Director: Stephen Hopkins
Writers: Joe Shrapnel, Anna Waterhouse
Stars: Stephan James, Jason Sudeikis, Eli Goree

Synopsis: Jesse Owens’ quest to become the greatest track and field athlete in history thrusts him onto the world stage of the 1936 Olympics, where he faces off against Adolf Hitler’s vision of Aryan supremacy.

[/info]

The story of Jesse Owens is one of heartbreak but also incredible inspiration. Rising above all expectations, Owens not only went to Nazi Germany in 1936 despite obstacles getting there, but he took advantage of every opportunity he had to represent something that is 100% uniquely to him. That is to say, this story is ripe with rich material just begging to be on the big screen.

Race opens with Owens (Stephan James) getting ready to head off to The Ohio State University, the first in his family to go to college. Soon after arriving on campus, he meets legendary coach Larry Snyder (Jason Sudeikis) who starts to prep Owens for the Olympic games. Along the way, Owens makes some mistakes, is forced to amend some relationships and runs into some hurdles (see what I did there) that may keep him from his dreams. Eventually the NCAAP tells Owens to stay away from the Games to boycott Adolf Hitler and his Aryan supremacy. This creates internal conflict in Owens, who understands this is a once in a lifetime opportunity as an athlete.

On paper, this should’ve been great. However, screenwriters Joe Shrapnel and Anna Waterhouse force so much into this narrative and contrive the utter loving —- out of it, that every character comes off thin and shallow. Even the Owens character himself never really feels human. The script bounces from Owens to USA Olympic politics to German politics and back so often that it undercuts any momentum it builds. The forceful writing of building Nazi Germany makes no sense within the context of this story. Instead of letting the audience bring in their already known knowledge of Nazi Germany, the screenplay feels like they have to show you that the Nazi’s are bad guys. As a side effect, time is taken away from Owens that would have otherwise built upon and developed him into a richer character. We never really get a sense of how Nazi Germany effected Owens, other than the superficial response we’d all expect. This feeling is a direct response of a messy narrative with the wrong focus.

When Owens is in the United States before the Games, there’s time spend on his journey leading up to the Games that is just as messy, just as contrived and just as frustrating. Even the athletic action sequences feel uninspired and add little excitement. Stephen Hopkins’ direction is fine and Race is more of a victim of it’s script but there’s not much in his direction that helps much. I’ll admit though, the shot of Owens as he walks into the Olympic stadium is awe-inducing and magnetic, a feeling that was rarely felt here, unfortunately.

That said, James and Sudeikis are pretty good and certainly have a chemistry that works here. While many of their scenes may not work narratively, their performances do bring a visceral quality that is appreciated. However, if you ask me, Andrew Moodie stole the show when he was on screen, playing Henry Owens, the father of Jesse. Moodie has only one line of dialouge but he says so much in this film with his expressions and how he acts with his eyes. He displays this love and pride toward Jesse that is moving and so effective on screen.

All in all, while the real-life story of Jesse Owens is spectacular and absolutely film worthy, Race doesn’t quite have enough working in it’s favor to finish on a strong note. It starts off the starting line fast, stumbles early on and isn’t ever able to recover.

Overall Grade: C-

[divider]

Director: Nicholas Hytner
Writers: Alan Bennett
Stars: Maggie Smith, Alex Jennings, Jim Broadbent

Synopsis: A man forms an unexpected bond with a transient woman living in her car that’s parked in his driveway.

[/info]

If you’re not familiar with The Lady in the Van, it’s a film based on the Alan Bennett play of the same name. And in a weird way, if you’re a fan of Deadpool and charming indie films, then this film is right up your alley. Like Deadpool, but to a lesser and cleaner way, The Lady in the Van is very meta and the Alan Bennett character is very aware he’s in a film. Bennett works as the narrator here but his narration comes in the form of a personified duplicate of himself, to whom he talks to throughout the entire film. There are also moments where the film pauses, and to say vaguely as to not spoil it, that become more obvious in it’s meta storytelling, as to honor the subject of the film, Miss Shepard.

Miss Shepard (Maggie Smith) is older and homeless but has the comforts of a van that she lives in, as for her it’s all she needs. She parks and makes home outside the house of playwright Alan Bennett in Camden, London. While awkward at first, Bennett sort of, well shepherd’s her and gives her assistance as needed. What was supposed to be a few weeks until Miss Shepard found a permanent place to live became something neither of them ever imagined. The two form a relationship that is zany, quirky and full of hilarity.

It’s not all fun and games though, Miss Shepard is a bit distant and indignant at times. She’s cold and bitter, even when people are being nice to her. However, there’s a reason for all her abrasiveness. As the film peels back the layers of who Miss Shepard was, there’s deep levels of regret and unforgiveness that have eaten her all these years. A lot of it wasn’t her fault but she shouldered these emotions to significant levels and it’s taken it’s toll on her.

Overall, The Lady in the Van isn’t necessarily going for profundity or trying to be revealing of anything deep but it’s ideas around regret and treating people with respect do come across genuinely. The film is wanting to have fun and depict Miss Shepard in a way that is honoring to her crazy but lovable story. But they don’t stifle her problems either. She was someone who struggled throughout her later years in life and that does come across on screen well. Maggie Smith is terrific in a role that she just eats up in the most endearing way possible. The balance of irascible biting depicted throughout but also the necessary sympathy you feel is magnetic in Smith’s performance. Alex Jennings is also wonderful playing Bennett (both versions) and the chemistry between Jennings and Smith is visceral in every glorious way.

The Lady in the Van succeeds at exactly what it’s trying to attempt. It’s a feel-good story about a captivating individual who just shows up on your doorstep one day. How do you cope with that? Bennett had a deteriorating mother at the time. Did he need this in his life? Could he have just told her to leave? Probably. But what does it say about the actions he chose? Yeah, this film is a fun exploration between two juxtaposing characters but there are some great questions that arise that seem simple on the surface, but would you react the same if you’re being honest? If you ask me, the film earns those honest questions.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

Director: Robert Eggers
Writers: Robert Eggers
Stars: Anya Taylor-Joy, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw

Synopsis: A family in 1630s New England is torn apart by the forces of witchcraft, black magic and possession.

[/info]

There is an evil lurking behind the shadows in The Witch; here’s a hint, it’s not a witch. Unless Robert Eggers, with his sinister quality behind the camera, can now be considered one. The Witch is a modern horror movie that is less concerned with physical witchcraft, regardless of what the film’s title suggests. This makes for an overall satisfying addition to the modern resurgence of horror filmmaking.

The Witch takes place in 1630s New England, focusing on the “banishment” of a Puritan family from their plantation due to a disagreement in beliefs. The family finds a spot to reside and farm in the wooded outskirts, where an entity beyond comprehension may be lurking in the trees. The horror ensues after the disappearance of the family’s infant son, and what instantly happens next will simply make your stomach turn and skin curl. As the horror continues, this good-natured family becomes engulfed in sin, paranoia, and religious fanaticism. And it’s fantastic.

As already alluded to above, the real star of the film is Robert Eggers. As a first time writer and director, it is astounding to see such craft in producing a film that is both a glorious exercise in fresh horror techniques, and an authentic period piece. Eggers builds tension not necessarily slowly, but calmly and cautiously; he waits and lets the film’s ideas gradually carry the story and its characters, only to then raise the hairs on your neck when you least expect it, and in a big way. Eggers’ research of the time period and the language is also uncanny; his writing as a representation of 17th Century New England is perfection in its authenticity, whereas the stark cinematography and art direction continues to complement that authenticity even further. If there’s one thing a great horror film needs to succeed, that’s authenticity.

This beautifully translates to the film’s dense and diverse collection of themes. The Witch uses history to paint a portrait of the paranoia of early witchcraft, in a time prior to the Salem Witch Trials, and how that paranoia leads to a family’s destruction. It focuses on the developing evil of this time, and the repercussions of hiding from that danger instead of recognizing its existence. Eggers drives this even further using religious faith and fanaticism, God vs. Satan, and most importantly the repercussions of sin, specifically pride, lies, and even impure sexuality. This ultimately breaks a good-hearted family down, leading them down a path of accusations and madness.

The Witch has been aesthetically compared to that of The Shining and The Crucible, and it is easy to see why. But that fails to give enough credit where credit is due; Eggers has a unique direction style, and it translates here. And the film has this drama that is sorely missing in most modern horror, even further emulated by the film’s incredible performances, most notably Anya Taylor-Joy and young Harvey Scrimshaw. The Witch may initially lack a real emotional resonance at first, and it may introduce these characters a bit suddenly, but this allows the film’s setting and time period to take charge, and it takes a really talented director to use those aesthetics to enhance a film’s drama, but that’s exactly what Eggers does. He also makes a goat scary, a reason alone to see this movie. The Witch may be too abstract for some, but in its execution it has the chance of standing the test of time, a true characteristic of a horror classic.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Director: Tim Miller
Writers: Rhett Reese (screenplay), Paul Wernick (screenplay)
Stars: Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, T.J. Miller

Synopsis: A former Special Forces operative turned mercenary is subjected to a rogue experiment that leaves him with accelerated healing powers, adopting the alter ego Deadpool.

[/info]

This is a spoiler free review, as I do not want to get on Deadpool’s bad side. Deadpool is a perfect example of giving the fans what they want, with excellent marketing and, of course, a dedicated actor. I personally am not a Deadpool fan. I prefer Deathstroke, but there is no mistake that Deadpool transitions perfectly onto the big screen. Everything from breaking the fourth wall, to his talkative nature and his use of no-filter, it’s all prevalent in Deadpool. And for a comic fan, I wanted to cry because this was a live-action comic book. Before this, I was not a fan of Ryan Reynolds, however, this guy is Deadpool through and through. He absolutely owns this character. As you know, test footage for this movie “leaked” several years ago and once it did, the internet went crazy. Thankfully the studios answered because the ensuing results is a win-win for everybody.

Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) one day meets a beautiful woman named, Vanessa Carlysle ( Morena Baccarin) and the pair’s relationship moves as quickly as a woman winning an argument. One night he collapses and it is later revealed that he is diagnosed with cancer. Wade Wilson is devastated, and in order to not hurt the love of his life, he makes the decision to undergo an experiment to cure his cancer by the lovely Francis Freeman (Ed Skrein). The experiment has adverse side effects and Wade Wilson transforms into the lovable Deadpool, to get his true love back.

The script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick has lots of jokes in reference to Ryan Reynolds’ Green Lantern in addition to his past Deadpool movie variant. The fact that this movie does not take itself seriously is part of the fun and from the opening credits to close there are jokes galore. Most superhero movies start off with the character before they become a hero with the eventual turn in the second half, as they become the titular hero. Director Tim Miller does not take that approach with Deadpool, and let’s be honest, I am sure Deadpool would not have allowed more screen time to Wade Wilson. The film is structured as best as a Deadpool movie can be, with a nice mix of side characters such as Colossus (Stefan Kapičić) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand).

Deadpool is a very hard R, so if you know nothing about this character, I would suggest not bringing little children to this movie. This is not a Spider-Man movie. Deadpool is a must-see movie and has set the standard for comic-book films for 2016. Batman vs Superman you are on deck.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Director: Alejandro Amenábar
Writers: Alejandro Amenábar
Stars: Ethan Hawke, David Thewlis, Emma Watson

Synopsis: A detective and a psychoanalyst uncover evidence of a satanic cult while investigating the rape of a young woman.

[/info]

Alejandro Amenábar has made some noteworthy films in the past, including The Others, Open Your Eyes and The Sea Inside, so Regression was a film on our radar going back to last year. The film was pushed back to February of 2016 due to unknown reasons with zero marketing behind it but we tried to keep some hope for it. Amenábar is a good director and this cast is quite good, including Ethan Hawke, Emma Watson and David Thewlis. On paper, this was ripe with potential.

The film, set in 1990, opens with text on the screen telling us that fear ran rampant in the 1980s about Satanic cults around the country. We then move to Bruce Kenner (Hawke) and Dr. Kenneth Raines (Thewlis), a psychoanalyst who specializes in regression therapy, as they investigate the possible abuse and rape of a young woman (Watson). That rape was allegedly at the hands of her father (played wonderfuly by David Dencik), but the story doesn’t quite seem to make sense to Kenner, who suspects something more. Kenner and Raines gather evidence and put several people through the therapy treatment as they try to find answers, which rubs up against the possibility that a Satanic cult may be the culprit. Kenner is very skeptical at first but as the investigation continues, the further he gets dragged into this alleged world of “pure” evil.

While the film’s first act is quite good, the film however quickly fizzles out by the mid-way point. It becomes consumed with being something it isn’t and as a result, Regression becomes overly convoluted, tropey and lacking any real enlightenment. The third act twist smears itself at the audience and pretentiously tries to act like something of meaning. But in reality, the twist is predictable, trite and even somewhat offensive.

Amenábar is trying to debunk the direct notions and allegations he’s using to invoke the film’s premise, the thing he’s relying for to give us cinematic suspense. Instead of genuinely playing with the tropes and giving this film depth, it’s like he’s making fun of them. The climax of this film especially comes off as indignant and callous. Amenábar wants us to believe the film is revealing something of meaning regarding spirituality but the film is convoluted and juggling too many aspects for it to feel earned. But the topper is how it feels like an entire set up to a punchline where he points a middle finger at the audience. The rug is pulled out from under you to reveal that Amenábar was never concerned with spirituality, it’s validity or the nature of good vs evil. It’s treated as a joke, which is unfortunate because this film was set up to be thematically rich.

Instead, Amenábar’s writing is the real joke. The carelessness of the the script is also reflected in some of his direction, which is some of the weakest of his career. The scares aren’t that impressive and the film lacks suspense and drama throughout. Initially, the mystery is gripping and the characters are interesting but soon it all becomes banal and stale.

Hawke, Watson and Thewlis all give good performances though, despite the writing of their characters not earning their revelations throughout. Roque Banos also gives a score that works beautifully here as well.

Overall, Regression doesn’t progress in any compelling fashion and it’s pretty forgettable. In fact, the experience in a word was, cheap.

Overall Grade: C-

[divider]

Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Writers: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Stars: Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Channing Tatum, Tilda Swinton

Synopsis: A Hollywood fixer in the 1950s works to keep the studio’s stars in line.

[/info]

Let me start off by saying, this film isn’t going to be for everyone. Joel and Ethan Coen have delivered some wonderful and bizarre comedies over the years, but they have been certainly divisive among audiences. Even The Big Lebowski wasn’t highly regarded by everyone at the time of it’s release but has since gone on to become of the largest cult hits of our lifetime. I don’t think Hail, Caesar will ever get to that level but over the years it could resonate more with some audiences. Others will love it immediately, and you can count me in that group.

The film opens with Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin is wonderful), the head honcho at Capitol Pictures, in a confessional booth as he begins his day. The moment is earnest and sweet. Once he arrives on Capitol grounds, the film becomes a bit more zany at that point. We see the filming of several movies going on, including a biblical epic called Hail, Caesar, which stars Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) who is being targeted for something we’re not sure of yet. Soon after shooting starts, he is kidnapped and held for ransom. Simultaneously, young actress DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson) has become pregnant out of wedlock and that is a PR nightmare for Mannix. Esteemed director Laurence Lorenz (played wonderfully by Ralph Fiennes) is about to lose control of himself after acquiring actor Hobie Doyle (played by Alden Ehrenreich, who is arguably the film’s stand out), a cowboy movie star now having to learn his way through a dialogue-driven drama. If that wasn’t enough, Mannix also has to deal with gossip columnist sisters, Thora and Thessaly Thacker (Tilda Swinton), who are pestering Mannix at every turn along with executives at Lockheed Martin who want Mannix to leave the Hollywood “circus”.

Admittedly, this isn’t going down as one of the Coen’s masterpieces, but it could be one of their most essential films. As chaotic as the film will seem on the surface, at it’s center, it’s a crisis of faith movie that is convincingly genuine. In fact, it pairs really well with previous Coen films, such as Barton Fink and Inside Llewyn Davis, that explore these notions of internal lostness. The 1950’s time period depicted here also supports the idea this is essential Coen viewing as the Coen’s have made a career making films that honor classic Hollywood. So it just makes sense that they dive directly into the Golden Age of an industry they passionately love. And let’s be clear, even though there is genuine and funny satire here, this is a love letter.

It’s a passionate love letter and you can tell the Coen’s were having a lot of fun. They use the era like a cinematic playground as they dabble into several different genres, including a hokey cowboy movie, a Gene Kelly-inspired musical, a prestigious 50’s Oscar drama, a Biblical Epic and an Esther Williams-inspired aquatic scene. Even the Mannix story thread is shot like a 50’s film noir, which cinematographer Roger Deakins paints beautifully here.

The film is a riot but it isn’t just bells and whistle’s. It will come across as a Hollywood farce set in the 50’s on the surface, but bubbling underneath it’s also a film about faith, lostness and longing for something more. Tonally there’s a jarring balance between the chaos of Hollywood and this genuine “crisis of faith” that is exemplified through the Mannix character. In a way only the Coen’s could do, Mannix grips the centerfold as a character that is grounded and very flesh and blood, especially when juxtaposed to every other character in this film, who is depicted as over the top and a bit cartoonish. That depiction and that chaos, however, is very purposeful. In a world surrounded by chaos, the Coen’s want to ask these questions of how one maintains their humanity in a world that seems soulless and lost. “Divine presence to be shot later” a title card reads as Mannix is watching an unfinished version of Hail, Caesar. In another scene, Mannix tries to get a Rabbi, a priest and other religious leaders to agree on how “God” is shown in Hail, Caesar and they can’t really agree (the scene is important thematically and also hysterical). It’s not just Mannix too. Remember that group that kidnapped Baird Whitlock? Well, at the root of their motivation, they are seeking answers. Whitlock himself starts poking for truth after confronting his kidnappers. Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum, who gives arguably his best performance of his career and his musical dance number is something to behold) is a man seeking validity. DeeAna Moran is looking for something familial. Everyone is looking to put their faith in something, whether it be God or the movies, or just something. It’s of course ironic given the reputation of Hollywood but in an industry that has no room for faith, it is full of people in dire need of it.

So, is it a coincidence that Hail, Caesar (the movie within a movie) is about an outsider who is overcome by “truth” in the middle of a place that feels hopeless? Well I’ll leave that up to you to decide. At any rate, the film is littered with faith and finding our humanity in the middle of the chaos. Again, a notion explored before by the Coen’s but done here in a way that works congruently with the rest of their filmography.

The Coen’s prowessness for balance is also important to note here, as it’s never overtly satirical. It’s jabs toward Hollywood are limited and the balance of recognizing the chaos but also giving us grounded humanity results in the film being playful, not harsh in it’s satire. As mentioned, it’s more of a love letter with some cheerful commentary. So yeah, the film is quirky, zany, messy, uneven and it’ll leave some audiences confused and lost. But I think that’s kind of the point. That unfocused feeling crescendo’s in a beautiful and fun journey exploring one’s crisis of faith. It may not be the Coen’s best film but it gave me what I adore about the Coen’s and I left satisfied.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]