Review – Page 17 – L&D Report

Murder on the Orient Express

murder on the orient express

For all the reasons I thought Murder on the Orient Express was great you might hate it or at least feel lukewarm about it. This is a tour de force for the star, Producer and Director, Kenneth Branagh. Stellar. But if you hate Kenneth Branagh, or feel lukewarm about him, I would suggest you steer clear. As D pointed out, the other star of the film (he would say the main star) is the train itself. The Orient Express is brought to life with incredible CGI vistas of Istanbul and the Alps. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos leaves nothing to be desired and is as complex as the intricate place settings in the dining car. Ultimately, Branagh and Producer Ridley Scott understand cinematic storytelling and use the adventurous scope of this widescreen epic to their advantage.

The film does not lack in zingers or in unearthing human truths, foibles and frailties. Humanity has a lot to be ashamed of and these traits are most visible when stories of people living in extreme situations are depicted. It’s safe to say that it doesn’t get more bougie than the first class car of the Orient Express in the 1930s.

Strong performances are turned in by Johnny Deep, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley of Star Wars: The Force Awakens fame. The acting here by the entire cast feels alive and organic.

There might well be another reason you might not like this film. Perhaps you feel that the previous versions, for example cinematic genius Director Sidney Lumet’s 1974 version, which was nominated for 6 Oscars, including a win for Best Supporting Actress for Ingrid Bergman, was good enough for you. And that’s valid too. That said, if you’d like to see these particular performers do their thing within the realm of the greatest production value our current cinema has to offer, then I would say go for it, you will enjoy the ride.

Thor: Ragnarock

thor.ragnarock.jpeg

Thor: Ragnarok was a surprisingly enjoyable movie. To its great credit Marvel Studios has enough self-awareness, self-deprecation, humor and zaniness going on for everyone in the audience to let their hair down and have fun. Even though the theme of the film is a heroic one, stating essentially that it’s important to not hide but rather face your problems head on, it doesn’t hurt when part of your problem is a giant digital hieroglyph of psychedelic Gradmaster, Jeff Goldblum.

Also, it’s a Thor movie where Thor loses his anvil permanently in Act I and Stan Lee himself cuts off Thor’s hair. From a storytelling standpoint, it takes courage to knock out two of the main elements that your protagonist is known for and that fans have come to expect. I could go on but there are enough surprises and bends in the road to keep you laughing and into the story the entire way through. Not only that, when done well like this, a superhero action movie can provoke thoughts of both current events and also antiquity — even in the same scene.

In terms of special effects, it’s mostly nothing you have never seen before (the fire demon Surtor had an uncanny resemblance to Te Kā, the volcanic demon in Moana) but they do serve the story well and never feel gratuitous or overbearing. A small army of animators and digital artists cooked this film up fantastically.

The stellar cast lives up to its billing, led admirably by Chris Hemsworth and Cate Blanchett with strong performances by Idris Elba, Tessa Thompson, Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Hopkins among others.

L & D caught this feature in 3D and it worked well for the scope of this epic, with wide shots of colorful cosmic waste dumps and massive water falls. I would just ask that the filmmakers spare us of unnecessarily fast focus pulls unless the joke is you’re into millions of cross-eyed Thor fans vomiting a little in their mouths. But mostly it was cool in 3D, not Blade Runner 2049 cool but cool nevertheless.

There were several times I laughed out loud, often at the expense of the Caligula’s yacht inspired leisure starship of the Grandmaster. It’s hijacked by Thor who finds that its only line of defense is whatever is left from the previous orgy and fireworks.

In the words of The Collector on The Simpsons, “This was definitely one of my favorite super hero genre movies, ever.”

Edge of Seventeen

This is a previously unreleased review of Edge of Seventeen, at the request of one of our long-time readers….

A Thursday night special midnight feature here at The Report, with the world premiere of The Edge of Seventeen, the latest high-end portrayal of teen angst, in the spirit of Election, Juno, Me & Earl & the Dying Girl, and probably a half dozen others that escape me at the moment.

Without giving too much away, let me just sat that it is like watching a slow-motion nervous breakdown of the main character, portrayed by Hailee Steinfeld. Steinfeld brilliantly reprises her role from True Grit as the surly teen down one parent, only this time it’s her unreasonably good-looking brother looking after the family, while Steinfeld inflicts misery and discomfort on those around her and on the audience. The lesson of this particular film, it seems, is that some young people might have stellar reasons for being miserable and depressed (aside from just being teenagers), and yet still not give us any cause to like them. L&D favorite, Woody Harrelson, is solid but unspectacular in a limited role as the wise adult character. And friend of The Report, Hayden Szeto, is very convincing in his portrayal of an insecure, wealthy Korean-American kid. Though he kind of got shorted on the character complexity front, they did reward him with a couple of good moments….

Some other tidbits, we learned that the new James Franco vehicle (Why Him?) might be a bit funnier than originally thought, as E17 featured an R-rated trailer that featured some spectacular swearing and a Moosey teabag. Also, we feel Ed Norton probably hasn’t seen a decent script come across his desk for some time, possibly since Fight Club. Finally, there was no mention of curling, either in the previews or the main feature.

The Foreigner

theforeigner

The most revelatory thing I learned while watching The Foreigner is that Pierce Brosnan can actually act. He really turns in a stellar performance here. In a film whose characters all play the same note, he adds great variation to his. Arguably Brosnan’s character, a presumably reformed IRA chief, Liam Hennessy, is the central figure of this story. In the end it is he who comes to shame and epiphany. Only his character has shifting ideas of right and wrong.

Of course, Executive Producer and star Jackie Chan is why we came. I’m not sure how many times I leaned over to D to mention that he does his own stunts. “See how he lit that photo with the lighter? He actually did that.” I guess I am just a huge Jackie Chan fan. And Jackie, who to me is timeless, does kick some royal, well actually rogue IRA ass.

It took me a while to warm up to the story and to who the bad guys are. Which is good because it does keep you off balance about the antagonists for awhile. There are obvious homages to Taken, Taken 2, Taken 3 and even more to Rambo, in the best way possible. One reason to catch The Foreigner in the theatre as opposed to watching it on TNT next year is that it is shot in widescreen (2.39:1 aspect ratio) and it does take you on a ride with strong aerial footage and intense exterior situations.

There is also a certain gravitas to the film. I made D sit through the credits, as he has made me do during Marvel movies. Jackie Chan movies often have a whole series of the bloopers and goofed up stunts he did in the film on a split screen with the credits. But The Foreigner had no such outtakes. I think that Jackie Chan wanted to measure up to Pierce Brosnan and say, “Hey, I can act too. I can be serious too.” He did do a fine job in his portrayal of Quan Ngoc Minh, whose heartbreak and capacity for vengeance is boundless.

Battle of the Sexes

battle of the sexes

Battle of the Sexes is a political commentary wrapped in a history lesson holding at its core an entertaining and spellbinding narrative. I figured that Billy Jean King had defeated Bobby Riggs, or why make the movie but I really wasn’t absolutely sure about what happened. Their 1973 match and its buildup are as legendary as Cosell and Ali interviews. Emma Stone as BJK and Steve Carell as Riggs pull off the tennis stars’ volatile on-screen chemistry flawlessly.

The true nemesis in the film turns out not to be the marketing genius and buffoon Bobby Riggs, who by all accounts was a dedicated gambler above all. But rather Margaret Court, who as one of the greatest tennis players ever, was beaten in straight sets by Riggs before BJK stomped him. Court went on to be a Pentecostal Christian minister in her home country of Australia and staunch enemy of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. The film has no qualms grinding that axe and would fit in easily as the Opening or Closing Night film at Outfest or Framline. Speaking of history lessons, Outfest and Framline are two of the premiere LGBT film festivals in the U.S. and have been around for 35 and 40 years respectively.

Battle of the Sexes itself is sensual and fun, well-crafted with great period touches like coin-op TVs in airport lounges and excellent wardrobe and costumes like BJK and Riggs’ glasses and fancy kicks. The film is helmed deftly by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (the team that delivered with the classic Little Miss Sunshine). They know how to handle tension and drama. They keep perfect continuity with the period without falling into sappy nostalgia. The Directors also keep the various storylines with BJKs personal and professional life and Riggs’ own drama with his gambling addiction, problems with his wife — played expertly by the great Elisabeth Shue — and the pressure of his resurgent career as a self-proclaimed male chauvinist pig. Every time Steve Carell appeared, I laughed out loud. I haven’t appreciated him as much since his brilliant performance in The 40 Year Old Virgin. I thought the casting was spot on except for Fred Armisen who really should be starring in his own films by now. As Riggs’ restrained pill-pushing dealer Fred is unable to unleash his true comic genius. Or perhaps the role would have been more in tune with someone more intense like John Goodman. However, a wonderful turn was made by the great Scottish-American Alan Cumming as Cuthbert ‘Ted’ Tinling, the flamboyant, big hearted and empathetic stylist to the women on the Virginia Slims tour. One of the best lines is in the last act, right after her victory, Ted turns to BJK and says “Times change. You should know, because you changed them.”

Blade Runner 2049 (D)

The Running Man, Running Scared, the other Running Scared, Cool Runnings, Cannonball Run, even Chicken Run. These are movies where run in the title, often the gerund form of the word, means that the action moves along at a running-like pace. So, if you are looking for a fast-paced action movie, you might be excused if you think Blade Runner 2049 will fit that mold. But, I am here to tell you that that is not the case, and the pace of the movie is more like that of metal rusting. Many critics have mistakenly cited 2049 as the year when the story takes place, when it is actually the approximate running time…

It’s not that there isn’t any action. Indeed, the title character, “K” (Ryan Gosling), travels from a farm outside of L.A., back to the inner city, to a dump back out yonder, and even off to Sin City, getting his head beaten in at every stop. But the movie sure takes its sweet time between stops. In this sense — and probably in more senses I’m willing to admit — the movie is reminiscent of another sequel from earlier this year, War for the Planet of the Apes, where the technical aspects were overwhelmingly awesome, but we spent a lot of time watching the actors emote rather than actually do anything. Instead of people in ape costumes pretending to be human, we have humans pretending to be robots trying to be human. On the other hand, if your idea of a good time is watching Ryan Gosling lay down and take a nap in a snowstorm, then you are in for a real treat.

Aside from my objections about the pacing, I loved it. The Blade Runner this time is indubitably one of these very humany “replicant” robots, so much so that he doesn’t really even have a name: “K” is short for KD9-3.7, his model number or somesuch. This is a change from the original, where it doesn’t even seem to be a question as to whether the title character, Deckard, (Harrison Ford) is a human or a replicant. Then that question sort of insinuates itself into your consciousness and all of a sudden it’s like, holy crap, what did Edward J. Olmos just do? What he did was drop a truth bomb that makes it rather obvious that Deckard himself is a replicant (though L remains in denial on this point), and you are left sitting in a stupor as the ending credits roll. But, if you didn’t believe it coming out of the first movie, this movie is unlikely to clear things up for you.

What is certain is that the world is hurtling towards an apocalypse. Blade Runner 2049 finds us in some sort of post-apocalyptic state stemming from a 10-year blackout. Whatever happened left cities empty and laid ecosystems to waste, leaving us without any flowers or trees or things that grow, farming worms for protein. The movie alternates between foggy mist and various shades of rust, and I don’t remember seeing the sun once. The settings weren’t as convincing as they were disturbing, and the movie reveals more than enough to be disturbed about.

This all seems bad enough, but the movie’s real thesis is that the apocalypse will take another form, with technology and robots and artificial intelligence insinuating themselves in such a way that pushes the human race towards irrelevance and, ultimately, obsolescence. One endpoint, for example, is that we have a ridiculously good looking robot (Gosling) hanging out with a ridiculously good looking hologram of a young woman. In this case that hologram is a young “product” aptly named Joi (Ana de Armas), who is tasked with keeping K company and sporting whatever fashion captures the replicant’s fancy these days. At some point, technology will be able to replicate and exceed the best (and worst) humankind has to offer, and how are we mere mortals supposed to compete with that?

The movie actually provides something of an answer to this question. It’s not that humans are worthless, far from it. Human ingenuity is the straw that stirs the drink here, at least for the time being. Modern technology can take the best of what we have to over, bringing the greats back to life – Elvis, Sinatra, Carrie Fisher – now and whenever. The only thing modern technology can’t do is bring back the nature that is so dearly missed. And, like in the first film, the replicants soak up as much rain and snow and trees and flowers as they possibly can, because feeling the rain and snow on your face is pretty awesome, even if watching someone else do it gets a little tedious.

The great irony here is that the main human character is a police lieutenant (Robin Wright) who sees it as her purpose to “maintain order.” The irony is that the order of the day is the slow march to human extinction at the hands of its own creations. We saw this story not too long ago in Alien: Covenant, with Guy Pearce playing god in that one, and the notion of a creator was no small part of the original Blade Runner. This theme simmers throughout the movie, as after Wright and Olmos, I am not sure how many characters are in the definitely human category. The upshot is that this movie is not so much about what it means to be human as it is about what happens when technology methodically pushes humans to the brink of extinction. If you are on the human side of this one, “maintaining order” seems like the wrong choice.

The movie had a lot of other cool stuff going on, the visual awesomeness being the most obvious. Talk about setting the tone. We watched the 3D reel and it was beautiful and pretty seamless. And there really were some interesting characters and some reasonable action when they got around to showing it. The big story is that Harrison Ford returns as Deckard, and once again he shows why he is our greatest American movie icon. He, too, takes his turn kicking the crap out of K and then gives his dog some booze. Incredible. It is also not clear whether the dog is a robot or not, and, once again, it doesn’t really matter. I will go back just to see that part of the story arc. Sean Young also returns from the original, and she hasn’t aged a day.

We also get some new characters, of course. Jared Leto is appropriately creepy and objectionable as the creator of the new class of replicant. He makes Tyrell from the first movie seem like St. Francis of Assisi. One of Leto’s creations is his love interest, Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), who is exceedingly convincing in her role as the evil robot bagman, making Leto of secondary interest. We also get to see a rather unusual sex scene involving K, Joi, and Mariette (Mackenzie Davis), possibly the most original thing in the entire movie. Upon reflection, I don’t think it makes one bit of difference to the story line if Mariette is a human or a replicant. I am guessing she’s human, but she certainly bears more than a passing resemblance to the spectacular Daryl Hannah replicant character from the first movie. So, who knows? And, ultimately, who cares?

And so it goes with this one. More questions than answers as far as the details go, but the big picture is clear enough. It’s only a matter of time before the robots take over; we will just have to wait to see whether it’s the good or the bad ones in charge when all that orange dust finally settles.

Blade Runner 2049 (L)

blade runner 2049

JUST FYI – POSSIBLE SPOILERS so go see it first if you are worried about SPOILERS.

L & D watched Blade Runner 2049 in 3D. I thought that the epicness (wiktionary: The quality or state of being epic.) of the film merited the 3D treatment and it was handled extremely well. Even what you might normally call a cool shot like a birds eye view from a tree limb was brought to life with the effect. Speaking of epic, the storyline of this film seemed directly out of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament story of Moses, a child who is hidden, adopted by the oppressor and would become the leader of a revolution.

I did enjoy Blade Runner 2049 but if you are not a fan of the original film or are unfamiliar with it, I highly suggest watching that one first. Only a Blade Runner fan, or I suppose anyone with a serious thing for Ryan Gosling (which yeah, is a lot of people but still) could sit happily through so much silent acting. I am certain that if one was to cut out all of the seemingly endless stares and deep thoughts moments at least an hour of this 2 hour and 43 minute behemoth could be cut back. I was disappointed by the lack of action but not as much as in another Gosling snoozer, so-called Drive. To say the pace is plodding would be an insult to turtles everywhere. Worst of all, the philosophical implications of androids and AI have been covered much better in films like Alien: Covenant (not accidentally directed by original Blade Runner Director Ridley Scott), Her and Ex Machina. Even visually, director Villeneuve went into his bag of tricks as the final scene with Harrison Ford putting his hand on a glass wall was an exact copy of the scene in his 2016 sci-fi gem Arrival, when Amy Adams makes contact with the alien heptapods Abbott and Costello. For me, and this was an L & D split decision, Arrival was intellectually stimulating and original. As for 2049, one could argue that as a sequel originality is not the foremost concern but rather being respectful to the first film. I would agree to a point but at the same time, homage and originality should go hand in hand. To ironically steal a line from the political drama NO, Blade Runner 2049 feels like, “A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.”

Still, I love this aesthetic so much and my nostalgia for how mind blowing it was in the 80s kept me rapt as I watched 2049. Even over the audible yawns and snores of the few people in the audience.

Yes, I would watch it again. I’m still not convinced, or maybe I don’t want to believe that Deckard is a replicant.

American Assassin

I was surprised by the scope of American Assassin. The film does a lot of globe trotting and in this way feels like the next Borne or Bond installment. If you have been reading the L & D at all you know how often I bemoan the big explosion at the end of movies. I think it should be its own genre: THE BIG EXPLOSION movie. And it’s not just action, it seems like anything outside of Jarmusch or Baumbach has one. However, I will give credit where credit is due and say that American Assassin has got an enormous explosion at the end that actually contains a lot of drama. American Assassin is well crafted and passable for what it is.

If you are interested in turning your mind off and pretending the world is made up of easily categorized good guys and bad guys then this is right up your blindly patriotic alley. I however have watched 6 hours of Ken Burns & Lynn Novick’s The Vietnam War since I watched American Assassin, so I am under no illusions. Spoiler Alert: Lyndon Baines Johnson lied about how good we were doing, when in fact we were losing and had no way to win.

Back to American Assassin. If you like to watch action, things blowing up, close range firing and don’t mind a little “torture-lite” this is the right thing for you. It will be cathartic. Of course, the world will have become two hours more complicated then when you entered the theater but remember, it is a movie and you can catch up. I did think that the star, Dylan O’Brien did a solid job. Shiva Negar as Annika was also convincing. And of course, I was glad to see Michael Keaton but it did make us wonder why he did such a typical movie after such a great recent run including Spotlight, Birdman (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Spider-Man Homecoming and The Founder. I guess he has to feed the Hollywood machine sometimes too.

Mother!

One of the problems with this film is that the 5 dollar Thursday threshold at the cinema is now 6 dollars. The bar has been raised and not just any twisted film can catapult over it. The other problem is that Mother! hits the same note again and again. No doubt Aronofsky is the dark prince of allegoric cinema but as an audience member it feels like a hammer is pounding your skull over and over —in the same place. That’s his point. You may also like the motorik of modern electronic dance music. If so, you may like this film.

There are a lot of truly disturbing and plain old disgusting things in Mother!. And frankly, that’s what I expected. What surprised me was that the build up of the house (that the entire movie was shot in) having a supernatural life of its own never pays off. The film itself is extremely claustrophobic and nausea inducing. Mother! makes Dunkirk feel like the aerial shot of Maria frolicking on a hilltop alpine meadow at the beginning of The Sound of Music. And the intensity doesn’t let up. But there are a lot of gimmicky “Boo!” moments. And the flavor of the film, being that it lacks scope, is overbearingly literary. It certainly feels like an adaptation from a novel, whether or not it is. However, this film really does take you on a tour of the bad acid trip that is Aronofsky’s imagination. There certainly is horror, torture, evil, pain and suffering in the world and he has no problem reminding you of that fact, even if you were hoping to escape it for a few hours.

One thing that gets on my nerves though is hearing protesters chanting “The People United / Will Never Be Defeated” in Spanish as part of a cacophony of chaos, looting and destruction that is going on in the house. It takes a lot of gall for a white guy writer/director to lump in legit protesters with an unruly mob. What has Aronofsky himself ever had to take to the streets to protest? Is ICE raiding his family at a Motel 6 in Phoenix because employees think they may not be citizens? That’s America today. “The weekly newspaper reported that federal immigration agents arrested at least 20 people at two Motel 6 locations in the Phoenix area between February and August. Motel employees told the New Times they regularly delivered guest lists to ICE.” — Source: CNN from the story, “Motel 6 says it will stop sharing guest lists with ICE”. It just reveals to me that in his mind fighting for your rights like people like Cesar Chavez did, is just a confusing mess to him. Though I am sure he has his favorite Mexican joint in Brooklyn and some of his best friends are Latino. Sure they are. If you look at the Latino and people of color representation in the film, it’s especially lame. On the other hand, no one really gets off the hook. But knowing Aronofsky, I wouldn’t expect it. I suppose he walks on water and heals the sick in his spare time.

With all that said, this review will end in a similar vein to my Lucky Logan review. I thought it was pretty bad but if you can overlook a lot of things you might like a story about good ol’ boys, never meanin’ no harm. In this case, if cannibalism, cult ritual, random symbolic blood, fever dream lapidary and just open wounds in general and extreme close-ups in particular do it for you, then this just may be the film you have been waiting for. In the end of course, the film is trying to make a great point about the cruelty of self-indulgence. It is ironic that Aronofsky thinks he is the one to make that point.

Lucky Logan

LoganLucky

The milieu this film depicts is only known to me through my obsessive childhood viewing of The Dukes of Hazard and Smokey and the Bandit. Just like Bo, Luke and Daisy or the Bandit and Cledus, brothers Jimmy (Channing Tatum), Clyde (Adam Driver) and sister Mellie (Riley Keough) try to break out of a streak of bad luck by making money on the other side of the law.

There are some bizarre casting choices. The only word that comes to mind is incongruous. Like Daniel Craig as Joe Bang, the genius bomb maker. It’s wonderful to see him act and he does steal this film but at the same time, you are constantly wondering what James Bond is doing locked up in West Virginia jail cell. Not too dissimilar is Hilary Swank’s turn as FBI agent Grayson. It seems to me these actors should be doing some Globe Theatre work on the West End but are forcing out performances here for some reason. Did they lose a bet at director Soderbergh’s weekly poker game? Finally and most glaringly there is Seth MacFarlane, the voice of Stewie on Family Guy. Here he is doing the voice of Stewie as an evil stock car driver with a bad pasted on mustache. I can’t suspend disbelief that long and no one should ask me to. If you are looking for a comedic bad guy NASCAR driver, it will be a long time before anyone tops Sacha Baron Cohen in Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentson, “Sir, I’ve seen Talladega Nights and this is no Talladega Nights.”

For all the A list stars in this film, I was not a fan of the cinematography. After the impressive and tightly choreographed camera movements in last years heist favorite Hell or High Water, there is no excuse for shaky, motivated or unmotivated camera moves. And also, natural lighting doesn’t mean you let the characters fall into shadow. It’s not that kind of film. I don’t know the reason but I guess most of the budget was spent on the car racing segment because those scenes look like they are from a totally different film.

Besides all these thorny issues this film can even melt the heart of a hardened Yankee like myself with a sweet rendition of Take Me Home Country Roads by John Denver. If this song doesn’t get you, doesn’t pull at your heart strings, you should really have your circuitry checked out, because you are a robot. Even if this moment does come at the expense of Rhianna. What did Rihanna ever do to writer Rebecca Blunt? But I can accept that like Waylon Jennings’ Dukes theme song Good Ol’ Boys, the movie is just trying to have a little fun without meanin’ no harm. So if you can lower the bar and just want to go along for a hi-octane ride you can still enjoy Lucky Logan.