Suburbicon (2017)

Sometimes film scripts don't get made into movies for a reason. Suburbicon appears to be one of those times when that should have happened. Supposedly it was written by the Coen brothers after they made Blood Simple in the 80s. A brutal crime satire, the film never got made and they went on to make a series of much better movies. It sat on the shelf until George Clooney, who has struggled to direct a strong picture since Good Night, and Good Luck, decides to tackle it.

What appears good on paper doesn't always turn out so good. Written by the Coen brothers, directed by Oscar winner George Clooney, starring Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, and Oscar Isaac, Suburbicon has all the hallmarks of a hit if not Oscar bait. But it ends up being the farthest thing from it. It's a mismatch of a movie which doesn't succeed on any of its plots and is generally painful to sit through.

So what went wrong?

Well there are 2 movies here and they don't fit together at all. First is a plot that has little to nothing to do with the main cast. In a darker version of Pleasantville, Suburbicon is a tranquil 50s dream of modern living that doesn't include colored people, until it does and the neighbourhood goes crazy. Then there is the murder plot straight out of Raising Arizona or Fargo but without the comedy.  Both are approached as satire but lack any sense of irony or humour. Instead we just sit, wide eyed, watching horrible things happen with no sense of commentary. We are left far removed from the experiences and the experiences appear to have nothing to do with each other. Nothing feels connected so the film looses its audience somewhere in the middle.

Suburbicon feels like we have seen most of it before done better. It's one of those films where more time appears to be spent on costumes and sets than on developing a compelling story or strong characters. It just lays there the whole time offering us little to reflect on. Instead we just have to take it in, and it is extremely upsetting.

So sometimes things are better left unsaid. and Suburbicon feels like one of those things.

Suburbicon
Starring: Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Oscar Isaac
Director: George Clooney
Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen

Thor Ragnarok (2017)

Thor Ragnarok lost me in the trailer.

What has turned into a fan favorite line is what made me go WTF? Seriously? When Hemsworth laughingly over emotes during his line "He's a friend from work." Audiences laugh and cheer. I think to myself, that's not even funny. Cause in reality it's not. It's not funny cause it is logically fallible. Thor is supposedly a God who doesn't talk like humans and over the course of his journey in the Marvel films didn't take on a modern affect to his dialogue. He doesn't refer to his follow Avengers with that colleague like demeanor. He wouldn't consider his Avenging "work." It's a reference an intergalactic gladiatorial audience would not even understand. The idea that he would suddenly adopt such a 21st century American specific expression on another world no where near other humans is a huge lapse in logic. It's a silly line played for laughs that has no grounding in the reality of the character.

And I've lost 99% of anyone who would be reading this. "Oh you're taking it all too seriously." would be the response.

And that is my point.

I believe the Marvel cinematic universe eschewed taking itself seriously from day one when they ignored the philosophical issues raised by the first Iron Man for the appealing Downey Jr. Schick. But it wasn't until Guardians of the Galaxy (still the best Marvel movie) went all Prattapaolosa self mockery that Marvel said "hey, we're on to something here!" Instead of investing any sense of grounding in pathoes to our universe we are going full on tongue in cheek goofiness cause that sells! I get it. People like to laugh and forget it. It's tough when a movie makes us think for 2 and a half hours so we disengage. Especially when the actors are wearing superhero costumes! Come on! just be goofy and let me go home.

Thor Ragnarok is the completion of that vision. It is the "I don't give a crap about these characters and and just going to get drunk and barf all over the lawn" of blockbusters. Instead of trying to seriously tell a story about the thunder god we are instead watching a spoof. You know this because while fight scenes happen, Led Zepplin's Immigrant Song plays in the background instead of an epic score (not for any thematic reason but because of the awesome "Aaaaaaah" moments). Characters who supposedly have divine lineage do silly dances and make snide jokes to the side ALL THE FRICKIN TIME. There are slime jokes. Anthony Hopkins apparently thinks he's in a Monty Python skit. And Jeff Goldblum is basically there to play Jeff Goldblum. The whole thing feels more like Space Balls than space opera. Imagine Batman and Robin had been as cheesy at it was but had actually been funny. That's what we're dealing with here.

I love writer/director Taika Waititi's work but I never understood how he was a fit for this movie until I saw the film. Now I get it. Marvel is no longer interested in trying to make an epic Norse mythology film. They want a light and breezy comedy, the sillier the better. I find Waititi's comedy usually more cerebral but he can be funny at the lowball stuff too and here he is. He embraces the absurdity of the take and makes a funny, light, Austin Powers style comedy. Thor and Loki end up doing a buddy cop routine.

And let me get something straight. That's not a bad thing. I get this will be incredibly popular. I am not condemning Thor Ragnarok. Audiences will eat it up. For what this is, it is great. And honestly there hasn't been a great Thor movie yet... not even a good one. So that in itself is an achievement. For folks who don't want to take their comic book movies seriously and need irreverence to make it all palatable, Thor Ragnarok is a real achievement.

It's just not to my tastes. Genre movies can be a real source of incredible story telling, a chance to explore themes and ideas which are harder to process in more traditional fiction. Marvel has tried getting deeper and darker a few times (notably The Winter Soldier, Jessica Jones) but they truly seem to be kicking their irreverent streak as the true taste of their brand. That's why they downplayed the "issues" in Civil War and just focused on the superhero on superhero action. They know where their bread and butter are.

Here in the shallow end.

I can enjoy an Ant-Man or Guardians (not 2... definitely not 2) and I love good comedy. Waititi's comedies especially are among my favorites. It's not that it's funny. It's the sort of humour that is employed here which wore thin for me. It's summed up well in the "friend from work" line. It's not organic humour growing out of the situation (a la What We Do In The Shadows). It's the shallow, pratfall, silliness humour that grows from not taking its subject matter seriously. It's fine. I laughed. I enjoyed the spectacle. The story (for the first time in a Thor movie) wasn't boring and was actually a lot of fun. But personally I prefer my superhero movies to have more gravitas. I know its controversial for movies about men in tights to take themselves seriously but I fall clearly on the other side of the debate.

This isn't Deadpool. Thor, Dr. Strange, the Hulk, while all admittedly absurd to a certain degree,aren't themselves an attempt to deconstruct the superhero genre through humour and irreverence. It just feels less authentic to me, less meaningful. In fact it feels more like they just don't know what to do with the characters so they fumble them. And we laugh cause the fumbling is funny. But it's still a fumble not a touchdown.

I do have my grumbles as the movie is not perfect. Supposedly a Suicide Squad style electric collar is enough to immobilize the god of FRICKIN thunder... (really?). Also the Hulk is just there to fight Thor for no reasonably explained reason. Just like in Civil War, the reasons don't matter as long as we get some good fight action. Sigh. And there is a disconnect between the two movies happening here which feel a bit shoehorned together. There is the Thor on battleworld plot and the Hela's plot to take over Asgard plot which never feel like they come together. But really, who cares when the movie doesn't care. It's just about having a good laugh, right?

And don't worry there is the obligatory Hemsworth shirtless scene, cause we all know why we come to these movies...There is also a (somewhat homophobic) Hulk dick joke just to make sure we're keeping it all classey.

But as I said, I am not recommending skipping Thor Ragnarok. In fact most of you will likely love it. And if its success means Waititi can go on and make whatever movie he wants to next, then I'm all for it. So enjoy. I'll wait for something a little more self-confident, confident enough to take itself and its subject seriously. But I do worry that the success of Guardians and now this will keep reinforcing Marvel's direction towards the frivolous, a direction I just have less and less interest in.

Thor Ragnarok
Starring: Chris Hemsworth,  Cate Blanchett, Tom Hiddleson, Idris Elba, Jeff Godlblum, Karl Urban, Tessa Thompson, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins
Director: Taika Waititi
Writer: Eric Pearson

Geostorm (2017)

I love disaster movies. Let me clarify that. I love a good disaster movie. There is something truly thrilling about surviving destruction, something reassuring. Films like Twister, The Wave, Titanic, even the classic Towering Inferno, play to our servivial senses. When they pair that with a well plotted story and interesting characters, they can be a thoroughly enjoyable cinematic experience. Unfortunately most disaster movies are just that, disasters. Skimping on plot and character to focus on special effects instead.

Brought to us by the mind that brought us such disasters as the cheesy 90s Godzilla reboot and the cheap Independence Day sequel, Geostorm is all that is wrong with these modern day versions of B-movies, or should I say C-movies, or should I say D-movies? A corny script whose only sense of wit is to belittle intelligence ("we need workers, no suits" a character says making a grand show of playing to the Trump crowd) is barely stitched together to link the set pieces which is where the movie blows its whole load. I found it hard to muster much excitement during these scenes despite the film putting all its eggs in this particular basket, because the rest of the film was so empty. It's hard to get jazzed up about action sequences when you don't care. It turns out this film was originally going to be released in the spring of 2016 but was pushed back enough times that eventually it just got dumped. Even it's producers knew it was a disaster.

Starring Gerard Butler and Jim Sturgess, two actors who really should have had better careers but instead make these sorts of films, Geostorm often feels like they aren't even trying. But it's not even campy enough to be enjoyable on that level. It's like the film isn't smart enough to know it's not very smart. It's filled with dumb plot twists and eye rolling moments. It is almost daring us not to think. But all that really does is make us think about how dumb it is.

With an ending even too ridiculous for this ridiculous premise, Geostorm is simply nonsense and not even fun nonsense.I know it is not likely a surprise but Geostorm is not the global next level of disaster movie. It's just another cheap facsimile of what a true harrowing tale could be.

Geostorm
Starring: Gerard Butler, Jim Sturgess, Abbie Cornish, Daniel Wu, Richard Schiff, Andy Garcia, Ed Harris
Writer/Director Dean Devlin

Rebel in the Rye (2017)

Like so many young men when I read Catcher in the Rye it awoke me. I was on the precipice of being the frustrated, angry, confused, and utterly hypocritical Holden Caulfield, paralyzed in my own self-hatred. But his dream, of stopping children from running over the cliff spoke to me and helped me see how I could wake up.

Despite my obsession with the book, which I have reread countless times, this hasn't translated to a fascination with its writer, the reclusive J.D. Salinger. I think I saw him as the failed Caulfield, never escaping that paralization and living his dream. Unlike with other authors I loved, I didn't read his other writings or followed his life. I just wanted to read Catcher and hear what it was saying to me.

So a biographical film about a reclusive man who likely would have hated that there was a movie about him at all seemed like an odd choice. And now after seeing Rebel in the Rye, I'm not sure I felt there really was much of a story there. Perhaps fiction really is richer than reality. Yes we all have our stories that we live day to day, and for J.D. Salinger it is a truth that he lived. Is this approximation of that something that offers us much of value? I'm not sure I have a positive answer to that question.

Like Holden, the J.D. of Rebel in the Rye is smart and privileged and loved and frustrated the hell out of how phony the world is. He is traumatized by romantic rejection and more seriously by his experiencing the horrors of war (although the film is rather short on this aspect of the story). He pours his frustration and fear and trauma into writing. And he produces a masterpiece which isn't always recognized as something. The story feels so generically western white male and doesn't spring off the screen. Kevin Spacey's character, a writing teacher who is influential to J.D. tells him to find his unique voice and not let it overwhelm the story. Here there is very little unique about the voice. And perhaps as an endless parade of mini Holdens show up waiting outside his door with their red hunting caps, we begin to see how blandly ununique the experience is.

Cause for me Catcher in the Rye's brilliance isn't how it captures Holden's angst, but how it condemns his inaction in the face of it, how it gives us moments of beauty, moments or salvation, which he isn't able to succeed in grasping. Rebel in the Rye doesn't appears to be making a martyr case which just didn't fly for me. And while beautifully shot, Rebel in the Rye stumbles through a truncated war experience and into a rushed denouement.

But that isn't what make Rebel less than fulfilling for me. It was that it didn't capture an interesting story. Against the advice of Spacey's character it let its voice overwhelm its story.

Rebel in the Rye
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Kevin Spacey, Sarah Paulson, Victor Garber, Hope Davis
Writer/Director: Danny Strong

The Snowman (2017)

When your last two films were the horror masterpiece Let the Right One In and the intricate and beautiful adaptation of John Le Carre's Tinker Sailor Soldier Spy I guess critics are going to bash anything you do which isn't a tour de force. I guess you can't just go and make a tight yet bleak thriller for shits and giggles featuring a strong cast and centering a classically charismatic self-destructive hero who could headline a franchise. No you put out something that is less than perfect and it gets slaughtered.

And The Snowman isn't perfect. It feels over edited and there are some leaps in logic which are likely due to such editing. But is is tight and tense. Fassbender plays likaebly unlikable very well. The film sets him up as a fascinating character with possibilities to go beyond this one story. I guess we may not be getting that which is too bad.

Tomas Alfredson has shot Norway in a chilled beauty which remains understated yet gorgeous. The violence inherent in the story is set in stark contrast to the cold serenity of its surroundings, like the film's blood splashed across the snow. There is a timeliness to the film as well whose plot features men's anger and violence towards women at a time when the discussion of this is reaching a critical mass. The film is about how men in their entitlement destroy the women around them and how that cycle continues.

So The Snowman isn't going to go down as Alfredson's best work. It does feel a bit like slumming, but not in a failing kind of way despite the film's editing which feels like the studio afterward trying to make it into something it is not. The film's marketing seems to show that it doesn't really get the film it is trying to sell. This is more the kind of slumming where he wanted to try to do something different and while he didn't hit the bull's eye he still made a pretty good shot.

The Snowman
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Rebecca Ferguson, Charlotte Gainsberg, Val Kilmer, J.K. Simmons, Toby Jones, Chloe Sevigny, James D'Arcy
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Writers: Hossein Amini, Peter Straughan, Soren Sveistrup

Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) (2017)

Writer/director Noah Baumbach's work often leaves me feeling "meh." He got raves for The Squid and the Whale and while I thought it was alright, it didn't leave any lasting impression on me. His follow up films, such as While We're Young and Frances Ha, had even less effect on me. So when I say The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) is his best work yet, that may not be the highest of praise.

But The Meyerowitz Stories is in my opinion his best work. It is about fathers and sons and has a very smart script which keeps the audience engaged. Dustin Hoffman is classically perfect as the matriarch and the women in the film are all remarkable from Emma Thompson to Elizabeth Marvel to Grace Van Patten. But there are weaknesses here too.

The biggest for me have to do with taste. I never can really buy either Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller in serious roles. They never hit the mark for me and neither does here. The script is snappy and funny and there are great moments when they get to be funny. But it's a cerebral humour which is neither of their strengths and so I never felt either knocked it out of the park. Hoffman and Thompson, and remarkably Marvel are the truly hilarious parts of the film, and they also offer more pathos too.

The ending, or climax fells flat for me mostly due to Sandler. The movie builds to this one moment, a moment which seems to need to cap off everything that has come before and I felt Sandler fumbles it. 

But Baumbach's script, while my favorite of his so far, is also not always pitch perfect. It suffers from the relatively common problem of having people say stuff out of the blue to explain their feelings. He covers this mostly by making it seem like a family trait so it doesn't feel quite that overt. But it remains something that pulled me out of the film.

What I did appreciate is the way Baumbach's script, so interested in the father/son dynamic, is often throwing at us little brilliant moments critiquing how tone deaf mean can be to the women around them. There is this great sense of male ignorance weaving its way through the film that is not only insightful but poignant due to where there film goes with its Cats in the Cradle themes.

So for me this is Baumbach's best work. But I still feel he has a long way to go before impressing me.

The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
Starring: Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Thompson, Elizabeth Marvel, Grace Van Patten
Writer/Director: Noah Baumbach

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)

Genre films have been raising the bar, delivering their niche goodness with high quality scripts, performances, a film making. What used to the be the sole domain of cheaply put together projects now come with higher budgets and more professionalism. Extreme action has had some good films lately (like John Wick) and now it gets another film which exceeds expectations in Brawl in Cell Block 99.

Brawl in Cell Block 99 really isn't want you expect it to be. It appears it's just going to be a big prison fight scene drawn out to movie length. It isn't that. It's so much more. Brawl is a smartly crafted tale of desperation. A good man whose made many mistakes is on a path that just keeps getting worse. When pinned between the extreme rock and the terribly hard place, he comes up with a plan to survive the only way he knows how. And it's a tragically beautiful, while viciously brutal, tale that hits you in the gut. Brawl isn't the sort of film you'll forget easily.

Writer/director S. Craig Zahler invests time and artistry into building his characters. Like a Tarantino film without the snark, Zahler's imbues his film with backstory for his three dimensional characters. He also films his story beautifully, making his film a gorgeous savagery. Vaughn is the best he's been in years, best he's been since the beginning of his career, before Wedding Crashers, when he was trying to be an actor.  Zahler is a visceral film maker who is showing a true talent and I can't wait to see what he does next.

Brawl in Cell Block 99 is almost a bait and switch. What promises to be b-movie gore turns into something so completely different, complex and satisfying filled with one centrally strong performance and packing an emotional punch that leaves you rocked.

Brawl in Cell Block 99
Starring: Vince Vaughn, Jennifer Carpenter, Don Johnson, Udo Kier
Writer/Director: S. Craig Zahler

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women (2017)

I have often reflected on why I've had such a life long obsession with Wonder Woman and there are many reasons. So much of it has to do with the values and ideas imbued into the character by her creators over the decades, especially the original creators, William Moulton Marston and his partners Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Olive Byrne. Therefore to see their story play out and the desire to express those values is a treat. Writer/director Angela Robinson explores those ideas more than the people behind them in this soft focus biopic which makes a compelling case for the ideals of Marston.

Robinson's take is fairly glowing. She effectively sets up her heroes as persecuted martyrs whose legacy is a triumph over conservatism. The film starts with Marston taking on the forces of censorship (book burning is always a great symbol of oppression) and uses this as a framing device for her story. It might be all too rosy and a bit fantastic, like Marston's creation. She doesn't get overly critical of some of the less well thought through of Marton's ideas, such as DISC theory and his less than successful lie detector. She could have focused on the very real triumph of Wonder Woman but she is overly forgiving of much to make her point, that this family was a real family with the same entitlement to respect than any other, if not more for its spirit of equality and empowerment.

Robinson uses typical romance tropes to tell this polyamous love story focusing on that angle even with the somewhat cliched moment at the end where the paramour (in this case paramours) have to chase down their partner to confess their love and win her back. It has the same power as it does in the usual two person scene we are used to. She effectively humanizes those our culture still sees as "perverts" despite how far we've come, and in that the film is successful.

The story is a bit uneven and there are all sorts of other paths the story could have taken. But what Robinson takes on she does very well. I couldn't help feel somethings were missing while still enjoying what was there.

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women
Starring: Luke Evans, Rebecca Hall, Bella Heathcote, Connie Britton
Writer/Director: Angela Robinson

Our Souls at Night (2017)

After their explosive debut into feature film making, Beast of No Nation, so many of their features have not quite lived up to that legacy. Many have a "made for TV" feel and despite its pedigree (Lunchbox director Ritsh Batra, the legendary Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, source novel by Kent Haruf) Our Souls at Night definitely falls into the TV movie mold.

Redford and Fonda give quiet and unassuming performances as small town seniors who have survived their partners and connect in their golden years. There is truly nothing remarkable about how either tackle their roles. Their characters aren't expected to be anything but your very average small town folk. Fonda has a nice moment discussing the death of her child many years earlier but even that feels muted. Redford's character is even blander, never really given much to do but say "okay" to Fonda. Given even less is Bruce Dern is the most vanilla cameo you'll ever see.

Batra appears to be taking a paint by numbers approach. He may be making a stylistic choice to plod through his fairly thin plot yet he, at the same time, chooses not to fill those ponderous moments with a sense of anything tangible. I get that the characters are seeking something less passionate than a typical romance but I never felt Our Souls at Night provided any feelings of true intimacy. When she finally puts her arm around him it feels inevitable and not revelatory.

While perfectly pleasant to see these two great actors reunited Our Souls at Night just isn't that interesting. Filled with some cliched baby boomer assumptions about the world the film almost feels a bit pandering. It is all a bit anti-climactic for such a reunion.

Our Souls at Night
Starring: Jane Fonda, Robert Redford, Bruce Dern, Matthias Schoenaerts, Judy Greer
Director: Ritesh Batra
Writers: Scott Neusadter, Michael H. Weber

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

It wasn't until college when I first saw Blade Runner. I was too young for it when it was released, with its brooding, moody mediations on humanness. It's mash up of detective fiction with apocalyptic sci fi set against a neon colour palette, with its ambiguous ending and equally ambiguous morality, remains not the most accessible of approaches. But I fell for it immediately. watching endless different "cuts" of the film for further exploration of its "meanings" I have come to appreciate it even more since that time.

It was never a film whose story needed to be continued. In fact I wasn't sure I wanted answers to the questions it posed. I was attracted to the mystery of it, its inversion of good guy/bad guy motifs, its way of playing with our expectations. What would a sequel add?

It turns out quite a bit. 35 years after the first, new questions have emerged and old narratives have deepened. If anything, Blade Runner 2045 is a masterclass in how you make a sequel.

Director Denis Villeneuve has exceeded all expectations. He has taken the spirit, feel, and experience of the original film and extrapolated all of that into something new. Clearly a next chapter, this film is tightly connected to the events of the first film, Blade Runner 2049 not only feels like the natural evolution of the story but defies our expectations at the same time.

As moody and beautiful and slow paced as the first film, but like that film, it never drags. It is a long film. Villeneuve takes his time to tell his story properly. But there is never a moment which feels extended, wasteful, or unnecessary. Each scene is a thing of beauty. Villeneuve is either fascinated with the beaten down faces of his subjects, or the decaying environments they are living in. Each moment is visceral. There is an outstanding texture to the scenes. Often sparse on music and dialogue, Villeneuve nevertheless imbues his film with richness of tension, of desperation, of despair, and yes of hope.

Blade Runner 2049 is a strong film in its own right but also a thrilling addition for anyone who loves the first film. It is grown up, morose, exciting, challenging, and gorgeous. It is something you should go see.

Blade Runner 2049
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista, Jared Leto, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Writers: Hampton Fancher, Michael Green

Gerald's Game (2017)

Stephen King film adaptations are experiencing a resurgence in 2017 and like all the films based on his novels some are amazing, some are terrible, and some of a mixed bag. I found Gerald's Game to be on the positive side of "mixed bag" often stumbling to find the right tone but when it does it knocks it out of the park.

The biggest fault of Gerald's Game is that it doesn't find a consistent sense of dread. It sometimes feels like it's going through the motions, making sure it hits its plot points. Films all shot in one room can be challenging, let alone a film shot almost entirely on one bed, but when they are done right they evoke a real sense of claustrophobia and restraining. Game only gets this right sometimes.

Gerald's Game explores some pretty intense stuff from a generalized deconstruction of male privilege to specifics around gendered marital power dynamics to sexual assault and victim shaming. The film needs to rise to the occasion to handle all of this and it doesn't always quite get there. But when it does it truly does.

The biggest score for Gerald's Game is its (basically) two person cast. Carla Gugino has never quite gotten a fair shake in Hollywood and here she shows herself to be a very fine actor. She imbues Jessie with all the complicated layers needed to pull off such a rich character, a character who has to carry the whole film as most of it happens in her head. She is masterful and I would never have thought this of her but she pulls it off.

Also no slouch is Bruce Greenwood, looking remarkably cut for a man of a certain age, and living up to his usual strong reputation as both her husband and her idea of her husband. His Gerald is the everyman villain, filled with entitlement and resentment, projecting his self-consciousness into his anger at his female counterpart.

Director Mike Flanagan's experience is in horror films and the film works best when it gets' scary. His ability to create a sense of terror at the situation is palpable, and the film's intense "escape" scene is visceral. But his ability to get into the horrors of Jessie's past or her relationship is not as strong.

But in the end I felt overall I appreciated Gerald's Game for what the actors were able to bring to it and the way it examines how a life in gendered shackles imprisons us.

Gerald's Game
Starring: Carla Gugino, Bruce Greenwood
Director: Mike Flanagan
Writers: Mike Flanagan, Jeff Howard

American Made (2017)

Doug Liman and Tom Cruise have done a good job with a few things, a critique of 80s era CIA incursions into Latin America, a compelling and creative (if still career boosting) performance by Cruise who has fewer of such things these days, and a tightly put together film which plays to Limon's strengths. What they didn't do was make a compelling or interesting film. Despite all the good intentions American Made is mostly boring.

American Made does feel like it is tailored for the artists making it. At this point in his career Tom Cruise needs a good starring vehicle which is more than just a light action film. American Made gives him a meaty role that he is able to pull off while still feeling very Tom Cruisey. Limon also thrives on these sorts of politically charged international espionage tales. His lush yet kinetic take is suited well to such a story. He gets to make a smart, shiny action film with a bit of an edge.

But the whole time American Made fails to get the blood pumping. It is hard to work up any excitement for the film which despite all its qualities remains rather anemic. Perhaps the film just feels too Tom Cruisy and Doug Limony, that we've seen it all before.

Limon is pretty honest about the liberties he has taken with the story. As with most true to life tales, things had to be changed to make them more cinematic, the lead character had to be embellished to fit the lead actor more. Events were conflated. Yes, the basics are true. The US has engaged in drug running and secret incursions into Latin America for political reasons. But to make this film work, and to make a Tom Cruise film, Limon had to invent a lot for his final cut.

And yet, the cut still feels sterile, still feels less than consuming. Probably best saved for a night when there's just nothing better available on Netflix.

American Made
Starring: Tom Cruise, Sarah Wright, Domhnall Gleeson
Director: Doug Limon
Writer: Gary Spinelli

Victoria and Abdul (2017)

As a film lover, if anyone tried to tell me that Queen Victoria didn't look like Judi Dench I would laugh in their face. This is a role Dench is likely most known for. In fact, Victoria and Abdul feels like a practical sequel to her 1997 film Ms. Brown, also about a liaison Victoria had with a man many thought she shouldn't. Very much like that film, Victoria and Abdul is a sentimental, romcom-like crowd-pleaser which likely ignores historical truth for its lovely story.

What makes Victoria and Abdul work so well is the chemistry between Dench's queen at the end of her life, and the beautiful Ali Fazal who lights up the screen each time he's on it. The film is ridiculous a lot but their charm and charisma solves it all. And knowing that it's all "mostly" true is helpful to get over some of the absurdities.

Another strength of the film is the way it has its colonial audiences laughing at colonialism. It is somewhat subversive in the way it attacks the very nature of empire, while at the same time centering the empress herself (problematic I know). It is said the queen herself called it out as racism. “The Queen says it is ‘race prejudice’ and that we are jealous of the poor Munshi.” wrote one of her staff at the time so perhaps Victoria should get a bit of credit. Audiences are constantly asked to mock and jeer the symbols of colonialism while sympathizing with the subjugated.

And at the end the true brutality and downright evil nature of one of the world's most forgiven empires is put on display. The film takes a series tone at the end, a tone which almost derails the cheery course it has taken up to that point, to fully condemn the racism and sexism inherent in empire. The film lets is audiences off the hook with the "happy" ending that Abdul Karim's story got told. Still, it is refreshing to see such a mainstream and accessible film treat empire so coldly. A step in the right direction and a pleasure to watch Dench and Fazal play off each other.

Victoria and Abdul
Starring: Judy Dench, Ali Fazal, Eddie Izzard, Tim Pigot-Smith, Adeel Akhtar, Michael Gambon
Director: Stephen Frears
Writer: Lee Hall