Director: David Gordon Green
Writers: John Pollono (screenplay by), Jeff Bauman (based on the book “Stronger” by)
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Tatiana Maslany, Miranda Richardson

Synopsis: Stronger is the inspiring real life story of Jeff Bauman, an ordinary man who captured the hearts of his city and the world to become a symbol of hope after surviving the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

[/info]

Inspiration. What does that mean exactly? Walking into Stronger, the latest from David Gordon Green, I did not expect the film to question the merits of its impact, but that’s exactly what Green does with this film.

Jeff Bauman (Jake Gyllenhaal) is trying to re-connect with his on-and-off again girlfriend Erin (Tatiana Maslany) when he found himself at the Boston Marathon in 2013. Of course, that day would prove to be tragic and life-changing for Jeff, after losing both of his legs in the bombing. Throughout the course of the film, we see Jeff struggling to accept that he’s some sort of a hero for his involvement with helping the police capture the bombers and surviving the ordeal. He constantly drinks, ignores the people who care about him most and he blatantly questions the pedestal he’s been placed on. All the while, Erin and Patty (Jeff’s mom played wonderfully by Miranda Richardson) are trying to keep him from going insane as he adjusts to his new life.

There are many biopics that have depicted terrible things happening to good people with hope serving as the vehicle that carry these individuals though to the end. It’s in that, the overcoming of adversity, where inspiration roots itself. Stronger has no interest in that, however. Green and screenwriter John Pollono stare at inspiration in the face – more specifically the “Boston Strong” mantra that came about as a result of this horrible tragedy – and they directly point out the potential flaws of using that rhetoric. From Jeff’s perspective, “Boston Strong” means nothing to him. He doesn’t understand what’s so inspirational about his story. “Thanks to you we’re not going to let the terrorists win,” a couple says to Jeff at one point. His response? “Are you sure about that? They’re at least on the scorecard.” To Jeff, the terrorists did kind of win and there’s a disingenuous aura to the way people react to his dilemma. They may mean well, and you sympathize with their wanting for unity, but they simultaneously only look at Jeff symbolically. There’s a conflicting reality at play between Jeff and strangers off the street that consistently collide adding to the film’s complexity.

Stronger had every right to be another schmaltzy and stirring film about a man overcoming something that is absolutely gut-wrenching. We could have forgiven the the film for doing that given the nature of this story. But credit to not only Green and Pollono, but the real Jeff Bauman, for allowing this film to argue why affable gestures are disingenuous when you don’t truly understand what people are feeling when coping with tragedy. It’s a risky move that pays off in big ways here, resulting in a product that transcends familiarity to become something refreshing for this kind of movie.

Jake Gyllenhaal is great in his evolution as Bauman. The writing of Bauman may feel thin, but Gyllenhall demands the screen every time he demonstrates his frustrations in regards to those aforementioned themes. We may not truly know Bauman by the end, but do we? I would argue that Stronger is less of a biopic, and instead it’s grappling with something much (ahem) stronger. That’s where Gyllenhaal truly shines here. All of that said, Tatiana Maslany gives one of the best supporting performances of the year. As good as Gyllenhaal is here, the film does suffer without Maslany’s presence and how she pushes back against Jeff as the film crystallizes. The two also had a great chemistry that makes you root for their relationship.

It’s also worth noting that Carlos Sanz has a major impact on the film with a limited role. He plays Carlos, a man who helped Jeff immediately after the bombing. Carlos is only in the film for two major scenes, but the interactions he has with Jeff offer new perspective that deeply move him.

It’s ironic when you look at the marketing for Stronger, which very much plays into the “inspirational” nature of this story. And for good reason, it feels good to see Jeff come out on the other side okay and doing well. It’s very human to feel that way. It’s also what makes the approach here so provocative. The film flips expectations on their head and it questions the very reason we’re rooting for that inspiration. In the end, Jeff’s revelations are certainly in a better place, but he’s far from being a saint. He’s a man learning to embrace his new identity. If you ask me, the way Stronger explores that is quite great.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris
Writers: Simon Beaufoy
Stars: Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough

Synopsis: The true story of the 1973 tennis match between World number one Billie Jean King and ex-champ and serial hustler Bobby Riggs.

[/info]

Billie Jean King came to be when the world blatantly and fervently conspired against her. And her tennis-playing sisters. Heck, her gender.

Even with the World No. 1 title, King was minimized by the guys of the sport as yet another housewife solely purposed to liven the kitchen, yet another set of teeth nibbling the bread won by her man. “Women play about 25 percent as good as men, so they should get about 25 percent of the money men get,” Bobby Riggs told King at one point. Unfavorable odds aside, she sliced her way through the virile squall, becoming more than just a woman tennis player of note. King, to this day, remains proof that women, those with athletic careers and otherwise, are to be perceived as so: can be equal, can be complementary, and – should the air turns competitive – can be victorious.

Yet lengthy sighs abound upon watching Battle of the Sexes, a film that, as if on default, only glances at King’s incredible achievements and struggles. It is so occupied with creating the “feel-good”-ness that it defangs the feel-bads, making the flood of endorphins at the end expected but not satisfying. On paper, the impact and relevance of King (Emma Stone) and her motivations are so primed to affect audiences, as King herself noted that the eponymous battle – in spite of its showiness, in-(arguably)-good-fun nature – can decide if a woman’s position, beliefs and advancements have any worth.

“Battle of the sexes” is more than just a term for exhibition tennis games between a man and woman in King and Riggs’ (Steve Carell) eyes. Whoever snatches the match point in this well-publicized, watched-by-90 million (and played in Houston, huzzah!) event will cement their gender’s footing for the next n-th years. Before this point, however, the film explores King’s many roles off the court: wife to caring husband Larry (Austin Stowell), demolisher of dismissals from the sport’s establishment – represented here by Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman), and the other half that completes admirer-slash-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough). Side note: While the real Marilyn was indeed King’s partner, she was a secretary (whose interactions deserve its own feature). So, is Schwarzkopf doing a subliminal advertising campaign here?

But, alas, Battle of the Sexes’ 121 minutes is all we have, and writer Simon Beaufoy has to divvy up time to focus on each role – the tennis-playing one included. The vignette-by-vignette unfolding gives little cause for anyone or anything to become memorable or affecting, even if it should be noted that everything is addressed with beautiful sensitivity and – welcomingly – zero bite into the circus surrounding the match. The formation of the WTA and the Virginia Slims tourney, rivalry with fellow tennis player Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee) and the bond with Marilyn are all intriguing King-centric events that would have been better addressed in separate pieces. In one setting, though? They all zip by, developments that miss their point in being significant and instead being props to accelerate the film toward the duel.

Nonetheless, disappointing slumps in crafting King’s story are wonderfully compensated with charged performances from everyone. Such is definitely the perk of having directors Jonathan Drayton and Valerie Faris in your crew, the duo who grouped three acting generations in a Type 2 van and got them radiating on equally powerful terms in 2006’s Little Miss Sunshine. Same with Beaufoy’s wise aversion to the sensational, Dayton and Faris’ direction highlights the talent rather than the easy-to-dramatize shenanigans. Riggs’ chauvinistic theatrics are attention-grabbing, sure, sure, but more prominent is Carell’s showcase of them, ultimately, being his character’s poison. From the sidelines, Riggs’ wife Priscilla (Elisabeth Shue) can do little except keep her hurting muted, part of the “package” of being a woman in this era – even if she is, deducible from appearance alone, the household’s source of finance.

Also having to restrain her voice is King herself, whose feelings for Marilyn in a lavender-lit motel room one night tax those for Larry throughout; Stone portrays the turmoil well, a soul standing in front of three doors named “preserve fame,” “preserve marriage” or “preserve love.” Keeping things upbeat – and deserving much more screen time – are King’s motherly-at-heart agent Gladys (Sarah Silverman) and warm wardrobe designer Cuthbert (Alan Cumming).

Truly safe from the film’s fleetingness – in other words, capable to be appreciated in full – is Nicholas Britell’s score as it isn’t projected on screen. No-frills is again the winning style; there is only a hummable and rousing leitmotif that crisscrosses different background instruments. There is an expectation that many of the tracks will be featured in motivational videos, graduations, and sports commercials.

On a more serious note, however, as the notes stride, escalate and evoke a sense of triumph, one can almost see the perfect (or at least better) version of Battle of the Sexes: less of a harmless crowd-pleaser and more of a reflection of a real-life monumental milestone.

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 241, coming soon.

[divider]

Director: Doug Liman
Writers: Gary Spinelli
Stars: Tom Cruise, Domhnall Gleeson, Sarah Wright

Synopsis: A pilot lands work for the CIA and as a drug runner in the south during the 1980s.

[/info]

American Made is the new film from Doug Liman, the director of The Bourne Identity and Edge of Tomorrow. It tells the story of Barry Seal, an ex-TWA pilot turned drug smuggler during the early 80s. Seal was cornered by CIA and offered a business (called International Air Couriers – not the most helpful acronym) which was a cover for delivering guns to the anti-communist rebels currently fighting in several central American countries. Unable to make a decent money doing this dangerous work he falls into cahoots with the Medellín cartel and begins shipping drugs back to the US, avoiding the attentions of the Customs agents thanks to the support of the CIA.

Tom Cruise plays Barry Seal as a morally ambiguous, always optimistic, adventurer, despite the real Seal looking like a linebacker – more Tom Arnold than Tom Cruise. The film is a lively, constantly entertaining flick that avoid much of the more dubious parts of the tale (much of the guns supplied by Seal were used by Escobar to murder hundreds of people back in Medellín and Seal chose to be a drug smuggler) – make no mistake this is not Narcos. However the film contains an utterly winning performance from Cruise and a decent sleazeball numbnuts performance from Dominhall Gleeson as Seal’s CIA handler, Schaefer. The rest of the cast are all fine, they just blend into the background and get lost in the Seal story.

Likewise Liman’s direction is slick and nifty, but nothing special. The story is very interesting, and well told, but it isn’t anything you’ve not seen before. There are some very fine flying stunts and photography, and the sense of the 1980s drips from every frame through the use of retro studio logos, multiple different video stocks.

American Made is a lightweight flick but well worth a look for a good story told well, and deploying its star’s megawatt charisma to great effect. The film doesn’t do much to further the cause of cinema, however it is heartily recommended for a great night out.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film, coming soon.

[divider]

Director: Michael Winterbottom
Stars: Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon

Synopsis: Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon embark on a road trip through Spain, sampling the restaurants, eateries, and sights along the way.

[/info]

The Trip to Spain is the third film in this Trip series and it may be one of the best franchises we have in modern cinema. The Trip and The Trip to Italy were both very delightful, but Spain may be the best of the bunch. It’s the same premise – Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon traveling and eating food – and somehow it’s still satisfying to see them riffing and bonding over shellfish. The impressions they bring with them on this particular trip are hysterical, especially the bits on David Bowie, James Bond and Marlon Brando. Like the previous two entries, The Trip to Spain is endlessly enjoyable in seeing how Coogan and Brydon try to out-do one another when it comes to their humor and impressionist work.

However, Spain is more than just silly gags, there is a human element that helps balance out the film’s sense of humor. Coogan is grappling with aging and mortality while trying to formulate the narrative of his life through this trip. He’s a two-time Oscar nominee that has a struggling career. On a side note, the jokes from Brydon’s perspective around Philomena are amazing. Speaking of Brydon, the film is intentional to paint his career in a much different light. He doesn’t have the accolades that Coogen possesses, yet the trajectory of his future looks much brighter. Those juxtaposing arcs crystallize in fascinating fashion when we see these two “characters” in vastly different places at the end, both emotionally and literally (in terms of geography).

The conversations between Coogan and Brydon are obviously funny, but they also deal quite heavily with Spanish history. And while that at times is meant for comedic relief, the film’s notions of history are mostly tapping into the idea of mortality and identity. How will history define you? We learn a lot about how Spain is defined by its history, which mirrors the emotional progression of these characters as well in terms of how their careers have shaped their identity – both in the short term and the long term.

Michael Winterbottom’s direction is also worth noting for how he captures the vast landscapes of Spain and the appetizing food that Coogan and Brydon eat throughout the film. The cinematography is beautiful, even breathtaking at times. Winterbottom does a great job of cuting to the kitchen or other people at these restaurants to help break up the conversation, making the setting feel immersive. The editing isn’t perfect, but it’s mostly effective. For a film that doesn’t need flashy direction, and Winterbottom does show restraint overall, there are nice touches that amplify this experience cinematically.

The Trip and The Trip to Italy have some glorious moments of humor, in particular the way Michael Caine is brought up in those two films. Well, Caine is briefly brought up again in The Trip to Spain and it’s fantastic. The timing of it is key. It comes of the heels of another impression, and given the jokes brought up, it was very appropriate to reintroduce Caine. There is a precision to this film that I just find impressive given this set up. The Trip to Spain is funny, smart and very well executed. The movie didn’t have to become as thought-provoking as it is, but Coogan and Brydon do a great job of providing great balance to their characters that is attainable. I can’t recommend this film enough.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writers: Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman
Stars: Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Channing Tatum, Julianne Moore

Synopsis: When their headquarters are destroyed and the world is held hostage, the Kingsman’s journey leads them to the U.S where they discover an allied spy organization known as Statesman. These two elite secret organizations must band together to defeat a common enemy.

[/info]

Matthew Vaughn is one the very scarce people amongst the writer/directors working in the industry today that lacks any fear of being seen as an auteur only in the category of inflated, stylized action that since his debut, he’s been known to trademark. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is another instance of this. While it does feel oddly reminiscent to the first in terms of narrative structure, it’s definitely another wildly engaging incarnation into the Kingsman universe.

Whereas most movies go wrong in the spy genre, Kingsman does right. What made 2015’s Kingsman: The Secret Service so fresh and modern, was the extravagant use of violence coinciding with the persistent Matthew Vaughn-isms that made it the contemporary, commercial flourish we’ve now seen it as. So it’s no surprise to see that within the first few minutes of The Golden Circle, Vaughn immediately transports you into a car chase. Although crowd-pleasing, the dilemma is how it just resides as a makeshift. It carries the same content as the first, but is choreographed far too much in shambles than its predecessor ever had. It’s as unenthused as it is heart-pounding but it feels like a fuse burning on both ends. Luckily enough, by the end of the resolution you should be able to forget all about the opening scene.

Although the first Kingsman was capable of deceiving audiences with Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson who were mainly being marketed as the protagonist and antagonist, it was ultimately Taron Egerton who brought a superior aspect of the movie’s charisma. That’s also apparent here. Not only are we given the characters we missed from the beginning (Eggsy, Harry, Merlin), but we’re also given the introductory to new personas. Channing Tatum, Pedro Pascal, Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry all feature compelling takes on these new characters and to be frank, by the midway point of the film you kind of get an idea on which direction each person will go in. But as the film nears the final showdown, that idea begins to fizzle out quickly. There’s not a whole lot of exploration shown for this new organization known as Statesman, which is a bit sad to think because of all the ideas they could’ve used to commence this grand, intriguing setting that would compliment with the newer faces.

At this point in Hollywood, Vaughn is well-known for his blatantly obnoxious style of filming action sequences. Although it hasn’t really thrived in all of his projects, the Kingsman series is the one where he should be proud of that it reaches its full potential. Excluding the opening scene, the last sequence of the movie where we’ve reached the final culmination from all of the previous build up has some of the most effusive and comical action I’ve seen from a spy film in quite some time. Instilled with an absurd plethora of wacky new gadgets from both Kingsman and Statesman, and you’ve got yourself one entertaining film.

Despite The Golden Circle essentially being the exact same as The Secret Service, some of their faults differ quite unexpectedly. Even if they’re pretty much identical in terms of storytelling techniques, by far the most substantial difference is Julianne Moore’s inability to wear the shoes of a dominate villain. This shouldn’t all be blamed on Moore however. The rising action and an eventual part of the climax seems incredibly pressured to be set in motion. It’s like Vaughn wasn’t entirely sure how he wanted to expand upon the finale and just proceeded without a complete plan mapped out. It also doesn’t benefit when your antagonists scheme is way too far fetched and insufficient, and merely just works for the films sake. Not to mention the continually forced emotional development for the main characters. Although it’s such a low number of flaws, it heavily damages the film exponentially.

Overall, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a fascinating and overly excessive kinetic movie filled to the brim with enthusiastic performances and solid action along with its set pieces. Even if it feels like familiar water because it is indeed a carbon copy of the first, it’s still a notable outing for Matthew Vaughn. Worthy of a watch but don’t set any expectations too high.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 240, coming soon.

[divider]

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Darren Aronofsky
Stars: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer

Synopsis: A couple’s relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.

[/info]

Where to begin with a film like Mother!, indeed, even with a word so laden with subtext, an exclamation mark the punchline to a gag so blackly comic it straddles the realms of perception? Delirious, obscene, guttural, outrageous, preposterous: all words one can accurately level at proceedings, but Mother! really needs to consumed more than it does articulated. Darren Aronofsky has already played with the paranoid (Pi, Black Swan) and the biblical (The Fountain, Noah); his latest sees them converge on the bucolic ideal, on modest aspiration and domestic sanctuary.

The sense of unease is apparent from the outset, a scene in which the eponymous Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) wanders between an octagonal maze of rooms and staircases in search of her husband, Him (Javier Bardem). As continues apace as the film deepens, the over-the-shoulder shot of Mother beckons us into her paranoia. The spontaneous arrivals of Man (Ed Harris) and Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer), while apparently benign, begin to threaten the fragile, half-baked tranquillity of their home, despite Bardem’s struggling poet embracing the new additions. The encroachment takes an increasingly malevolent and chaotic turn with the introduction of a violent sibling rivalry, a point at which a grounded home-invasion narrative tips into something distinctly more intangible. The spirit of Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby takes over in the second act, though its referencing plays much more into the overall parable of this work than it does the more formal 1968 film. A crystallizing of evil into the joy of burgeoning new life, perhaps? A brief moment of hopeful contentment assumes so, but there are hounds at the gates.

What many take away from Mother! will largely depend on what they bring to it, though it’s hard to see much value in an exclusively literal interpretation. The breakdown of civilization, of the family unit, of Mother Earth; radical idolatry and messianic devotion are all touched on. I think. Certainly, the New Testament allegory is writ large, brothers Domhnall and Brian Gleeson channeling Cain and Abel every bit as much as Lawrence’s Mother battles for her vision of Eden. And it’s Lawrence who carries mother!. Imperceptible fractures become gaping cracks become vast chasms as her futile attempts at normalcy go begging. There’s a very conscious moment at which comprehension gives way to pure survival, a clever decision from Aronofsky to return our gaze to the intimate when it could so easily have become lost in the rubble, quite literally.

Matthew Libatique’s work behind the camera mustn’t go unnoticed. Working with Aronofsky on three of the director’s four projects named above (save Pi), his eye for balance between naturalism and fantasy is pivotal. The devolution of staid, almost button-up convention into, frankly, unfathomable territory isn’t seamless, nor should it be, but it’s commitment to Lawrence’s ability to tell a story, often through a mere glance or gesture, shows admirable restraint.

Mother! is already proving to be a divisive work, yet I challenge anyone to find fault with its ambition. The director himself has cited Luis Buñuel’s The Exterminating Angel (the bourgeoisie a point of repeated social satirizing for Buñuel) as a touchstone, while the ferocity on screen recalls the David Lynch of Eraserhead and Blue Velvet. And who else in mainstream cinema might be daring enough to warrant those comparisons? Not many, I would wager.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 239:

[divider]

Director: Zoe Lister-Jones
Writers: Zoe Lister-Jones
Stars: Zoe Lister-Jones, Adam Pally, Fred Armisen

Synopsis: A couple who can’t stop fighting embark on a last-ditch effort to save their marriage: turning their fights into songs and starting a band.

[/info]

Zoe Lister-Jones, taking the director’s chair for the first time, has created one of the most charming and surprising films of 2017 so far in Band Aid. This is also Jones’ first solo effort as a writer and she has uniquely tapped into a very human struggle that many couples deal with on a daily basis. The experience that follows is funny, endearing and emotionally moving creating a very satisfying experience.

Anna (Lister-Jones) and Ben (Adam Pally) are having a rough patch as the film opens and in a creative rut. Once a therapist suggest that they do something unique together, Anna opens up about how the two of them should start a band and create songs based off of their arguments. Ben agrees and this action leads to some fascinating sequences where we see Anna and Ben bond over music that you probably haven’t heard before.

Narratively, Band Aid does circulate some familiar territory, but Lister-Jones is diligent to never fall into any traps that suffocate the film. She does a wonderful job of breathing life into this story by letting its charm and wit produce something refreshing in seeing these characters struggle. As a result, there is a genuine honesty to how Anna and Ben connect through the songs they create together.

The true heart of Band Aid though lies in what’s underneath those songs. We come to find out about the mid-way point that this couple had experienced a tragedy some months prior to the events of this film, which has caused both Anna and Ben to hide from the pain of said tragedy. At one point, as these songs are producing positive energy, Ben decides to provoke Anna into talking about their pain. The resulting scene is one of the best of the year, where Anna cathardically reveals how she feels like a failure – especially as a women – who is unable to create anything of value. It’s a devastating moment that both Lister-Jones and Pally perform masterfully. Creating art – of any kind – has a healing power and Band Aid highlights this in ways that is interesting and new.

The film also stands upon the chemistry between Pally and Lister-Jones. They have a palpable connection that render laugh-out-loud funny moments, some heartfelt dramatic feels and music that is very singular. Simply, they are both very good and many scenes could have easily have fallen apart if not for their dynamic together. However, Lister-Jones does a great job in her direction of letting those performances linger and carry the weight of the film.

Where Band Aid slightly falters is in some of its more extreme humor and (sadly) with the neighbor Dave (Fred Armisen) character. Most of Band Aid finds itself in natural territory that most couples can relate with on an emotional level, which doesn’t blend well with cartoon characters such as Dave. Armisen is great, but his character is a mixed bag overall.

Despite a few blemishes, Band Aid is a tightly controlled delight that features fun music, engaging characters and authentic emotion. Lister-Jones has already proven herself as a writer with Breaking Upwards, and now she’s confidently tackled the director’s chair with this film. I, for one, can’t wait to see her voice her vision in later projects.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]