Director: Ilya Naishuller
Writers: Ilya Naishuller, Will Stewart
Stars: Sharlto Copley, Tim Roth, Haley Bennett

Synopsis: A first-person action film from the eyes of Henry, who’s resurrected from death with no memory. He must discover his identity and save his wife from a warlord with a plan to bio-engineer soldiers.

[/info]

Let me start out by saying that the ambition of this film is quite affable. Director Ilya Naishuller is trying to attempt something that has never been done before, which is risky and could have had a huge payoff. You have to give credit to Naishuller for bringing something new to a genre that is in dire need of a breath of fresh air.

Now, with that out of the way, Hardcore Henry isn’t a film. There is no story here. It’s a vignette of action sequences that features laughable exposition and characters you don’t know or care about. The story moves at a pace that makes The Program feel like a relaxed stroll in the park. By the time Naishuller gives you the necessary information to piece together this puzzle, it’s too late and half of it doesn’t make any sense. The tonal argument of “it’s just a fun action movie” doesn’t hold any weight either. Hardcore Henry does take itself seriously in parts, while other sections of the film is pure balls-to-the-wall entertainment, making the film tonally all over the place.

In other words, the film has nothing to offer other than nauseating action sequences that wears itself out rather quickly. The whole film is Henry doing this…

And this…

And also this…

Sharlto Copley, however, is kind of a treat here. He plays several iterations of his Jimmy character, which doesn’t make any sense initially, but Copley is hysterical and does add a sense of fun to the film that was desperately needed. The writing of his character, like the rest of the film, is poorly explained but the reveal of what’s really happening with his character is intriguing, mostly for the moral questions that arise from it. Narratively, within the context of the film, it’s nothing special but it does raise questions that will be fun to discuss with your friends regarding the ethics surrounding his dilemma and how you would handle yourself in a similar situation. And stoner Jimmy is absolutely hilarious.

Overall, this would work much better as a series of short films. The raid on Jimmy’s house near the end is quite riveting on it’s own. As a ten-minute action sequence, it’s a lot of fun, dramatic and there’s a full progression for it’s characters, making the conclusion of that particular sequence satisfying and fleshed out. The use of slow-motion is well-timed and the choreography is easily the best of the film. If I saw nothing else but this sequence, I would have walked away happy. The film just doesn’t work as a 90-minute feature length film. The gimmick is tiresome after the first act and ultimately there’s nothing to grasp here dramatically, emotionally or even superficially as a fun action flick.

Overall Grade: D+

[divider]

[divider]

Director: Stephen Frears
Writers: John Hodge (screenplay), David Walsh (book)
Stars: Ben Foster, Chris O’Dowd, Guillaume Canet

Synopsis: An Irish sports journalist becomes convinced that Lance Armstrong’s performances during the Tour de France victories are fueled by banned substances. With this conviction, he starts hunting for evidence that will expose Armstrong.

[/info]

It’s a shame that great biopics these days are a dime a dozen. It’s an even bigger shame when they are as bad as Stephen Frears’ The Program, an insulting demonstration on the doping scandal the plagued Lance Armstrong, his team, and his seven wins at the Tour de France. Based on the novel Seven Deadly Sins: My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong by reporter David Walsh, The Program chronicles the life of cyclist Lance Armstrong from 1993 until 2012. That right there should be your first concern, from 1993 until 2012. This already sounds like agenda driven drivel.

Ben Foster portrays Armstrong, and one can’t help but feel like this film was only made because Foster has an uncanny resemblance to Armstrong in this film; there are flashes of brilliance, but only just. As most are already familiar with, Armstrong was both an activist for surviving testicular cancer and a doping cheater, accused of using performance enhancing drugs while racking up his wins at the Tour de France. The Program doesn’t shy away from the fact that Armstrong was in fact a cheater, along with his doctor and teammates, in fact it fully embraces his unlikeability so superficially and insultingly, one can’t help but feel that the film ironically cheats in its storytelling. It is reporter David Walsh, portrayed by Chris O’Dowd, who suspects and accuses Armstrong of doping. O’Dowd actually gives a legitimately good performance here, and it’s the investigational aspect involving Walsh where The Program is at its most intense and relevant, which also leads to the film’s biggest problem.

With all biopics, one has to ask why this was a story worth telling, specifically as a dramatized film. With The Program, there are two moments that show us this. The first is David Walsh’s suspicion and eventual investigation of Lance Armstrong, as denoted above; in fact it’s easy to wonder why Walsh wasn’t the main character of this film. The second moment is the Livestrong Foundation, specifically a moment during one of Lance’s seminars where a woman approaches Lance and tells him he’s the reason she didn’t give up. Dissecting this scene a bit more, this is the moment where the film attempts to humanize Lance Armstrong by showing a moral dilemma, one not terribly different from David Walsh and his desires to report the story he feels is right. Unfortunately, this moment is nothing more than an eye-rollingly unearned moment, and it isn’t the only one of those.

Armstrong’s moral struggle for cheating and cancer activism is a fascinating idea, something that could’ve brought a surprising commonality between Armstrong and Walsh. Instead, The Program is not a movie, nor is it even properly titled. A better title for this film is “The Checklist”, as it is more concerned on telling the viewer absolutely everything that happened to Armstrong between 1993 and 2012, checking off every major event in Armstrong’s life rather than focus on an aspect of his life that helped define who the man was. There is no resonance, no arc, no drama, and worst of all, no point.

There are still good things in the film; the performances are strong (particularly Chris O’ Dowd and Jesse Plemons), and Frears’ direction is flashy and energetic, even though it feels like he’s trying to channel the aesthetics of Danny Boyle, which is ironic given the film’s script is by long-time Boyle collaborator John Hodge. It’s even worse that the script is the film’s biggest problem, when Hodge has proven himself as a more than capable writer. But when it comes to biopics, Hodge, Frears, and all the cast and crew fail at making the film any more relevant or unique than the existing documentary, The Armstrong Lie. Don’t let yourself get lied into this one, if you want to know this story, just watch the documentary.

Overall Grade: D+

[divider]

[divider]

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]