy Edgar-Jones, she is simply astonishing. One might have to go all the way back to a young Jane Fonda to find an ingenue who could hold the screen nearly as well. Edgar-Jones makes her character achingly real and utterly mesmerizing whether she’s talking, listening to others, or just sitting still. Both fierce and fragile, Edgar-Jones’s performance is a stunner and should bring her international stardom. The English actress even nails her character’s Irish accent flawlessly.

The miniseries has a few miscalculations: too many pop songs on the soundtrack are on-the-nose, and a few of the villainous characters could almost be twirling mustaches. Surprisingly, the series misses the opportunity to show us the great writer that Connell is supposed to be. Couldn’t there have been at least one scene where his brilliant prose was read? More successful is the mostly young supporting cast, all registering vividly. The series also makes the most of its Irish, Italian, and Swedish locations, and may even create some fashion trends with Marianne’s spiffy college wardrobe.

Romance onscreen may have fallen out of favor with audiences because of the all-too-predictable trajectory of the storytelling. NORMAL PEOPLE serves as an antidote to all of the dreck out there, telling its romantic narrative with a freshness and immediacy that has become all but extinct onscreen. It has the confidence to stay close to its pair, excise all the extraneous, and keep us rooting for this fascinating couple on their extraordinary journey of self-discovery, friendship, and love. It’s a remarkable achievement.

from The Establishing Shot https://ift.tt/2YLokMc via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Wjd0VL via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

2 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Al and Linda Lerner on Movies and Shakers: John Lewis: Good Trouble

John Lewis: Good Trouble shows why the Congressman is a hero for consistently fighting, literally and legislatively for civil and voting rights for 60 years. In light of the Black Lives Matter movement upcoming election, this film couldn’t come at a better time.

Despite winning a few battles along the way, Lewis makes it clear in his opening statement that the fight is not over, now evident in the news we see every day. Lewis states, “We’ve come so far and made so much progress, but as a nation and a people, we’re not quite there yet. We have miles to go.”

Documentary Director Dawn Porter shows tender family scenes as well as disturbing riot footage following Lewis from childhood-to-protestor-to- Congressman. This is a detailed history of the Civil Rights movement starting with his ancestors all the way to the present including interviews about Lewis with Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Stacy Abrams, Hillary Clinton, and the late Elijah Cummings.

This mild-mannered man subtly makes it clear when he finds something unjust, he tries to correct it. He saw how the right to vote was being suppressed early on by testing Black Americans at the polls, asking questions no one could answer. Do you know how many bubbles are in a bar of soap? That’s just one example in the film.

Lewis has a fascinating backstory as the son of a sharecropper who saved enough money to buy his own land, but saw his family berated as undeserving to own that land because they were supposed to be slaves. His job at the farm was to take care of the chickens, which he not only fed, but talked and preached to. He still collects little ceramic chickens and keeps them in a beautiful cage in his office, still talking to them. It’s important to him because It reminds him of where came from. Fortunately, hIs family realized that Lewis needed to go to school and made sure he did.

You see Lewis as a young man trying to organize and mobilize to make a difference. He was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to get in “good trouble,” Lewis went door-to-door to help register voters. He wrote to Dr. King about wanting to get involved and received a round trip ticket from his civil rights hero in the mail to come march with him. Lewis marched with Dr. King in 1965 from Selma to Montgomery where disturbing footage shows him being beaten and then hospitalized in what was planned as a peaceful protest. But his civil disobedience to get change didn’t stop there. Lewis proudly admits he has been arrested 40 times, 5 of those while serving in Congress.

He is very soft-spoken, nearly mumbling his words, but you can see the humility and kindness in his eyes as he converses with staff and constituents. There is a palpable, mutual respect and an easy going demeanor in his on-screen persona. There’s really only one time when he appears drastically different. It’s when he and Julian Bond ran against each other for City Council in Atlanta. They’d worked together registering voters and been very close friends for 25 years. You get to see a very icy exchange on TV when Lewis suggested Bond take a drug test which obviously tarnished the contest Lewis won, splitting the Black vs. White vote. They both went on to do well in politics and salvaged the friendship as well. But Lewis is definitely seen through a different lens at that time.

You get to see him as a happy family man with his very independent and smart, late wife, Lillian, and their son. He tells heartwarming stories with a smile, about Lillian and their loving and respectful relationship during their long marriage.

Two very cute passages in the film show very human sides to the man. Seeing him being recognized and greeted with adoration by white and black men and women in an airport shows how much people like and respect him. In addition, Director Porter shows a funny anecdote told by the late Congressman Elijah Cummings often mistaken for John Lewis. He was often stopped by families who mistook him for John Lewis. They would insist on taking photos with him, sure that he was Lewis. Cummings would cordially oblige, without admitting his true identity, not wanting to embarrass them or burst their bubble.

The other very human passage is even more enjoyable to watch. When Lewis started dancing to the Pharrell Williams’ tune “Happy” in the hall by his office, one of his staff put the video up on Tik Tok. He just looks so happy dancing as if no one is watching. It made us smile and, of course, it went viral. If you’re ever feeling down, seek it out.

Director Dawn Porter is meticulous in her biography of John Lewis’ life and career focusing on his driven fight for civil rights and justice for all that hits at just the right moment. At 80, John Lewis may be a little slower and more soft-spoken, but this film shows how he still has the vitality to continue the same fight for equality he fought for as a young man. He’s definitely not afraid to let himself be seen dancing on “Tik Tok,” and always ready to get into “Good Trouble.”

Magnolia Pictures 1 hour 36 minutes PG Documentary On Demand

youtube

from Movies and Shakers https://ift.tt/3iH1mxi

from WordPress https://ift.tt/38B7Zwf via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Jeff York on The Establishing Shot: APPRECIATING THE SUBLIME NASTINESS OF STUART GORDON’S “RE-ANIMATOR”

With the passing of filmmaker Stuart Gordon this past week, I was inspired to re-visit his darkly comic horror film RE-ANIMATOR. A loose adaptation of H. P. Lovecraft’s horror short Herbert West – Reanimator, Gordon made it his own by amping up the comedy and the grotesque in equal measures for a modern horror classic. When it came out in 1985, America was settling into a comfortable groove with a second term of the Reagan administration, a nationwide obsession with music videos on MTV, and a steadying economy. Gordon likely wanted to shake audiences out of its complacency, and he did just that with his hellzapoppin horror show.

The film was probably too controversial by half to be anything more than a qualified hit at the time, but nonetheless it still had quite an impact. Not only did it achieve instant cult status, and lead to a number of sequels, but it cemented Gordon’s artistic reputation as a provocateur and set his film career up to continue to shock and awe. (He’d already done a lot of similar things in Chicago with his Organic Theater Company where, among other things, he introduced the world to the equally edgy playwright David Mamet when he produced his first play entitled Sexual Perversity in Chicago.) 35 years later, the chills and laughs Gordon put out for the world to see in RE-ANIMATOR still stand tall, and if anything, the entire enterprise seems even more outrageous than it did when it opened during that comfy and conservative Reagan era.

The idea of reanimating corpses wasn’t exactly the edgiest subject for the horror genre. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, which helped start the genre back in 1818, was about that very idea. Nor was excessive violence and gore new to films or even TV shows in the genre. The Hammer horror films dumped buckets of blood all over the screen in the ’60s. THE NIGHT STALKER made-for-TV movie in 1972 pushed the boundaries of violence transmitting into people’s homes with its tale of a vampire on the loose in Las Vegas. And God knows that John Carpenter was raked over the coals by critics for the spectacularly graphic deaths in his remake of THE THING in 1982. RE-ANIMATOR didn’t do anything all that new by being excessively violent. What was novel about it was how viciously it was employed, and how glibly. It was gross, sure, but mostly, it was served with a sense of humor.

In a word, RE-ANIMATOR was nasty.

Nasty in tone, look, and physicality, not to mention its treatment of death, the medical community, patriarchal society, ingenues, and yes, the classic hero’s journey. It was a sniggering and snide middle finger to propriety, daring audiences to watch, laugh, and stay till the end of a film wall-to-wall with outrage. Some did, some didn’t. I had to chase after my date who walked out during it due to being so offended. I returned the next day to see it on my own. It was a very polarizing movie.

The story concerned a brilliant but certifiably cuckoo medical student named Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs) who has invented a reagent that can re-animate deceased bodies. He pulls his classmate and roommate Dan Cain (Bruce Abbott) into his twisted world when cat Rufus ends up dead by accident and West brings it back to life with his DayGlo green goop. Unfortunately, the lovable personality of the frisky feline doesn’t return as easily as his body. Instead, the sweet kitty’s personality is replaced by a savage and mutated one, a zombie-cat driven by bloodlust. As the two roomies dig deeper into experimentation with reanimation, human bodies start to pile up all over campus, all becoming as vicious as poor Rufus. It’s a film with a pretty sizable body count, one that ends with most of the cast dead, or at least dead for the moment. Dr. West’s formula glows in the dark in the final fade to black.

Combs gave one of the greatest horror film performances ever, a snide sociopath somewhere between Tony Perkins’ boyishness and Christopher Lee’s silken menace. West was arrogant, tart-tongued, and incapable of even showing a speck of human empathy, By the end, he’s not become a better person one iota. Instead, he’s grown even more obsessed and dangerous. And he’s the lead. (Gordon was all but taunting Joseph Campbell, if not Robert McKee.)

Dan, while a cliched handsome hero in appearance, is little more than a feckless fool throughout. West all but leads him by the nose the entire time. Dan’s girlfriend Megan (Barbara Crampton) is introduced as a sweet, innocent girl and then promptly gets pulled into one humiliation after another. She’s bamboozled by Dan, has to watch her kind father, the dean of the school (Robert Samson), die and then turn into a vicious zombie. West treats her with derision, and the film’s villain Dr. Carl Hill (David Gale) will spend the entire hour and 45-minute running time trying to get into her pants. Today, they’d give her a Katniss Everdeen moment or two to counter such victimhood, but not in ’85.

RE-ANIMATOR is a film that at every beat of its story, exuded in its politically incorr ect attitude Gordon, and his fellow screenwriters Dennis Paoli and William J. Norris threw all the sacred cows out the window or against the wall. (Literally and figuratively, truly.) Rufus’ death is played for grisly laughs. So are all the human deaths. The story also ridicules people in mental institutions, padded cells, and morgues. The character of Megan’s father goes from a sweet, caring man to a drooling, lobotomized caricature in about 10 minutes. And to justify its adult rating, Megan ends up nude for a great deal of the third act. It should be noted too that the film has no problem lingering on Crampton’s comely figure either, including her pubic region. The film takes no prisoners and laughs all the way to the dank.

Most horror comedies tend to play more cute than cruel, like BEETLEJUICE, GHOSTBUSTERS, and ZOMBIELAND. RE-ANIMATOR, however, emphasizes humor that often plays as mean as the bloodletting. Nowhere is this more evident than in how Gordon treats the film’s villainous Dr. Hill. When West catches him trying to steal his reagent, he attacks him with a shovel, and then for good measure, decapitates him too. Still, Hill stays in the picture. The lascivious villain is reanimated and soon both his head in a pan, as well as his foot shorter body, are plotting more nastiness.

The film ends with a phantasm of violence and craziness, chock full of multiple corpses attacking and spraying blood and guts around like the top was left off of a Cuisinart. Yet, even that over-the-top ending cannot compete with the single most memorable set piece in the film. That is when Dr. Hill’s decapitated head tries to, ahem, give head to Megan as she’s strapped to the slab. (Thankfully, my girlfriend left before that scene!)

When the film was originally presented to the review board, it received an X rating because of such scenes, as well as its violence. Gordon trimmed some bits and pieces here and there to scale back such offenses, and thus ensured the video release of the film got an R rating that made it acceptable for Blockbuster and mom & pop stores nationwide. In rentals is where the film really took off and built its reputation that it enjoys today.

Gordon and his producer Brian Yuzna consciously went for the shock and delivered it in spades. They spent a considerable amount of their meager $900,000 budget on the gruesome makeup effects, ensuring that they were as disgusting and graphic as the photos they discovered in a forensics pathologist manual. John Naulin, the film’s effects supervisor, said it was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In past horror films, he never used more than two gallons of blood. For RE-ANIMATOR, he used 24.

And, dare one say, it was bloody effective. By not pulling its punches, RE-ANIMATOR was true to Gordon’s vision of splitting skulls and being side-splitting too. And for such a brazen film, it’s got dozens of quotable quips, particularly those uttered by West. When he discovers the headless Hill trying to get it on with Megan, West admonishes the bad doctor. “I must say, Dr. Hill, I’m very disappointed in you. You steal the secret of life and death, and here you are trysting with a bubble-headed coed.” Snark like that is comedy gold. And it’s in a horror film.

It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but then Gordon wasn’t interested in the status quo.

from The Establishing Shot https://ift.tt/2Uq3CyL via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Jzx4fH via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

3 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Al and Linda Lerner on Movies and Shakers: The Infiltrators

youtube

This documentary within a scripted feature is a nail biter that effectively brings to light the arbitrary, unjust detention and deportation of immigrants, many who have lived nowhere but in the U.S.

Directors Cristina Ibarra and Alex Rivera used a very creative process to document, and then further dramatize with actors, how members of the National Immigrant Youth Alliance courageously get themselves arrested and put in detention.

Director Ibarra and Rivera (who are married) employ a very creative structure that combines actual documentary video until their young activists enter the facility. Then they have actors reenact on a set what could not be shot inside, all to protect the Dreamer activists’ identities and their undercover activity. In our interview at Doc 10 in Chicago, Director Rivera termed the project an experiment and it works.

Marco Saavedra, (who we see in the documentary portion and then dramatized by actor Maynor Alvarado) plus Viridiana Martinez, (who also plays herself and then is dramatized by Chelsea Rendon) are DREAMERS. They are young, undocumented teen immigrants who who were brought to the United States with their parents and know no other home.

Ibarra and Rivera film the young activists who challenge federal immigration policy as they intentionally get caught and put into one of America’s for-profit immigration detention centers. Their mission is to see what it’s like from inside and how to change it.

The film shows Iranian native Mohammad Abdollahi, a smart and articulate activist holding down the fort at the command center. He monitors ICE activity and orchestrates instructions by cell phone to Marco and Viri once inside the facility. This is when the film becomes an intriguing thriller.

But, scenes cutting between Abdollahi talking on the phone and then to the dramatization with the actors is a little disconcerting at first. It takes awhile to get into the flow seeing actuality which then continues with actors on a set acting out what’s happening inside the detention center.

These kids are so dedicated, they’re not afraid to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations to show how immigrants are being treated under the government’s immigrant policy. The owners of facilities such as this 700-bed, Broward County,Florida Detention Center get paid $160-$180 per/person/night in taxpayer dollars. It is a business and for those who are detained, it’s a scary one.

The main subject of the film is Claudio Rojas. His family reached out to the N.I.Y.A after the Florida gardener was detained with no warning. ICE ambushed this mild-mannered, law abiding family-man with a 20-year gardening business in front of his own home and detained him for 6 years. home and detained for 6 years. Those who are detained have no idea if or when they are going to be released. It tears families apart. Activist Marco Saavedra, learns the ropes of what life is like inside from Claudio. They forge a bond.

Viri had trouble getting arrested at first. She had to change clothes and speak in more broken English before the guards at the checkpoint believed she was undocumented. She’s finally detained and begins to learn the stories of other detainees.

The film shows how these people live constantly with the threat of being deported. The scene where one of them is actually put on a plane about to take off is absolutely frightening.

The events of this film occurred during the Obama administration but, Rivera says that under the current administration, the situation has changed even more dramatically. At times this mashup of a docu-drama is a little confusing, but bares the desperation of immigrants still present today. Ibarra and Rivera have created a riveting piece of filmmaking that definitely grabs you.

Oscilloscope Laboratories 95 minutes Documentary

Virtual Cinema list starting May 1st. VOD June 2nd.

youtube

from Movies and Shakers https://ift.tt/2Yhbfdd

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Wfkt70 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

2 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Al and Linda Lerner on Movies and Shakers: The Banker

Even though The Banker stars A-list actors, Anthony Mackie, Samuel L. Jackson, and Nicholas Hoult, this film about African American bankers in the 1960’s is just not on the money. This made for TV original production seems to fit more for the small screen than as a theatrical presentation.

George Nolfi directs, based on real people who worked the racist rigged system to their advantage to build a real estate empire in Los Angeles. Bernard Garrett (Anthony Mackie) was brilliant with numbers who fled his racist, rural Texas hometown to find his fortune managing and owning real estate in LA. But he came up against White male bankers who didn’t want to deal with a Black man, no matter how smart he was.

Garrett’s smart, supportive wife, Eunice, (Nia Long, NCIS: Los Angeles, Empire, Dear White People) takes him to meet her old employer, night club owner, Joe Morris (Samuel L. Jackson) who is a wheeler dealer in his own right. They strike up a partnership. Morris shows Garrett the ropes. Samuel L. Jackson is fun, close to playing himself, but less over-the-top and more controlled at times. He doesn’t even swear much in this film. The two men work together building and renovating buildings, trying to give African American families opportunities to live in better neighborhoods and integrate them. This was unheard of at the time.

When their efforts to work with White bankers met resistance, they put the very White, very green, Matt Steiner (Nicholas Hoult) as their front man and train him how to do business in a White man’s world. They amassed a huge portfolio. The most entertaining series of scenes in this film are those where Jackson and Mackie show this kid the tricks of the trade, particularly on the golf course. Hoult plays innocent really well.

One problem is that the dialogue is stilted, and the pace is too slow. Perhaps with Niceole Levy, George Nolfi, David Lewis Smith and Stan Younger, there were just too many writers in the mix. (And Lewis and Younger came up with the story with Brad Kane). Plus, it gets so technical in scenes where all the dialogue consists of plotting out complex mathematical formulas and using obscure monetary terminology. It’s enough to make your head swim.

Unfortunately, we found Mackie’s performance stiff and emotionless. Maybe playing a Black man in rural Texas in the 50’s, Director Nolfi stifled Morris having to keep the lid on. Mackie rarely shows emotion, but does in his scenes with Nia Long who plays his wife. She is excellent in the role, able to get through to him and draw the character out. You have to wait till the end of the film to see more from him.

The bankers seem to be on a roll when Garrett hatches his plan to go back to his home town in rural Texas and buy the town bank. His dream is to loan money to African American families so they could own homes and businesses, but do so through his White front man so the racists wouldn’t know who was really pulling the strings. The plan goes South when Garrett and Morris get found out. Hoult as the puppet for these guys is in over his head.

The good part of the movie is the interaction and development of the friendship between Mackie and Jackson as partners. Jackson is most likable, even more so than Mackie who is such a good actor, but he seems so stiff and his scenes seem to fall flat in this film.

Like most movies, based on true stories, you’ll get to see black and white photos of the real Garrett, Morris, Stein and Eunice and what became of them. This is a story of racism that is relevant and needs to be told, with great talent. But when you add it all up, we don’t this one is very bankable.

Apple TV+�� 2 hours PG-13 Streaming now.

youtube

from Movies and Shakers https://ift.tt/33AlbPt

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2J4dpEn via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

3 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Jeff York on The Establishing Shot: “ATHLETE A” EARNS AN “A” AS ONE OF THE YEAR’S BEST DOCUMENTARIES

Some documentaries have such a dramatic subject, they don’t need any filmmaking bells or whistles. Such is the case with the new Netflix documentary ATHLETE A, directed by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, that premiered June 24. The story of systematic child molestation occurring in USA Olympics women’s gymnastics is presented in an exceedingly clear and focused way. The documentary doesn’t need anything more than the facts and the devastating testimony of all involved to make it stand as one of the year’s most powerful and absolutely best films.

The story focuses primarily on the victims of Dr. Larry Nasser, the Olympic women’s gymnastics team doctor from 1992-2015. He was a pedophile who sexually assaulted over 300 girls during his tenure, all under the auspices of providing medical treatment for the young, female athletes. ATHLETE A chronicles his villainy, but it also indicts the numerous enablers that turned a blind eye to his abuse, including the United States of America Gymnastics CEO Steve Penny, the University of Michigan which also employed Nasser, and the esteemed training duo of coaches Bela and Marta Karolyi. The couple not only knew about Nasser, but they themselves abused the girls via name-calling and a Marine-like discipline demanded of these girls, many under ten years of age. (You’ll never look at the Olympic clips of Bela being so avuncular to Mary Lou Retton or Kerri Strug the same again.)

It’s an ugly portrayal of the sport, and yet, despite the horrors of Nasser’s actions, and the outrageous demands placed upon these kids to compete, hearing the clear-eyed testimony from the now-adult competitors manages to make the film feel almost uplifting. Maggie Nichols, Rachael Denhollander, Jamie Dantzscher, and Jessica Hollander are inspiring in their clear-eyed recounting of events and the bravery it takes to talk about all they experienced.

Also, making the film feel positive, despite the material, are the intrepid reporters who give witness to all they discovered through the thick and thin of the story. Marisa Kwiatkowski of the Indiana Star daily newspaper was one of the key people to bring the stories to light, beginning with her investigation of various women’s gymnastic coaches involved in sexual molestation. Some 54 coaches were accused of such assault over 10 years, and yet the USAG barely did anything about it. Fellow Indy reporters Mark Alesia and Steve Berta join in the investigation and also tell what they discovered in the conspiracy by the USAG to sweep it all under the rug.

The documentary goes over a lot of details, some unseemly to hear. It’s also expertly edited and is never at a loss for footage. Cohen and Shenk manage to incorporate superb footage from training sessions, competitions, and various other Olympic-related events, including many revelatory moments never before seen on television. The filmmakers also show a lot of Nasser’s trial too, not to mention the various athlete’s testimony at the court proceedings. Composer Jeff Beal underscores it all with some tense but discreet cues, though he never overdoes it. Beal knows that the story is riveting enough as it is.

“Athlete A” is Maggie Nichols, the young woman who first brought the case against Nasser, and she has the most time on-camera here. Her candid testimony, along with that of parents Gina and John Nichols, is heartbreaking. Still, the filmmakers intercut contemporary footage of her performing gymnastics at college to ensure that the audience understands how well the Nichols family has been able to process what happened and move forward. It’s an incredible testament to their courage and perseverance, and it keeps the film from becoming too depressing.

The big question that Kwiatkowski asks early in the film is why all of this went on for decades without any legitimate legal action. Those in the Olympics that could have done something about it did precious little, and it paints a worrisome portrait of greed and amorality in the sport. Not surprisingly, the powers-that-be turned a blind eye to the care of the girls as their victories and money kept rolling in. It’s no accident that USAG CEO Steve Penny started as the marketing manager for the enterprise, clearly valuing the selling of an image rather than the preservation of girls’ childhoods. And one of the scummiest moments on display in the documentary is when the cowardly Penny pleads the fifth while being asked questions during a Senate hearing.

Thankfully, the film chronicles a fair amount of justice served in the fallout, yet the jury is still out on whether it changes much in regards to how the sporting world learns to champion morality over commerce.

from The Establishing Shot https://ift.tt/2Zexwao via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/38aYiEK via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Robert Daniels on 812 Film Reviews: 7500 is Captain Phillips Light, At Best

Rating: 2/4

Barring a few cameos, the last four years have been relatively quiet ones for Looper-star Joseph Gordon-Levitt. However, he returns in Patrick Vollrath’s directorial feature debut 7500 as Tobias Ellis; a co-pilot fighting against German-speaking Middle Eastern hijackers mid-flight. While at points a tightly wound thriller, the drama’s reductive terrorist storyline borders on emotionally manipulative.

7500’s strongest scenes often rely upon its awareness of space and footage. When Tobias and the pilot Michael (Carlo Kitzlinger) enter the claustrophobic cockpit, as the camera crosscuts to the narrow doorway leading to the main cabin, the tight shots welcomes dread. Upon Tobias’ girlfriend Gökce (Aylin Tezel)—who he shares a two-year old son with—coming to greet him, viewers are made aware of the cockpit’s struggle to fit three people at once. The space allows the viewer’s eyes to travel. And what one notices is the attention to detail in Gordon-Levitt and Kitzlinger’s performances. At home in the space, they’re not merely punching random flashing buttons, they waft an air of knowledge and control.

youtube

But trouble soon ensues. Three terrorists have boarded the plane: Kalkan (Passar Hariky); Kenan (Murathan Muslu); and the youngest of the trio Vedat (Omid Memar). And when the pilots open their padlocked security door to allow a stewardess entry with their food; the three combatants seize their opportunity. Because Vollrath and cinematographer Sebastian Thaler employ cctv footage: first from the airport and later through the cockpit’s surveillance screen projecting a live feed of the plane’s gangway—the juxtaposition of the lighting in the pilot’s compartment and the monochromatic feed fosters a debilitating intensity. And once the terrorists realize their plans to hijack the plane have been thwarted—when they threaten the lives of the hostage for Tobias to see on his cockpit feed—the crosscutting to the monochromatic footage: zapped of empathy and humanity, infuses fear on a granular level.

With a tight display of sound design: the constant banging of the terrorists on the compartment door and the non-stop crackle of the air-traffic controller’s monotone check-ins with Tobias, the first half hour of 7500 succeeds to a great degree.

However, during the ensuing hour of the hour-and-a-half affair, 7500 loses its kick. Instead, Vollrath attempts to humanize the terrified Vedat. But barring a sparse conversation with Tobias, Vedat lacks any semblance of multi-dimensionality. He never evolves past the in-over-his-head terrorist cliche, and is often infantilized. Viewers aren’t even told why the trio are hijacking the plane; beyond a few stereotyped lines that carry zero significance. If Vollrath wishes to add to the tired tradition of cinema portraying Middle Easterners solely as terrorists, then he should at least create unique characters beyond a build-a-terrorist workshop. Instead, Vollrath’s failed attempt to humanize Verdat results in the empathetic white hero and what amounts to a manipulative bait-and-switch ending that serves no one.

While 7500 features great crafts—and a partly unhinged yet solid performance from Gordon-Levitt—the scope of what could be possible isn’t present, here. Vollrath relies on tired tropes that lack depth and nuance beyond white man good, Middle Eastern man either vicious or naive. At its best, 7500 is Captain Phillips light. The problem is that it’s rarely at its best.

Available on Amazon Prime

from 812filmReviews https://ift.tt/2YdhONu via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2NcXOo2 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New Podcast from El’Ahrai Stanek and John Robinson: The Neon Movie Bunker — Episode 140

We’re back, and we’re not depressed this time! This week, John and El’Ahrai review “Da 5 Bloods” and “Lost in America”. But wait, there’s more! We also have an interview with actor/comedian Jamie Kennedy! I’m a god. I can shape-shift. I can create stuff out of nothingness. I can alter the fabric of reality. So please, quit being a knucklehead.

from The Neon Movie Bunker https://ift.tt/2zES17m via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3hDXfS4 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Every Movie Has a Lesson by Don Shanahan: MOVIE REVIEW: Stargirl

(Image: polygon.com)

STARGIRL— 4 STARS

When you take a gander at Grace VanderWaal’s title character in Stargirl, you probably don’t think “unassuming.” The loud outfit seems goudy. The ukulele on her back reeks of ostentatiousness. And, by golly, that rat on her shoulder screams straight-up weird. Miraculously and sweetly, director Julia Hart makes all of this boldness as unassuming as possible, free of arrogance or pretension. The modesty of Jerry Spinelli’s hit source novel is intact and invigorating on this Disney+ original.

The storyteller circling the briefly introduced orb of oddity is Leo Borlock (TV actor Graham Verchere, recently of The Good Doctor and Supergirl). He and his widowed single mother (Scandal cast member Darby Stanchfield) moved to Mica, Arizona in elementary school. He decided very quickly that laying low more than standing out ensured his civic survival. Now a 16-year-old high school junior, Leo makes no waves in his friend circle working the school’s TV talk show “Hot Seat” and holding down his trumpeter’s place in the fledgling marching band.

That all changes when Leo gets a glimpse at the alluring Stargirl Caraway, the mysterious new girl to the popularity battleground hallways after years as a home-schooled local. She draws stares, gawks, and quizzical words with her every action. The eyes multiply when Stargirl steps out to midfield at halftime of a losing football game for an impromptu performance. Rocking the ukulele and belting her encouragement in song, the spotlight never leaves Grace VanderWaal or her character from there on out.

LESSON #1: UNIQUENESS AND TALENT ARE POPULAR— Soon enough, Stargirl’s inspiring presence turns everyone’s spirits and luck around. An uncommon kindness seemingly pours out of her smile and sparkling eyes. Stargirl goes from peculiar to popular overnight as a new centerpiece cheerleader that roots for everything big and small. Her aura is something intangible for everyone, especially our Leo.

LESSON #2: ACCEPTING BOLDNESS— It goes without saying that the bold stand out. Boldness can be too much in the same way shyness is too little, or how impulsive doers act without thinking while meek thinkers never go out and do. “Differentness,” as Spinelli once called it in the book, can incite emulation and ostracism with equally unknown odds or results. The catalyst or the tonic for any acceptance is ego, and Stargirl doesn’t have a hint of one.

Leo is clearly smitten and seeks to spend time following Stargirl. These opportunities are welcomed in return by her. Their whimsical and chaste sweep of young love changes his soul and challenges him to re-embrace his confidence to be different like he used to be. All goes swimmingly well until a pair of acts of kindness are taken the wrong way in a calamitous social fallout.

It is in the shared moments away from the fickle crowds that Stargirl shows its essence. What would be loud and bouncing bounds in other high school/YA romances moves instead with soothing saunters among the saguros silhouetting the New Mexico magic hours doubling as Arizona. Excellent camera polish from cinematographer Bryce Fortner (Ingrid Goes West) to not overlight these sequences and more. Credit for shrewdly nailing the vibe of Spinelli’s book into a teeming and tidy movie goes to director and co-writer Julia Hart, her Fast Color filmmakin partner Jordan Horowitz, and Dumplin’ screenwriter Kristin Hahn. Like the author, they put maturity above the manic pixie dream girl trope that threatens to be overbearing.

Verchere and VanderWaal exudes comfortable chemistry that is not over-spiked. He is steady where he needs to be, dotes where he needs to dote, but the showcase was alway going to be her. Grace VanderWaal, showing true charm on camera, rightly has her multiple talents on display in this, her acting debut after rising to stardom as an America’s Got Talent champion. VanderWaal is often backed by the strumming and dreamy electronica bends of composer Rob Simonsen and vinyl-friendly playlist of throwbacks. Her inescapable voice fills the soundtrack, our ears, and our hearts (stay through the credits for the full effect).

LESSON #3: NONCONFORMITY SHOULD BE COMFORTABLE— Without question, the largest and best takeaway from Stargirl is the lack of shame one should feel for their differences. Stargirl’s contagious morale comes from an easy poise and an empathetic aim to please. Much like Leo, the people who know you and truly get you are the only people you need to be popular with. Don’t hide from love or loves that are out of the ordinary. That’s precisely what becomes the extraordinary.

Permalink

from REVIEW BLOG – Every Movie Has a Lesson https://ift.tt/39dW7z8 via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3bj47Ag via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

2 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New Podcast from El’Ahrai Stanek and John Robinson: The Neon Movie Bunker — Episode 134

Short show! John and El’Ahrai review “Disneynature’s Elephant” and “We Summon the Darkness”! A few other things, too. Love is the saddest thing when it goes away, as a song by Jobim goes.

from The Neon Movie Bunker https://ift.tt/3foa8hX via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2A5PBP5 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from A Reel of One’s Own by Andrea Thompson: Tribeca 2020: Through the Night

By Andrea Thompson

Perhaps it’s a limitation of mine, but I’m not much of a fan of verité or fly-on-the-wall documentaries, which often seem to tear down illusions by depending on another: that the directors themselves will shape much of our perception of what we see, whether they want to or not. “Through the Night” won me over though, not because director Loira Limbal has any illusions about objectivity, but because she prefers to step back and show the toll inequality takes on the very people our culture supposedly reveres most – families.

The families in question do have a kind of nontraditional heroine in Nunu, who runs a 24-hour daycare in Westchester, New York, a setup which has become normalized as many parents find themselves living to work rather than working to live. For them, calling Nunu a heroine is no exaggeration. If you have to leave your children in someone else’s hands, hers seem to be the ideal ones. From the film’s opening, which gives us our first intimate glimpses of the daycare Nunu runs out of her home, it’s clear Nunu doesn’t just watch the children she’s entrusted with, she cares for them. She gives them homework, then works with them to answer their questions to ensure they understand it, and encourages the kids to be better by respecting and loving each other. In turn, they show her the kind of casual respect that involves cleaning up when asked, and giving her their full attention when she speaks, both small miracles in themselves. Nunu also shows the parents the same care and attention, often asking for updates on their tenuous situations and offering the kind of quietly sympathetic ear they seldom receive.

It’s exhausting work, and it takes a toll on everyone, with Nunu forced to realize she’s only human after some serious health issues take their toll. The mothers, especially the single ones, don’t just have to work through indignities of constant, and punishing work schedules, but the ever-present guilt of not having more to give. More of themselves, more resources for their children, or more reassurances about the effects such constant pressures will have on them. “Eventually I’ll sleep,” a glassy-eyed woman murmurs near the end. That all of this will all of this to go unseen is impossible, and even the smallest kids casually talk to each other about how little rest their moms get, with the older ones fearing adulthood and the bills that will accompany it. Limbal’s relaxed approach means no one, including Nunu, is endowed with a halo, but it does make some details, such as the names of various parents and the exact timing of many of the film’s developments, rather elusive. Perhaps the most bitter thing of all is that a film like this, which should be making a name for itself at various festivals, may not gain the audience it deserves due to events far beyond anyone’s control.

Grade: A-

from A Reel Of One’s Own https://ift.tt/2zzGp57 via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2KKmVxe via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note

chicagoindiecritics · 5 years ago

Text

New from Al and Linda Lerner on Movies and Shakers: Planet of the Humans

After seeing this film, you may think that Earth Day is the most depressing day ever. Michael Moore executive produces the film written, directed and narrated by long-time collaborator Jeff Gibbs whose monotone delivery of the enlightening material is stultifying. Even more depressing is finding out that green energy is not all that green. They also build a case showing how organizations supporting events purporting to be green can’t even power a band’s amplifiers without diesel generators and the electric grid.

Gibbs and Moore are both dogged documentarians who try to make the public aware of problems, offering solutions. But in this film, they paint a bleak vision of the future and say it’s already too late to clean up the mess caused by humans.

Gibbs, Ozzie Zehner, and Christopher Henze shot the various segments revealing how bulldozing deserts decimating ancient Joshua Trees, cutting down forests and burning fields of sugar cane to clear it, wreaks all kind of havoc. Even converting garbage into energy take more energy than it would produce. It all indicates no respect for our planet. Zehner, (author of Green Illusions) makes it clear that we’re naive if we believe that renewables will be able to replace fossil fuels and coal.

Gibbs bounces around showing outdoor concerts, as well as cutting down forests and burning fields to explain why we’re using just as much energy as ever and destroying the planet in the process. Plus, they show how the windmills we think are going to help are expensive to build using dirty energy, and have finite lifespans of only a couple of decades. And they don’t even produce that much power!

Even more devastating are lists of corporate behemoths, including coal and mining companies, petroleum producers, and banks who are cashing in on the green energy movement. They’re making profit by using their planet- killing industries proclaiming to fund the Green Revolution. Gibbs points out it’s like a giant shell game. That surprise reveal of the movie is the biggest disappointment. He even gives examples of how the Sierra Club, Yhe Nature Conservancy and even Al Gore, Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy and the Koch Brothers appear to be complicit.

The biggest hoax of all is the notion that renewable biomass fuels are somehow going to save us. The very forests that we need to preserve life are being sacrificed. By grinding trees into wood chips, they end up polluting the air, leaving the ground bare, making the land uninhabitable for native human population as well as wildlife.

The saddest part of this film, besides revealing the catastrophic results, is the realization that it just may be too late to do anything to reverse what is happening. They show that there is a direct correlation between the number of humans on the planet and the amount of pollution and food needed to sustain the growing population. The best thing that has happened to bring attention to cutting down pollution and saving wildlife is, unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic. Less planes in the air and less cars on the road mean clearer skies, animals returning to their habitats and even wandering back into the cities.

Gibbs certainly knows his subject and he cares. But his delivery needed more energy to keep the audience engaged. Gibbs does not deliver the visuals and the information like Moore does, with humor and sarcasm. Gibbs is much more low key, perhaps, so not to trivialize, but it’s not as engaging.

Gibbs makes a disturbing and powerful visual statement in the final minutes of the film. He shows the ultimate destruction, pain and grief that humans have wrought on this planet. Maybe we should all hide our heads in shame, instead of binge-watching the latest reality show inanity. With this film, Gibbs and Moore are hoping we’ll DO something about it.

Rumble Media 1 hour 41 minutes Documentary

See on YouTube

youtube

from Movies and Shakers https://ift.tt/2W2irqY

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2S7St44 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

1 note · View note