Director: Andrew Haigh
Writers: Andrew Haigh, Willy Vlautin (novel)
Stars: Travis Fimmel, Charlie Plummer, Steve Buscemi, Steve Zahn

Synopsis: A teenager gets a summer job working for a horse trainer and befriends the fading racehorse, Lean on Pete.

[/info]

Andrew Haigh is one of those unique filmmakers who somehow manages to fully realized his characters in a way that feels tangible. It’s almost as if you’re experiencing the same dilemma they are on screen. The way he draws you in and engages the emotion of his characters, the internal conflict on display, the intimacy that comes about in them, it’s all very palpable. His latest film, Lean on Pete, is perhaps the best example of that yet in his robust career.

Charley (Charlie Plummer) is living with his dad, Ray (Travis Fimmel), who is doing his best to look after him after his mom left some years ago. As a way to help out, Charley finds a summer job working for Del (Steve Buscemi), a race horse trainer who may not have the best of ethics. One of Del’s horses, Pete, gains the attention of Charley and the two form a bond that is endearing, while also youthfully ignorant. After some traumatic turns in Charley’s life, he decides to go on a journey with Pete, one that ends up being an awakening for him.

The narrative beats in Haigh’s screenplay (based on the novel by Willy Vlautin) are not going to surprise you in any way. But while predictable in its plot mechanics, Lean on Pete is a powerful work of understated storytelling in characterization and theme. With the same emotional vigor as 45 Years, while teetering in more surface-level poignancy, the film channels Kelly Reichardt’s Wendy & Lucy and never relishes in sentimentality. Lean on Pete is a more dour film, but its emotion sneaks up on you. Haigh unfolds Charley’s story naturally and builds so precisely that you never have the opportunity to (ahem) lean into the visceral emotion that comes about. In fact, it wasn’t until the end credits when Charley’s journey hit me the hardest.

Without spoilers, his situation becomes increasingly desperate as he encounters one heartbreaking event after another. However, it never feels melodramatic and thematically it’s very potent to see Charley cope with his circumstances by diving into something human. He simply longs for connection. And in the case of Lean on Pete, it happens to be a race horse who was abused by its owner. Where the film could have been manipulative, Haigh instead offers subtlety and lets Charlie Plummer render organic reasons for why Charley reacts to his devastation in the ways he does. There’s an adolescent innocence to it that’s charming, yet simultaneously it borders on maturity and adulthood.

Lean on Pete is a film that will be too introspective for some audiences, and arguably too saddening to witness for others, but there’s genuine catharsis that is earned due to great performances and technical filmmaking. Plummer is excellent in how he demonstrates Charley’s emotional progression, giving one of the best performances of the year so far. Buscemi, Fimmel, Steve Zhan and Chloe Sevigny have something to offer as well in terms of helping (or motivating) Charley gain some sort of new perspective. The true star of the film though is Andrew Haigh. His direction and pacing gives Lean on Pete a poetic quality that will simmer with me for a long time. This isn’t an easy film to sit through, but it’s the antithesis to most animal movies (especially horse movies) in that it never engineers artificiality. Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, for example, could not be more different than Lean on Pete. This is a film that’s more real. It’s more guttural. Charley is someone who you could know in real life. And if you do see him, do me a favor and buy him a horse to look after. The kid deserves it.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on an upcoming Extra Film!

[divider]

Director: Brad Peyton
Writers: Ryan Engle (also story by), Carlton Cuse, Ryan J. Condal and Adam Sztykiel
Stars: Dwayne Johnson, Naomie Harris, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Jason Liles (motion capture)

Synopsis: When three different animals become infected with a dangerous pathogen, a primatologist and a geneticist team up to stop them from destroying Chicago.

[/info]

On tonight’s episode of “So You Think You Can Out-rock The Rock?”…

Where others in the field see as the peak of their careers, namely being a demigod for Disney, Dwayne Johnson reaches farther. In the omni-charming actor’s latest, he plays a primatologist who, other than the usual and perpetual buffness, is a master of ASL, driver of Ford’s new Bronco, semi-frequent flier of helicopters and single.
Still, that Goodall-hearted-in-Salmoni squared-physique appeal isn’t enough for Rampage to be a competent exercise in mindless fun, let alone a model for subsequent game-to-film adaptations to follow. The film tries to be more than what it is, which is valiant, but forgotten steps and clear bias for destruction renders the campaign an unsuccessful one.

And it’s odd, considering Ryan Engle (of February’s The Commuter), Carlton Cuse, Ryan J. Condal and Adam Sztykiel seem adamant on making that happen. Evident is the writing quartet spending considerable time to rationalize and fuse story into plot-free material — the 1986 eponymous game from Midway has players embody 8-bit monsters of destruction that were once humans (!) — but did no one remember to perform the step that can assemble their efforts into a united whole? Right now, the story progresses like a group PowerPoint in freshman year where each beat — and there are three, “BeastMania,” “Mighty Joe Young redux,” “‘90s cinema” — has its own voice and it’s obvious when the transitions happen. From the look of it, “Mighty Joe Young 2” is on after a segment of “BeastMania 12.”

The lack of cohesion also reflects in the performances as certain players bring clashing auras into the frame; some know they’re in a sci-fi actioner, some swear they’re in an actioner throwback and one (Naomie Harris) arrives in emotional-drama form only to be brazenly regarded as an afterthought by the film’s end. All that Rampage has to say about poaching and shady corporations? Consider them as traces of shoehorning rather than commentary.

Another interesting find about the cast: Provided that they don’t meet each other, or their worlds don’t encroach one another, all is well. In other words, we won’t confuse or cringe until we pass out. Take Jeffrey Dean Morgan for example, here in the film as government agent Harvey Russell. In every step of his quest to clean up the mess of sibling mad-and-bureaucratic scientists Claire (Malin Akerman, looking like True Lies‘ Tia Carrere’s twin) and Brett Wyden (Jake Lacy, whose over-the-top doofus act is better in a Farrelly Brothers’ film) — the chemical agent that causes a crocodile, a wolf and Johnson’s character’s albino gorilla friend (Jason Liles) to upsize uncontrollably is a creation of theirs — Morgan’s Russell behaves as if he’s from a time when cheesy one-liners rule and to be ‘Murican is to be Texan. And ever the cool sport, the actor pours every ounce of his being into the character; his grin after saying “whirlybird” is downright pure.

Frankly speaking, neither characters nor narrative is the most pressing matter on Rampage’s mind. Coming off of the set-piece sizzle reel called San Andreas, director Brad Peyton makes it clear that the scenery-squashing will be the better-to-best part of the film, to the extent that it will do its damnedest to erase whatever character beat that came before. Admittedly, it’s hard to not gleefully squeal when these sequences arrive; despite the familiar setting (downtown Chicago is on schedule for demolition again) they’re made inviting through intense detailing, Jaron Presant’s aptly large-scale photography and Andrew Lockington’s trapped-at-crescendo score. A word of caution: The camera won’t cut away when a beast’s action will lead a biped to its demise. The PG-13 ensures no gore, but an “oof” or two is a guarantee.

And as you can guess it, it’s George the gorilla, Ralph the flying wolf and Lizzie the titanic crocodile that will get all the attention.

Sorry, Johnson — but the beasts made a more impactful first impression than you.

Overall Grade: C-

[divider]

Director: Boots Riley
Writers: Boots Riley
Stars: Lakeith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Armie Hammer, Steven Yeun, Jermaine Fowler

Synopsis: In a dystopian not-too-distant future, black telemarketer Cassius Green discovers a magical key to professional success and is propelled into a macabre universe.

[/info]

After a music career that spanned over two decades, Boots Riley takes his first stab towards commercial filmmaking—taking the cake for the most rambunctious screenplay of 2018 thus far with Sorry to Bother You. The light handful of musically inclined artists who aspire to partake in the world of directing don’t always land the cleanest of transitions. Boots Riley in no shape or form falls victim to this. Seeing how high-strung and adamant he is about this project signifies the such scarce amounts of failure he’s been met with during the process of this film being made. Not only does he successfully create his feature debut, he sculpts something so principal in this age of film but still manages to occupy it with such inventive eccentricity. This should definitely make some waves come July, bet on it.

The rumors that began to circulate about how truly bonkers this film is have been floating all throughout social media since it’s Sundance premiere. Even then, those don’t quite do the film justice. Despite prospering with its own uncanny originality, there’s a larger-scale assessment in the film about the ethics of going against socially tolerable norms mixed with an exaggerated portrayal of certain professional hierarchies standards. This produces such a sharp-witted and evenly balanced debut from Riley. While ideally it holds nothing back, it doesn’t set the bar too high for itself. Specializing in the care-free normalcy’s of modern life yet still focusing on the confliction of our protagonists. Even if it does so in the most flagrant way possible, as it can occasionally leap into an element of self-awareness at times. Nonetheless, it still burns brightly with its level of relevance—even subconsciously making fun of the fact that it’s taking itself seriously.

Nearly any production containing a cast with Lakeith Stanfield or even Armie Hammer is bound to benefit from their overabundance of talent and increasing level of familiarity towards audiences. I’m not even accounting for the other distinct supporting cast members. There’s so many fresh and recurring facades pitted against each other in this production and story, all of which stem from such unique discographies yet maintain dedicated and committed to their role. In such cases that nearly every comedic attempt can genuinely thrive due to the cast’s radiance. The entirety of Danny Glover’s appearance and the hysterical implementation of trite stereotypes like “channeling one’s inner white voice”, is a sole example that I’m speaking upon in particular. There’s an obscene quantity of different gags/phrases thrown in that are as you would imagine, extremely humorous. And somehow all of that is due to the actors’ prowess and atmospheric presence. Simply one of the multiple departments of this film that the cast/crew flourishes in.

There’s something quite unequivocally fresh that begins to sprout in each direction from this screenplay penned by Boots Riley. Disregarding it’s fairly light-hearted tonal nature, it’s proposition on weighty new-world issues and its depiction of those who want to dream big collide for our stirring plot escalation. Protagonist Cassius Green is a character so effortlessly identifiable with due to his universal ambitions of a better life, despite being shackled to the normalcy of early adulthood suburbia. It even goes as far as to test his morality once he’s achieved such high status. Has he executed what’s perceived as right or has he left his friends and family behind while on this path to an inhumane lifestyle? It’s all put in to perspective but I still can’t truly preach enough about it. Along with all of that and the short-analysis on society/media scrutiny, it makes for a kinetic piece of storytelling. I’ll be rooting for this heavily to grab a screenplay nomination later during this year’s race.

As appealing to film lovers as Sorry to Bother You is, it isn’t exactly mutual for people who aren’t necessarily as passionate about cinema. General moviegoers might not be as fascinated in such a salacious story arc such as this one. It’s definitely not the most approachable feature for anyone to sit in a theater and watch this tale unfold. It has shades of satirical nature that it faintly co-depends on, but I can’t see a massive number of audiences connecting with the more brash and extensive allegorical themes. Therefore, they’ll just neglect it altogether without attempting to find anything beneath the surface. Which will then mount in to a domino effect for the lack of revenue/attention because of people’s disinterest. Anything is possible however. It’s definitely found it’s main demographic, it just becomes a matter of expanding upon that in to a more substantial audience now.

Sorry to Bother You is fabulously weird. One can’t help but adore its irreverence and boisterous style while taking content in its proclivity to tell a story. Hopefully it’s lack of narrative accessibility doesn’t tinge the project’s potentially deserving appraisal or lack thereof in those circumstances. It’s definitely not for everyone—even as much as I dislike using that term—it’s gonna provide a fluctuating array of consensuses once fully released. However, I can comfortably say it’s one of the most satisfyingly prevailing debut attempts from anyone as of late.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on an upcoming Extra Film.

[divider]