Director: Zack Snyder
Writers: Chris Terrio, David S. Goyer
Stars: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Jesse Eisenberg, Jeremy Irons

Synopsis: Fearing that the actions of Superman are left unchecked, Batman takes on the Man of Steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs.

[/info]

My first thought coming out of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was, “Wow, I finally realize what the ‘V’ in the title means.”  It’s a Roman Numeral 5, because this thing is at least 5 movies. Either that or the “V” (meaning “vs” by this point) was put in the wrong place and shouldn’t separate the two superheroes of the title. Instead, it’s a narrative war of a “so-called” greatest-gladiator-match fighting against a shoehorned Justice League setup. In other words, this is a film that is constantly at war with itself, and only someone like Zack Snyder can take such an enormously plot-heavy film, and somehow turn it into such a slog.

The plot is pointless to describe, as it simply just feels like a random concoction of vignettes that do not come together well. Batman/Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) has a vendetta against Superman (Henry Cavill). Superman deals with the political repercussions of his actions in Man of Steel. Batman’s origins are explored, leading to discussions about an aging Bruce Wayne and his evolving moral code (sort of). A boyish and annoying Lex Luthor fascinates playing God and births Doomsday. Lois Lane gets stuck in the middle of EVERYTHING, thus becoming the most insultingly wasted female character of the decade thus far. The setup for the Justice League begins. And this all takes place in one friggin’ movie.

Cramming so many plot elements into one film isn’t the issue, as there are films out there that indeed do this successfully. The problem is Zack Snyder, who just doesn’t know how to tell or pace a story. This has been evident in all of his prior films already, and it is no different here.  Snyder is a visual director, and I will admit his visuals are indeed impressive and sometimes gorgeous to look at, but he is one of the few whose visual aesthetic comes first over narrative, thus sacrificing any potential characterization and drama a film like this sorely needs. The audience needs to still be able to relate to the characters, rather than just superficially tell us what they are feeling and expect that to be enough. It doesn’t help much either when heavy-handed Jesus symbolism is even utilized.

But the overcrowded script (where one of its writers is an Oscar winner) doesn’t do much to help either. The film was written by both Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, and their jarring duality is very present. Terrio, hot off the heels of Affleck’s Argo, feels as though he is stuck writing a Batman solo film, leaving an amateur writer like Goyer to fill in the rest of the blanks. A solo Batman film would have been great, as those are the bits that work best in the film (perhaps the only bits that truly work), and seeing Affleck possibly take on the director’s chair for a Batman flick is truly exciting to think about.

On the subject of the casting, Ben Affleck is great as Batman/Bruce Wayne, and is the film’s only real saving grace. Although, little is done to establish this aging Bruce Wayne, who seems comfortable breaking his moral code here (if you don’t like to see Batman actually slaughter people, you may not like this interpretation). Gal Gadot is fine as Wonder Woman as well, but not enough time has been devoted to her yet, but the excitement in seeing her in her own movie is there. Henry Cavill is still rather bland as Clark Kent/Superman, and it becomes even more ironic when he is the one we care about the least, and Snyder had 2 movies to build him up. And Jesse Eisenberg is…I have no words for whatever that was.

This film will indeed separate the critics from the fans, and that is already apparent just by the Critics vs Audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes (a film about these gladiator matches would be more interesting).  I respect the opinions of the fans, and I’m glad this film is giving them joy and excitement, and that they are able to more easily fill in the narrative blanks so those issues become less important to them. This is a film that could have been good, if more focused and streamlined rather than shoehorned just to keep up with Marvel (seriously, that “set up” to the Justice League is incredibly eye-rolling). Regardless of how I felt about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, I’m still excited for the DC Cinematic Universe and I want it to succeed, although I’m more excited for the future standalone films (Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Aquaman) than the eventual Justice League film(s). But if Man of Steel and Batman v Superman are a good representation of what we are about to get, then I feel like Doomsday may already be upon us. We shall see.

Overall Grade: C-

[divider]

[divider]

Director: Michael Showalter
Writers: Laura Terruso (screenplay), Michael Showalter (screenplay)
Stars: Sally Field, Max Greenfield, Tyne Daly

Synopsis: A self-help seminar inspires a sixty-something woman to romantically pursue her younger co-worker.

[/info]

If you’re a fan of painfully awkward comedy, then Hello, My Name is Doris is for you. Michael Showalter’s latest film will make you uncomfortable in parts if you’re sensitive to this style of humor but Showalter justifies that pain by making the journey incredibly fun. This film is a riot and it’s mostly due to Sally Field and Max Greenfield, who display vibrant chemistry from the first moment we see them together in an elevator.

Doris recently lost her mother, whom she lived with and took care of in her later years. The death of her mother sends Doris into an existential crisis, causing her to respond is some rather odd ways. She becomes infatuated with the new guy at work, John Fremont (Max Greenfield), who she awkwardly met in that crowded elevator. She becomes so obsessed that she befriends 13-year-old Vivian (Isabella Acres), the granddaughter of Doris’ best friend Roz (Tyne Daly), to help her become more hip with the younger generation. As a result, she creates a fake Facebook page to stalk John, she buys the cd of a band she’s never heard of and wears neon-colored clothing to concerts she’d never do otherwise. John takes notice and the two begin a friendship that twists and turns along the way.

The film overall is a bit formulaic but it succeeds tremendously due to Field’s performance. Field disappears into the role and displays an impeccable balance of humor and drama that makes Doris hysterical to watch but also emotionally engaging. Field especially resonates the character through her facial acting, that is just marvelous. Every tick, eyebrow raise, smile (fake or real) and facial tweak is spot on perfect. There’s one scene in a coffee shop where her reactions are the very definition of facial acting and how to make it funny. Or how about another scene where she is sitting on a medicine ball at work and she asks John to pump in more air because she didn’t think there was enough air in the ball. That moment will go down as one of the funniest scenes of 2016. It is also a great scene that highlights Field’s chemistry with Greenfield, who is also very good here. The character of John isn’t calling for too much differently than Greenfield’s Schmidt on New Girl but he does a great job of making it his own here. And as much as Field and Greenfield make this film, Tyne Daly is also worth noting. She has lines of dialogue that Daly nails with fine craftsmanship. Utterly perfect timing.

As good as the performances are, there’s also something interesting here about aging and why we nostalgize our youth and innocence. Doris’ mother was someone very sentimental and didn’t like throwing things out, which Doris inherited as well. Or did she? Maybe Doris didn’t want to throw out all of the “junk” in her life because it was something that mattered to her mom. The film is equal parts, Doris seducing John but it’s also Doris learning about her identity after her mom’s death and coping with the idea of getting older. One could argue that the root of her seduction of John is really more in the idea of just wanting to feel loved. Or perhaps wanting to be a part of something. There’s something about nostalgia and capturing the feeling of youth that helps cope with the aging process. This would explain why Doris acts the way she does and why she connects so deeply with Vivian throughout the film.

Thematically speaking, these notions are quite powerful and resonate authentically. However, narratively, the third act does become easily predictable and formulaic, which may smother some of that thematic potency but overall it’s still endearing. Showalter’s direction and balance helps lift the film past “been there, done that” as well, which amplifies the joyful qualities of this experience. His commentary on the hipster lifestyle is maybe mean spirited at times but isn’t too much of a distraction.

Overall, Hello, My Name is Doris offers awkward humor that will be panic-inducing for some audiences (like me) but it’s simultaneously very funny, heartfelt and in the end will make you smile.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

[divider]

Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writers: Robert Carlock (screenplay), Kim Barker (based on the book “The Taliban Shuffle: Strange Days in Afghanistan and Pakistan” by)
Stars: Tina Fey, Margot Robbie, Martin Freeman

Synopsis: A journalist recounts her wartime coverage in Afghanistan.

[/info]

To preface this review, my thoughts on Whiskey Tango Foxtrot are in no way a reflection of Kim Baker herself, who wrote the novel of which this film is based (“The Taliban Shuffle”). My thoughts are instead a reflection of the film we were given, the film I saw on screen, and the film I found quite a few problems with. I have no doubt that Kim Baker’s story is a heroic one, and absolutely one worth telling; the film here certainly explores those notions that are worthy talking points, especially when considering the film’s setting, it’s just too bad that the script is a case of too much too fast, a failed attempt at bringing all those elements together in a consistent whole. “WTF” is certainly accurate.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot tells the story of reporter Kim Baker as she recounts her experiences while on a 3-year stretch in Afghanistan.  Here she interviews various marines, makes friends, learns about the culture, and ultimately finds herself. Baker learns to have a dedication and care for the conflict overseas, and her growth onscreen is noticeable. But as the film starts to jumble many more characters (some who feel so unnecessary) and thematic notions, it becomes a jarring experience of a war film that feels as if the film is at war with itself.

Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, whose directorial resume is quite diverse (ranging from the “lovely” I Love You, Phillip Morris and Crazy, Stupid, Love, to the ironically out of focus Focus), are not to blame here. In fact, their vibrant direction and energetic pacing helps in creating a film that is never boring, and one that indeed has both comedic and human moments. These moments, however, are not enough to make up for Robert Carlock’s overcrowded screenplay, one that both constantly shows and tells but without the proper discipline in choosing the most important aspects to focus on. This creates for a film that is thematically trying to address femininity, our culture’s ignorance to the conflict in Afghanistan, the consequences of wartime journalism, striving for a change in your life, with even more notions sprinkled on top of that. The notions of feminism are strongest, especially considering this culture where many women aren’t even allowed to show their faces, but it becomes drowned in an incredibly crowded film, both crowded thematically and narratively, and that makes it all the more frustrating. It isn’t surprisingly that Carlock’s previous work is that of television comedy (he was a creator on the show Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt), and it may have become a simple case of inexperience.

With that said, Tina Fey is absolutely amazing, and gives a legitimately great performance in this film. Her chemistry with Martin Freeman (a character who isn’t well introduced but grows well into the film) is incredibly, and that maintains the film’s heart and soul when it is needed.  Billy Bob Thorton and Alfred Molina are slightly wasted in their respected roles (especially Molina, who has this awkward dance scene that feels just so out of place), and as much as I love Margot Robbie I can’t help but feel like her character could’ve been taken out of the film completely and it would not have changed a thing. All that said, don’t forget about Christopher Abbott, who plays Baker’s guide and translator Fahim, whom I would call the unsung hero of this film, at least dramatically.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot throws too many explosive mines into an already tight field, which results in it blowing its load either too much or too often. And despite some great moments, worthy themes, a worthy story, and a great central performance from Tina Fey, this film left me saying “WTF” more often than I should have.

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]

[divider]

Director: Stephen Fingleton
Writers: Stephen Fingleton
Stars: Martin McCann, Mia Goth, Olwen Fouere

Synopsis: In a time of starvation, a survivalist lives off a small plot of land hidden deep in forest. When two women seeking food and shelter discover his farm, he finds his existence threatened.

[/info]

Stephen Fingleton’s directorial debut, The Survivalist, shows strong signs of promise for an up and coming director. Fingleton’s direction is arguably the strongest aspect of the film, taking advantage of his budget restraints by confining all the action to a single location. Fingleton keeps the tension between three main characters, focuses the story on their isolation and does a good job of making the world aesthetically visceral.

The Survivalist takes place sometime after a global collapse where starvation has set in and one survivalist (Martin McCann – he has no name) is living off of a small plot of land hidden in a forest. He is eventually met by Milja (Mia Goth) and Kathryn (Olwen Fouere) who are looking for food and shelter. Trust is in short supply and tension between the three start to rise as both parties are unaware of long-term motivations.

Some post-apocalyptic films are so concerned with exposition that it restrains the story with convoluted details, however, Fingleton isn’t interested in any of that. Instead, Fingleton shows a simple graph that shows the audience how oil production rates and the world’s population rose and plummeted congruently. Once that set-up occurs, Fingleton rightly leaves that behind for the story in front of him, in which he captures with a beautifully, arduous style. The cinematography is arresting, using the forest and natural landscapes to viscerally enhance the feeling of isolation The Survivalist is depicting. There is one shot in a field that could go down as one of the best of the year. The camera is placed just above our characters, to give a unique perspective on the situation, and moves fluidly in one motion which gives us a larger scope of what’s at stake in the scene. It’s riveting filmmaking.

As captivating as Fingleton’s direction is, his script here is a different story (ahem). The film restricts dialogue and tries to convey it’s messages through gripping imagery, however character engagement is sacrificed by stripping back that dialogue. While the images themselves are great, they are not enough to flesh out the characters and their psyche. You don’t need to go overboard with dialogue to get your point across, and it’s clear Fingleton wants to tell his story visually, but the lack of character depth stifles the film’s cathartic turn. Simply, we just don’t know these characters well enough for the ending to feel earned.

Thematically speaking, the ending is quite powerful and has something wonderful to say about hope. But I’m not sure the sequence completely works because it’s hard to engage with when you feel distant from the characters in that moment. Still, an affable notion with some merit. That said, there are other notions here about our desire and need for intimacy, even when the world has gone to hell, that is warranted and fascinating within the context of this film. Most, if not all, post-apocalyptic films are more concerned about survival itself but Fingleton is just as interested in how our sexuality doesn’t go away just because things suck now. We see how the survivalist survives by growing food and gathering water, but there are other physical needs that have to be addressed as well. And while perhaps gratuitous at time, that idea is explored in alluring fashion.

Overall, while the narrative structure does fumble a bit and the characters needed to be fleshed out more, The Survivalist is a compelling watch that does have something unique to say given it’s genre. Fingleton is a director we should be on the lookout for, as we do see his potential here. His dynamic direction takes advantage of his limitations and it makes for a mostly fun cinematic experience.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

[divider]

Director: Terence Malick
Writers: Terence Malick
Stars: Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman

Synopsis: A writer indulging in all that Los Angeles and Las Vegas has to offer undertakes a search for love and self via a series of adventures with six different women.

[/info]

Given our current cultural landscape and films like Zootopia, which take on controversial topics in robust ways, it could make one kind of feel bad for liking this film. Knight of Cups, from esteemed director Terrene Malick, is just another story about a rich, white male who doesn’t quite have it all together. Why should we care? It’s a valid question to raise and in terms of the film’s cultural importance, well, it doesn’t have a strong argument. However, Knight of Cups gets to notions that all of us can relate with, even if you’re not rich, white or male. In fact, in the end, none of that really matters.

At the heart of this film, it’s depicting a parable about a prince who went to Egypt to find himself, but rather gets lost in his longing for superficial pleasures. It’s pretty clear that in this metaphor, Christian Bale’s character of Rick is the prince and Hollywood is Egypt. Rick is a screenwriter who is lost in Hollywood debauchery with no end in sight. Parties, girls, looking for something deeper. You know, the usual suspects. Rick’s marriage has fallen apart, his family is in deep mourning and internally Rick is finding it hard to cope. He scours the streets of Los Angeles looking for answers but most of what he’s searching for has been elusive.

While Malick has tackled these themes and ideas before, Knight of Cups is structured in a simplistic moral framework that is rather easy to follow. Bale has very little dialogue and most of his screen time is spent reflecting on the chaos happening around him. Sometimes literal chaos. There’s one scene where we see an earthquake and it drops Rick to his knees, symbolically depicting Rick’s emotional state. It’s perhaps a bit on the nose but also one of the more intriguing shots of the film. Malick and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubeski are quite intentional, changing formats from GoPro to 35mm film and both are used extremely well at capturing, not only the pathos of the film, but somehow making the streets of LA feel more than just concrete and steel. This being Malick, and three-time Oscar winner Lubeski, it’s no surprise that the film’s imagery is exquisite and beautiful while impeccably rendering the film’s thematic undercurrent.

The problem with Knight of Cups, which isn’t so much that the film’s themes are redundant for Malick, but rather it’s lacking depth. Most of the female characters, who are crucial to the film narratively, are reduced to nothing more than naked bodies or voices of wisdom. Malick uses several of them as narrators which ultimately just becomes white noise since their characters are meaningless to the audience. They serve their place in Rick’s story but in the end, they aren’t integral to the film’s thematic core.

So, again, why should we care?

Well, going back to our parable and although the film doesn’t acknowledge it directly, there are parallels to the “Parable of the Lost Son” from Luke 15 in the Bible. Now, that may mean nothing to you but what’s fascinating about that story is how it features a second half to the equation that Malick seems to be interested in here. Yes, Bale is representing the trite, lost son but simultaneously there’s a father that hasn’t given up on his son. And not just Rick’s physical biological father, who is wonderfully played by Brian Dennehy, but a spiritual father is calling out to Rick. Through voice narration done by Malick himself, there’s a God-like figure that seems to be seeking Rick and wanting to heal him. And while Knight of Cups is regurgitating themes Malick has explored before, it’s execution has conviction and heart that comes across poignant and genuine.

Now, that notion through the lens of just another rich, white guy perhaps loses it’s potency for some audiences. It’s understandable and as mentioned, this is nothing profoundly new for Malick but it’s themes are still relatable on a spiritual level for anyone who’s felt lost, despite whatever box society may try to fit you into. This isn’t a “religious” film by any means but Malick does have something to say about how nature connects with us when we need guidance. In this case, Malick’s simplicity actually works in his benefit (at least for the most part) when it comes to those ideas and Lubeski’s beautiful imagery helps resonate the heart of those ideas.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

[divider]