Ingrid Goes West (2017)

First time director Matt Spicer's film Ingrid Goes West has me torn. There are elements of his dark comedy which are fascinating and terrifying, but also parts which seem reductive and trite. Aubrey Plaza and Elizabeth Olsen are both remarkable in roles which often seem so limited. O'Shea Jackson Jr. leaps off the screen with his oversized charisma in a part which often feels like he's in another movie.

Ingrid Goes West is an examination of connection in the social media world. It takes a rather damning view (which is hardly original) and riffs on Single White Female (even referencing that film). The depths of loneliness, lack of connection to community and self, and the callousness of modern relationships are bitingly real, yet the film seems to flirt with these ideas in a manner that doesn't feel organic, never feels honest. Ingrid Goes West felt to me like a near miss.

There is an episode of Dark Mirror which plays with these ideas in a more satirical way but I think it may have been more successful. Despite this Ingrid Goes West remains mostly enjoyable. The interactions between Plaza and Olsen are electric and, as I mentioned, Jackson just lights up the screen each time he's on. For me I just never felt the film completely came together. That doesn't mean it is a film to avoid, just one to watch with a careful eye. There is interesting stuff going on along with some disappointments.

Ingrid Goes West
Starring: Aubrey Plaza, Elizabeth Olsen, O'Shea Jackson Jr., Wyatt Russsell, Pom Klementieff, Billy Magnussen
Director: Matt Spicer
Writers: David Branson Smith, Matt Spicer

Good Time (2017)

The title of Good Time is both ironic and apt. It is honest in that Good Time is such a good film that you will have a good time watching it. But the irony comes in that the story itself is anything but a good time for the characters it follows.

Indie film makers, the Safdie Brothers have broken through to the mainstream with this beautifully shot, powerful film about desperation and the love between brothers. It is a tragedy, a heroin like nightmare of a man's downfall, a man already on his knees, and it is a thing of unsightly beauty. The Safdies have taken a tight, satisfying story, shot it through the eyes of a man on the edge, and manage to find quiet, lovely moments on the road to hell.

At the centre of this is Robert Pattinson, still determined to distance himself from any resemblance to Edward Cullen, giving a performance that knocks it out of the park. He is an exploiter, a criminal, yet we follow his misguided attempts to help his brother, the one thing he takes responsibility for. He makes everything worse for his brother and for himself. It is his Achilles Heel, if someone this broken can have an Achilles Heel.

The Sadie Brothers have shown an adept power in their ability to tell a story effectively, while imbuing a sense of empathy despite all that we are witnessing. They have found their subject in the garbage and help us to see his humanity, despite his own doings. They have also shown a truly beautiful eye for making movies. I couldn't take my eyes of Good Time. Despite a lot of what I was seeing, I wanted to keep seeing it. Their flared late night NYC is a stunningly gorgeous thing, warts and all.

Good Time is a great movie, and makes the Safdie Brothers ones to watch.

Good Time
Starring: Robert Pattinson, Barkhad Abdi, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Ben Safdie, Buddy Duress, Taliah Webster
Directors: Ben and Josh Safdie
Writers: Josh Safdie and Ronald Bronstein

Wind River (2017)

Directed and written by the writer behind the amazing Hell or High Water, Wind River is so good in so many ways... and really not good in one important way. It is the kind of film with a fatal flaw which just makes you wish it could have addressed its one problem so that it could have been the truly satisfying experience it needs to be.

Writer/director Taylor Sheridan has made a simmering, contemplative thriller shot across a beautiful, engrossing landscape. It's cinematic gourmet, offering an array of great flavours (in its cinematography, its story telling, the subtle yet powerful performances) and serving it all up in a completely satisfying package. Its simple yet compelling narrative is laced with gravitas about a tortured culture. The weight of the film is powerful yet never drags. Sheridan gives his story time to breath and to be felt not just watched. Wind River is one of those rare finds, an accessible film which manages to offer something more than the usual multiplex fare.

Which is why the casting of Jeremy Renner (a great actor who I normally enjoy in most roles) is such a deep disappointment. It has nothing to do with his performance. He does a great job. But he's miscast. The film's story is a mystery on an Indian Reservation, and the mystery is tied specifically to the issues of poverty, exploitation, cultural genocide, and addictions. The film has a strong cast of indigenous actors who get multifaceted roles, significant screen time, and well written scenes to explore their characters. There are likely more good indigenous parts in this film than in all the rest of Hollywood's fare this year put together. Yet they cast Jeremy Renner in the lead.

The film falls into the white savior trap. The film's story doesn't require his character to be white to work. In fact, I argue the film would have been 10 times stronger if he hadn't been. It's not the same as Elizabeth Olsen's FBI character. Her role is to be the outsider through which we are brought into this story. Neither is it the same as John Bernthal's character whose whiteness is essential to the plot. Renner's whiteness is superfluous. In fact the film's dialogue and narrative jump through numerous hoops to have to explain it. If he had been an indigenous actor in that role, the film would have made more narrative sense, and would have made the story easier to tell. Also it wouldn't have invalidated much of what the film is trying to do by having the white man save the FBI agent and the folks living on the reserve.

I wanted to ignore this problem because so much of the rest of the film was that good. But it was so central to the heart of the story that it just kept getting in the way of what was a truly great film otherwise. Perhaps one day Hollywood can make a film like this without feeling the need for the white guy to ride in and save the day.

Wind River
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen, Gil Bermingham, Julia Jones, Kelsey Chow, Graham Greene, Jon Bernthal
Writer/Director: Taylor Sheridan

Logan Lucky (2017)

Steven Soderbergh's films are often not to my tastes, especially his "comedies" so it's no surprise that his first directorial effort since 2013's Side Effects (remember that? no? shocking!) left me without a smile on my face. He makes the kind of smug silly comedies which I just don't funny. It's all about simply being absurd, not absurd with a reason or purpose, just absurd as if that's funny enough. And funnily enough, I don't find that enough to be funny.

But even if you did I question how funny you'd find the film. The audience I saw it with barely cracked a giggle other than a few times. You've all seen the "in-car-cer-ate-ted" line in the trailer? I know, not funny. Yet that's kind of how all the jokes play out in this misguided heist film.

And this is a man who should know how to make a heist film after the rather successful Ocean's movies. But the plot in Logan Lucky is so reliant on coincidence and perfect timing that it's hard to ever believe they pull it off. Part of the fun of a heist film is watching a plan come together, usually go off the rails, and see our heroes pull it back together. None of that is here. There is just a series of unlikely events that go pretty much like clockwork, but don't make a lot of sense. Instead of smiling, I was wincing through most of it.

It seems like all Soderbergh thought he needed to do was through a bunch of A-listers at us acting silly, extra points if they can be making fun of southerners (a BIG part of this film is the way we are to laugh at accents, trashy clothes, and hillbilly lifestyles),  and we'd love it. What's missing is the writing. There are no amazing moments, interactions between characters, clever speeches, reflections, hilarious anecdotes. There is just a lot of goofballing. The rumor is the "screenwriter" on this film is simply a made up person and that Soderbergh wrote it himself, or perhaps his wife did. If I wrote this, I'd use a fake name too.

But I will give him points for his eye. Sodergergh films this as if it is a magnum opus and there are moments beautifully crafted in the film. Sure it was beautiful but it was also damn boring so I'm not sure that makes up for any of it.

Personally Logan Lucky appears to be evidence that Soderbergh should go back into retirement.

Logan Lucky
Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Riley Keough, Daniel Craig, Seth McFarlane, Katie Holmes, Hilary Swank
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Writer: "Rebecca Blunt"

Paris Can Wait (2017)

Documentarian Eleanor Coppola makes her fiction debut at the age of 81 with this charming is slight tale of a woman on an unplanned jaunt through the French countryside. The film's plot is paper thin but the combo of the beautiful scenery and Diane Lane's incredible screen presence makes the film both watchable and enjoyable, even if you roll your eyes a bit.

The story is cliched. Married woman set to join her husband in Paris ends up taking a ride with his french friend who shows her the quieter, patient, side of life, and she is swept off her feet. The exploration of American/European difference here is neither profound nor fresh and revels in trite platitudes. Similarly with the who carpe diem, stop and smell the roses sort of message. But that is the charm of Paris Can Wait. It's not trying to be anything more than a lovely fantasy.

I did like how Coppola doesn't attempt to justify Lane's emotional journey with any sort of resentment towards her spouse or lack of meaning in her life. She is advancing through her life and exposed to new flavors, new tastes. The film just lets her experience that and I appreciated it. She is too polite to challenge her french abductor's lack of concern for her explicit wishes and the film glosses over that. But the film tries to say that she would have stopped anything she wasn't on board with. I'm not sure it does a good enough job of convincing us.

The film is fluffy and a bit irresponsible, but I did appreciate the spirit of tasting life and what it offers. Also, I'm not sure another actress could have pulled it off quite so charmingly.

Paris Can Wait
Starring: Diane Lane, Arnaud Viard, Alec Baldwin
Writer/Director: Eleanor Coppola

An Inconvenient Sequel Truth to Power (2017)

What made director David Guggenheim's 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth work so well is its simplicity. The film stuck to a straight forward style, let the science of climate change be explained by the charismatic Al Gore, with compelling visuals and an optimistic approach. It's effect was phenomenal and created a compelling and riveting watch while spurring on an important movement.

The anti-climate science movement hasn't had much success attacking the facts, so they turn to something else. They attack Al Gore. As an imperfect human he's an easier target. People convince themselves if they can hate/resent/mistrust Al Gore then they can dismiss the very serious problem of climate change. They have effectively turned segments of the population against Gore and therefore often against their own self-interests and the interest of this planet. And in many ways that's they Truth to Power is not only inconvenient but the wrong sequel all together.

An Inconvenient Truth was about climate change and the urgency needed to address it. An Inconvenient Sequel Truth to Power is less about the continued urgency but more about defending Al Gore. I like Gore and I respect the work that he's done although I don't agree with him on everything politically (as a centrist he's not progressive enough for my tastes). But I don't need to see a movie which follows him personally through his activism, attributes the Paris accord in large amounts to his interventions, and ruminates on regret about the loss of a Gore presidency. What I would have preferred is a film which focused on how the predictions of the first film are coming true and highlights what is being done and still can be done to address it. The film minimizes that in its cult of personality.

Truth to Power takes a far less straightforward approach than its predecessor and often feels like it has kid gloves on. Climate change is the most pressing issue of our time and this film doesn't make as successful a case for that. I remember feeling energized by the original film. This one had me a bit bored. The last thing we need is complacency on this issue.

Climate change deniers will use this as a weapon in their war. As they can't attack the science they will attack Gore and in the process discredit what he stands for, a future for humanity on this planet.

An Inconvenient Sequel Truth to Power
Starring: Al Gore
Directors: Bonni Cohen, Jon Shenk

The Dark Tower (2017)

Attempts have been made to make a film based on Stephen King's The Dark Tower series for decades and now that it's finally here it's likely not the film that anyone expected, and perhaps not the film many can appreciate. The Dark Tower book series is a hard sell to begin with. It follows no archetypal narrative structure, and merges elements of far too many literary motifs to be generally accessible. It is the ultimate "genre" story in many ways, being a mix of western, fantasy, science fiction, and horror with shades of Tolkien, Lovecraft, and heavy doses of King's specialty sprinkled throughout. So how do you approach a film version that audiences can grasp on to? One that can appeal to long time fans and neophytes?

One way would be to do a direct adaption of the first novel. Perhaps that could have worked. What works in a novel doesn't always work in a movie. Perhaps it would have here. That is not this movie. This is a completely different approach.

On the one hand this film is a "sequel" of sorts to the book series. Without spoiling too much one could believe the events of this film follow the events of the book series. Or one could view this a a different take on the story. Like the Bourne movies, this may take the same characters and tell a different story on similar themes. For some, regardless of how you look at it, these approaches will be disappointing. There may be those who want to see the novels they love be adapted directly. There may be those who need to be eased into a story which is going to be challenging to grab onto. This isn't that movie.

For many who haven't read the novels, the film presents a different challenge. It employs a B-movie approach of just throwing us into the action, the mashed up western/fantasy/scifi/horror action which employs a number of devises which much be explained and accepted. It's like watching a show on the syfy channel with a limited budget and grand ambitions. It by definition requires a great deal of suspension of disbelief. The film doesn't spend time building up this world(s) for us and expects us to just go along for the ride. This will lose a lot of people along the way as it's not a likely way to sell a story. 

The Dark Tower film is remarkably short (similar to the first book in the series) and honestly feels a bit rushed. Perhaps this is lack of faith by the bank rollers behind the film. Perhaps it is an artistic choice to keep the story feeling hectic. Whatever the reasons the film throws us in the deep end from the beginning. It's a sink or swim scenario. A risky gamble for sure.

So we have a film which doesn't stick faithfully to its source material and forces us into an awkward, non-typical narrative which requires a lot of explaining along the way. This is not the recipe for mass appeal. But I found it fascinating and exciting. In reading the novels (twice now) I had pictured this story come to life a number of ways, but never like this. I think the surprise was what I responded to the most. The film defied my expectations at every turn. It went a different direction from what I expected. I went into it resigned to the fact that this wouldn't be the Dark Tower film I would make. But would it win me over?

The story starts by taking us into Jake's mind and presenting him as a potentially insane individual. For those not familiar, Jake is a recurring character in the novels, but not normally the point of view character. Even if you haven't read the books, we know, as we've seen too many movies, that he is actually prescient and it's the world around him that are missing some marbles. The film then takes its frantic approach which keeps us unsettled and I think makes things work in a way they wouldn't have other wise. We get a father/son story arc which brings us into the world of the Gunslinger effectively and tantalizingly. This is Jake and the Gunslinger as we haven't seen them before. They're relationship is reinvented. It has to be re-earned. The film acts as an introduction and leaves us in a spot where there could be more. It explores themes from the novels but mostly as hints. It leaves a lot to still do. But that didn't feel like a flaw to me, it felt like promise. I liked the way the film opened its story and I was open to seeing where it would take me.

Does the film cut corners? Yeah, probably. I felt Nikolaj Arcel does wonders with the limited resources he is given. It plays its B-movie sensibilities to its advantage giving it a "grindhouse" feel. Does the film oversimplify the themes and story of the books? Sure. But it feels like it is a gateway, a way in. If there is a series of films to come from this, the story could easily grow to include more of that. The final moments of the film felt as rushed as the rest of the movie, and perhaps a little pat. But they promised there could be a lot more.

And at the centre of this are the performances of Elba and McConaughey. Elba has all the screen presence of the classic movie stars. He should be a bigger star than he is and his turn as Roland is not only weighty but evidence of his star power. And McConaughey plays mythic villain with just the right amount of bravado without overdosing. In each case I felt like I wanted more, not in an "I've been cheated" way but in a "can't wait to see what's next" way.

The Dark Tower is not what anyone was expecting, and it certainly wasn't the Dark Tower film I was waiting for. But it was a film which I enjoyed immensely and it wet my appetite for more. Like a teaser it shows us possibilities, hints at connections to something I have enjoyed in the past, and promises to take us somewhere I can't quite predict. For me that's a success. We'll have to see if we ever get any more of the Gunslinger and his quest for the Dark Tower or not.

The Dark Tower
Starring: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor, Claudia Kim, Denis Heysbert, Fran Kranz
Director: Nikolaj Arcel
Writers: Akiva Goldman, Nikolaj Arcel, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Tomas Jensen

Detroit (2017)

When I first saw and reviewed Detroit, I was missing a lot of pieces.  I went in looking for ways the film may exploit or fetishize cop on black violence but didn't find that. Instead I was struck at how the film makers centred their story around one character, a character who would change his life path due to the trauma of this one event. In this modern age of debate over whether or not marginalized folks who are traumatized by their interactions with police forces had a right to their reactions I thought this film, an attempt to tell the story of one such traumatizing event, would shed some light on this. In focusing on the story of Algee Smith's character the film seemed to be making a case for his extended period of trauma when so many are trying to deligitimize it.

On further reflection and learning more about the event and what wasn't highlighted by the film, I have come to see I missed so much. The film's approach to focus singularly on this one event, this one moment and the folks who were in it while they were in it originally seemed like a smart choice. To see a horrific event played out like this should help its audience to understand how life changing it is, how insidious it is. But I have come to see it's almost the opposite.

Detroit, in its singularity, struggles to capture a context for the film. By choosing not to set the film in a wider world the events can seem remote. While I was making all sorts of connections to other events I was aware of from that era to today, I now realize I was reading that in, that the film didn't offer it to me or to others. I think I was giving the film far more credit than it deserves.

I still think the film has some amazing performances in it, performances which humanize the characters beyond being the stereotypes that might make the film even more problematic. I still think the direction is cleverly done creating a sweat inducing sense of panic in the audience. But I now see that the film may let folks off the hook with that. While I was taking it to make us feel connected to victims, I see the film in it's "bad apples" approach attempts to not indict the true problems behind events like this. Sure the film shows quite adeptly how the system was stacked against accountability for the cops involved, but it still narrows that scope to just these few bad ones.

I can blame some of my misread on the fact I spent 80% of the movie looking at the floor due to Bigalow's whiplash style of film making that makes me feel like I have to vomit when I watch it. But I think more of it had to do with me looking for a film to say "hey, we're here, the victims of police violence are real." I thought Detroit was that but by leaving out so many important details it really fails to be that.

Detroit
Starring: Algee Smith, Jon Boyega, Jacob Latimore, Jason Mitchell, Hannah Murray, Will Poulter
Director: Katherine Bigelow
Writer: Mark Boal