Director: Jeremiah Zagar
Writers: Daniel Kitrosser, Jeremiah Zagar, Justin Torres (based on the novel by)
Stars: Evan Rosado, Raúl Castillo, Sheila Vand, Josiah Gabriel, Isaiah Kristian

Synopsis: Manny, Joel, and Jonah tear their way through childhood and push against the volatile love of their parents. As Manny and Joel grow into versions of their father and Ma dreams of escape, Jonah embraces an imagined world all on his own.

[/info]

Transitioning from documentary filmmaking to your first scripted feature can sometimes be problematic, as documentaries are defined by the way they document information, usually as a means of education or for historical context. We often say how movies should show and not merely tell, but documentaries require a crucial yet unique form of telling to succeed, a tactic that doesn’t always work in fictional drama.

But with We the Animals, Jeremiah Zagar’s scripted debut, I cannot recall ever seeing a documentary filmmaker tackle his first scripted feature with this much opacity.

There is a script to be sure in We the Animals (co-written by Zagar alongside Daniel Kitrosser, based on Justin Torres’ loosely autobiographical novel), but it’s one that refuses to let you in on the film’s inner thoughts. You know what happens narratively, but maybe not-so-much thematically, a tactic that purposefully mirrors the mentality and confusion of our young central hero. Zagar understands that children are nature’s most confused beings, which makes We the Animals wildly inventive and immersive in its innocence, and a primitive and tribal visualization of family life in pastoral America.

We the Animals almost unfolds like a series of vignettes; there is an overarching story, but it’s a refreshingly simple one with very little setup. The film follows a family of five on the economic fringes of rural eastern Pennsylvania, seen through the eyes of youngest brother Jonah, played magnificently by Evan Rosado. Jonah and his brothers Joel and Manny (Josiah Gabriel and Isaiah Kristian) experience firsthand the “bipolarity” in their parents’ relationship at the hands of such economic hardships; Paps (played by Raul Castillo, in a performance that should be garnering more awards consideration) periodically takes out his abusive frustrations on Ma (a wonderful Sheila Vand), acts of violence that all three young boys are sadly present for. Time and time again, Ma and Paps resort to their own form of reclusiveness and neglect, inadvertently creating a distance between themselves and their boys; this forces Jonah, Joel, and Manny to fend for themselves among the natural Pennsylvania landscapes, where their brotherhood is all they possess to keep each other warm (a reoccurring chant where the boys whisper “Body Heat” serves as that warmth).

Ma and Paps’s actions may be flawed, but their love for their three boys is not. Zagar is equally as concerned with their mistakes as he is with their affections, and that awareness in both trickles further into Ma and Paps’ own self-awareness, knowing how their selfish acts have an effect on their children. In one of the film’s best scenes, Paps eventually returns home after a long stretch of reclusiveness, and in an instant where he briefly shows his physical affections for Ma, he neglects to see Jonah, Joel, and Manny tempting him for a game of hide-and-seek. Paps then embraces the game, only for the scene to conclude with all three boys beating their father while screaming, “You were supposed to find us.” In the short term, their screams merely reflect that moment of gameplay neglect, but their screams take on a completely different meaning when viewed in the long run. Their lashings of violence are clearly influenced by Paps and his abusiveness toward Ma (tendencies that Joel and Manny eventually grow into), but following Paps’ long stretch of selfish absence, perhaps the phrase “You were supposed to find us” actually translates to “Where were you when we needed you?” Paps has finally come home, but perhaps the boys’ father didn’t come back with him.

This is just one of many “vignettes” in We the Animals, but their narrative importance is merely secondary to Zagar’s primary intent. Zagar is more concerned with simply capturing a fragment of time in one boy’s confused youth, one that unfolds like scribbles in Jonah’s own secret notebook. These events, all seen from Jonah’s point of view, progress with fragility and uncertainty, but never lack in bright and optimistic coloration, as visualizations of Jonah’s notebook pages come to life. There’s plenty of magical realism at play here, sometimes to the point of fantasy (sequences under water and a muddy grave are standouts), but Zagar never explains them to us; his approach is clearly influenced by the likes of Terrence Malick, as well as Barry Jenkins’ masterpiece Moonlight, but Zagar’s voice is still his own. This may make for a narrative that feels too scatterbrained for some, but from the point of view of a child that’s precisely the point; if we’re confused, that’s because Jonah is confused.

However, there is a reveal of sorts in the film’s climax that does recontextualize much of Jonah’s confusion, which in truth may be more rooted in loneliness and sexual identity. At one point, while in the family truck with Ma and his brothers, Ma asks if he would like to go to the city, to which he asks, “Are there more people there like me?” While in the moment this “revelation” didn’t fully work for me (I initially found it somewhat pandering), I accepted it when I understood that Jonah himself doesn’t even realize a revelation took place at all, and perhaps these feelings of his have been there all along. For only a brief moment, Jonah seems to reach some sort of clarity, but sadly that feeling is short-lived; if anything, Jonah’s confusion and isolation only strengthens by the film’s final minutes, regressing back to that earlier lonely spirit of his. Love was once strong in his family, but now neglect feels stronger than ever, even if it’s only he who feels that way, never quite knowing why.

Initially I had little idea how much I enjoyed We the Animals, but like all primitive beings (especially children), Zagar’s approach had a way of sneaking up on me, and as such the film continued to evolve. But never once did it merely evolve into just one idea; the film remained open-minded about one’s fragmented innocence, continuously scribbling itself away like a young boy’s secret notebook. I found myself warming up to We the Animals the more I pondered on it, even as I considered my own personal biases (as a Philadelphia native, the eastern Pennsylvania setting is literally near and dear to me), but I view that warmth as synonymous with love and affection, bringing us one step closer to Jonah himself. Adoration is what warms the body and soul, and sadly our central hero leaves this story colder than before.

Find those you love and continue to keep each other warm (#BodyHeat).

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Ruben Fleischer
Writers: Scott Rosenberg, Kelly Marcel, Jeff Pinkner, Todd McFarlane (character), David Michelinie (character)
Stars: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Riz Ahmed

Synopsis: Journalist Eddie Brock is trying to take down Carlton Drake, the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom — leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fueled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.

[/info]

In May of last year, Sony caught everyone off guard by announcing out of the blue a solo Venom movie to be released in 2018. People were even more surprised to find out that Tom Hardy would portray the infamous character/villain Eddie Brock. Now that it’s finally come full-circle and to fruition, is a solo Venom film even capable of functioning on its own? Will it set the precedent(s) for future solo villain/anti-hero installments? The argument that can be made, and that I’ve seen being made with standalone comic book films centered around an antagonist have been making big waves with the release of this film. I’ve seen constant statements that all fit under the category of, “What’s the point of a Venom movie without Spider-Man?” and most recently with the announcement of Todd Phillips’ standalone Joker film, “What’s the point of a Joker film without Batman?”, have all come across as different perspectives of this new era of superhero or in this case, supervillain storytelling. With Venom being a potential door for more villain centered projects to be greenlit, does it ultimately live up to those specific standards?

The character of Eddie Brock himself is definitely one of the more notable (and clever at that) personas to be adapted to the the big screen from Marvel’s discography. After the calamity of Brock and Venom’s live-screen adaptation debut in 2007’s Spider-Man 3, Tom Hardy’s depiction of the journalist turned part alien is definitely one of the more fulfilling larger-scale successes of Venom. He fully establishes and embodies a character we don’t mind rooting for throughout the entirety of the films lackluster tale. As he maneuvers in this almost hard-headed, wiseguy attitude yet still incorporating a side of masculine charm and confidence. He’s perhaps the most superior component to have been taken from this film. While he’s not given much to go to work with in terms of storytelling and structure, himself and nearly every other relevant supporting cast member harness what minimal material they’ve been given to accentuate the film from being less of a potential disaster than what it eventually ends up being.

You would think that a team of around 2 or 3 writers would be capable of executing a fleshed out, balanced and absorbing narrative that remains intrinsic to the Venom comic. Yet in such a case, that does not seem to happen here. This lackadaisical effort of a screenplay is merely a rough outline of a Venom film that’s comprised of inept character development/study, a provisional main plot with the inclusion of essentially poor contrasting elements attached, and a last-minute rising action and a finale that rarely achieves anything redeeming about our protagonist.

While Tom Hardy gives an incredibly solid outing (as stated before) of playing the role of Eddie Brock/Venom, The character arc and evolution of Brock that’s set before him runs quite inferior to his portrayal. This is quite applicable to everyone else too. Riz Ahmed as our villain Riot, is just another joke within itself. Not to be mistaken that Ahmed isn’t skilled enough to wear the pants of a commanding antagonist, but his eventual transition into those shoes is so blatantly rushed that it seems as if it’s coming out of nowhere. The climax also has little to no effect on the audience whatsoever. The movie becomes arrayed so far off track both before and after Brock has made contact with the symbiote, that once incidents are about to transpire, it’s by far too late and they’re unprepared to attempt to rescue the mishap they’ve just set. It has no sense of direction of where it wants to head until ⅔ of the movie is over with. I also am not convinced that Brock has fully accepted the powers of Venom that continue to engulf him as the film goes on. It hardly ever feels like Brock has a fulfilled connection with the manifestation of Venom inside of him that’ll allow him to continue to grow and thrive. Additionally, the humor between the two, while quite funny at times, is also a fault of the inconsistencies between its tone and lack of fundamentally sound plot escalation and storytelling.

Since the initial news that was published containing an early design for the symbiote along with the first official trailer last April that ultimately unveiled the final design of Venom, left me then and more than ever now, not fond of its final appearance. Especially when taking into consideration how the character is being integrated parallel to the tasteless choreographed action sequences. Venom himself looks abundantly tacky—with an overly muscular, meathead upper body and a noticeably hysterical pair of chicken legs. It also isn’t beneficial when the CGI brinks on borderline horrid at times. The practical effects (car chases, explosions) are perhaps a nominal highlight for the film, yet everything else that’s computer generated, consisting of Venom’s look and any other ample occasion too big to be conducted in real life, is so ridiculous and unjustifiable for a project of this brand and value. Sony and the remainder of the crew could’ve done a much more affluent job in attempting to nail the efficiency of such a key aspect.

Venom easily leans more toward the negative side of the spectrum. But with that being said, this venture of a film is most certainly watchable and tolerable for something that abides by the bare minimum of filmmaking standards. It can be very irritating throughout the story when recognizing the variety of characteristics and facets that they should’ve capitalized on, that they didn’t. However, it’s definitely still a linear tale that maintains an integral origin of schlock, while also playing off of its inconsistent tonal nature. All we can hope for now is that the upcoming batch of villain centered projects don’t all fall victim to something of this similarity.

Overall Grade: C-

[divider]

Director: Jacques Audiard
Writers: Jacques Audiard, Thomas Bidegain
Stars: John C. Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal

Synopsis: In 1850s Oregon, a gold prospector is chased by the infamous duo of assassins, the Sisters brothers.

[/info]

The Sister Brothers is a film that both embraces its genre roots and transcends its genre shackles. While its title sounds more like a John C. Reilly collaboration with with Ferrell than a tender meditation on the implications of the sins of the father (amongst many other things), it is one with Joaquin Phoenix that manages to flip the Western on its head and creates a personality all its own. It is 2018’s version of Unforgiven with a biting wit and a touch of the fantastical. I can’t offer many more flattering comparisons than that. Instead of a reflection on a history of lonely violence in old age, it is a reflection on a mid-life crisis in the face of violence alongside one’s brother. It manages to indulge in the mundane and the hyper-quirky. The idea of brushing teeth has never felt more cathartic than it does in The Sisters Brothers. The film’s combination of period setting with contemporary sensibilities makes for one of the most unique theatrical experiences in recent memory. There is nothing about this film that isn’t transcendently good. John C. Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix give two of the best lead performances of the year, Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed exercise maximum efficiency in roles that would be thankless in the hands of lesser performers and Jacques Audiard practices incredibly creative filmmaking in a genre that often gets bogged down in its own tropes. It is, as of the time of this writing, my favorite film of the year. It takes a special hand at the helm of a film to combine the humor, tension, pathos, and beauty of The Sisters Brothers. Jacques Audiard possesses that special hand.

The Sisters Brothers is the story of, you guessed it, the brothers Sisters, Charlie and Eli. As different as the two are, they have managed to become one of the most feared pairs of assassins in the West. They are tasked with obtaining a secret formula that shines a literal light on the gold that so many souls traveled West for in the 1850s from a rather unassuming chemist, Hermann Kermit Warm, played by Riz Ahmed. From the film’s first scene, it is clear that The Sisters Brothers accomplish whatever violent tasks are put in front of them with relative ease, in an exchange of bullets presented with a tremendously visually enthralling sequence that sucks the viewer in from the jump. We are thrown into the film with a series of flashes of light in the dead of night provided by the ignition of Old West pistols. It immediately establishes a sense of time and place. The implied violence of that early scene becomes increasingly more explicit as the film goes on, consistently upping the anxiety with each successive shootout.

Through that violence (and the actions they both take in the aftermath of that violence), we discover so much about the lives of our exceptionally complex protagonists. Eli resents Charlie in a myriad of ways, but he feels an obligation to continue their business for reasons we find out about over the course of the film. These revelations occur gradually but result in a series of moments in the film’s final act that show Eli display several exquisite releases of emotion that left me shaking with a sense of sadness and empathy. I cannot overstate how spectacular Reilly is in this role. His career began with great performances in films from the likes of Paul Thomas Anderson, Terrence Malick, and Martin Scorsese, but most modern audience members will only know him from the comedies that have occupied his filmography over the last decade-and-a-half. We will all be better off if he continues to tackle roles like, this that utilize his impeccable comedic timing as well as his sensitive doofiness.

Reilly and Phoenix represent two of the best actors when it comes to playing pathetic characters that you can’t help but root for. In films from Magnolia to Chicago to The Sisters Brothers, Reilly has shown an innate ability to make you feel for a man who lacks the self-confidence, for one reason or another, to be himself and reach out for his dreams. Phoenix, on the other hand, has proven to be an empathetic prick, capable of getting himself on your side no matter how insufferable he seems on the surface (films like The Master and Inherent Vice immediately spring to mind). More than any of his contemporaries, Phoenix is able to make his flaws endearing. He is not naturally charming, but he may be the most earnest actor we have.

In these two spectacular lead performances, we are able to see The Sisters Brothers through a precise lens that shows the Wild West in a light that dives into the opulence of Western expansion as much as the griminess that came with the lifestyle. At one point, the brothers stay in a hotel with (relatively) modern plumbing, which provides them with a heartfelt escape from their life of murder and resentment that provides an element most modern Westerns, no matter how subversive, fail to achieve.

Audiard shines in moments where the brothers are overwhelmed by either awe or exhaustion. His ability to show modern quandaries in the context of the Old West is uncanny. Despite being set over 150 years ago, The Sisters Brothers feels like a film made for all audiences. The grit of the era may not be entirely relevant to today’s audiences, but the ideas of brotherly obligation, capitalist inclinations and a helplessness in the face of the past are timeless. The film is as funny, violent, and gorgeous as the marketing would suggest, but nothing could have prepared me for how tender the film is. You will find no film this year that presents its characters with more respect and care than The Sisters Brothers. Like our own lives, the lives of Eli and Charlie Sisters teeter from hilarious to melodramatic without any warning. Like the best of the Coen Brothers, The Sisters Brothers manages to capture reality in a heightened narrative. Even when the film verges on the ridiculous, it feels true to life.

The plot of the film is unpredictable and the B-plot, featuring Gyllenhaal and Ahmed, provides a more grounded source of drama with a wonderful flourish of fantasy that makes the story, at times, feel like a fairy tale. Whenever this happens, though, we see a violent shootout or are transported to a saloon full of debauchery of all kinds. Audiard strips down the genre by showing the traditional portrayal of the Old West before pulling the carpet out from under the audience’s feet, showing the harsh realities of the era. There is a sense of wonder attached to scientific advances, a fascinating spin on a genre that has always indulged the majesty of nature.

Toothbrushes and fancy hotels represent an escape from the lives the Sisters Brothers have led, and that is the main thematic thrust. However, the brothers may simply be too ingrained in their life of murder to ever escape. Their pasts have compounded to create a mountain of bodies preventing them from finding love or freedom. Over time, Charlie and Eli both come to yearn for a new beginning and, for the first time, it seems possible. Each of brothers coming to this conclusion is treated with an inspiring amount of care. The characters always feel like themselves, even as their worldviews change. The events of the film build on each other to create moments of catharsis, pain, and heartbreak that moved me to my very core. It is a movie that works as a character study, Wild West adventure, and a unique coming-of-age film all at once. You will be hard-pressed to find a film that walks a thin emotional and narrative line as deftly as The Sisters Brothers.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film, coming soon!

[divider]

Director: Damien Chazelle
Writers: Josh Singer (screenplay by), James R. Hansen (based on the book by)
Stars: Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler

Synopsis: A look at the life of the astronaut, Neil Armstrong, and the legendary space mission that led him to become the first man to walk on the Moon on July 20, 1969.

[/info]

Damien Chazelle and I have had an up and down relationship over the last couple of years. I thought his first film, Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, was a good first effort that laid a lot of the ground work for his second film Whiplash. Whiplash was one of my favorite films of 2014 and was one of the most daring, tense films I had seen from this decade. So going two for two so far in his filmography, my anticipation was at its all-time high when 2016’s La La Land came out, and while there are aspects of the film I like, I was one of those people that found it to be over hyped and left me more empty than optimistic once the first screening reactions faded away. So a lot questions came running through my head when I found out that the youngest Academy Award winner for Best Director was making his space movie about the single biggest space moment in not just American history but space history period. One could definitely make the argument that I was very skeptical about this project but as every critic should do, I cleared out my La La Land bias, and went into the movie with an open mind. And upon walking out of my screening, I was smiling because I can say that Damien Chazelle has got back on track and made a film that is one of the immersive film going experiences of the year.

First Man follows the key moments of Neil Armstrong’s life during the 1960’s. We met Armstrong, played by La La Land alumni Ryan Gosling, at a time in his life where he and his family need to make a fresh start after a family tragedy has hit the family. His family moves to Houston where he goes to work for NASA, and with more pain that follows him on the job, and social and political pressures mounting, Armstrong and his team set out to be the first to land on the moon. But while the pressures of the job are building on a global stage, it’s his home life with his wife Janet (Claire Foy) and his sons that starts to hang in the balance. Armstrong becomes intensely focused on the task at hand, leading to obsession, and wanting nothing more than walk on the moon, for reasons you don’t find out about till the end of the film.

Obsession is something that Chazelle is not uncommon in showing within his films, with Whiplash being about a drummer’s obsession to become the best, with La La Land being about two people wanting to become famous even if that means their love has to die. But with First Man, Chazelle takes the nob and turns it to eleven, and that makes sense because the mission these characters are facing is not easy. The way that Chazelle shoots ever shot of the astronauts in the space or in the space shuttles oozes with tension and risks at an all-time high for Armstrong and his fellow astronauts. Chazelle’s attention to detail is so focused due in large part to Josh Singer writing the script and allowing Chazelle to focus on his directing strengths and thus making this film flourish.

Gosling is the perfect person to play Chazelle/Singer’s vision of Armstrong, which is quiet, calculated yet confident man that will finish his mission at all costs. His interactions with people, including his family, are cold yet not his fault because as more trauma he has continue to face, the more he throws himself into this mission and never looks back. With a performance that is a combination of his performances from Drive and Blade Runner 2049, Gosling brings Armstrong to life and makes us thoroughly invested in this journey till the very end even though we know how it’s going to end. Foy gives a small yet powerful performance and shows that she can stand toe to toe with Gosling with as he is in every scene of the film. She shows that while Neil was fighting to get to space, Janet was the real one in the relationship fighting to keep it together. She is the only one that can get to him and when she does in the end, it makes him face his fears, and no not the mission to go to the moon, but his life on earth.

The film has a decent supporting cast with Kyle Chandler, Jason Clarke and Cory Stoll but they are mostly there to help Gosling and Foy and become a little wasted. The cinematography in the film is fantastic and for his first film not about music, Chazelle gets the best score of any of his films from composer Justin Hurwitz, one that might just be my favorite score of the year so far. Along with the great score is the wonderful sound design that makes you feel like you are exactly in Armstrong’s seat and can feel ever vibration. The only complaint I would make is that the films editing does seem to be a little messy at times but that doesn’t fully ruin the experience of the film. Overall, First Man is a technical marvel and Chazelle has made one of the best films of the year. He has won be back over, for now, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he will have in store for us down the road, and hoping it continues the trend in this film and doesn’t involve more jazz.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 295, coming soon!

[divider]