Mel Gibson's 'Hacksaw Ridge' has quite the MPAA rating description


"Rated R for intense prolonged realistically graphic sequences of war violence including grisly bloody images."

Yikes! "Bloody Mel" is at it again. We all know he never skimps on the violence with his movies: "Braveheart," "Passion of the Christ" and "Apocalypto" are three of the most violent movies I have ever seen. He seems to revel in staging be-headings and grisly deaths.

I got this little nugget from my "Apocalypto" review from 2006!

"When watching "Apocalypto" you can clearly tell it is the work of a mad man. All the better for it.  Which is not to say Gibson isn't a competent filmmaker. He actually really is talented. His shot selection and camera movement is masterful and his love for story undeniable."

I'm catching Hacksaw Ridge at a press screening on October 18th, the film comes out on November 4th.

What happened? 'The Birth of a Nation' getting mixed reviews.



I remember watching Nate Parker's "The Birth of a Nation" at Sundance this past January and everyone fawning all over it. I wasn't going to have any of that. The film was essentially riding on the #Oscarssowhite movement which was happening that very month. People were getting suckered by the hype and it just got the best of them. That's alright, but hate to say I told you so. Only Jeffrey Wells over at Hollywood-Elsewhere was joining me in my counter reaction to the film. At the film's premiere they gave Nate Parker a standing ovation before the movie had even started.  I have never seen that before at a film festival. Of course the film went on to win the festival's top two prizes and Oscar buzz was all over the place for the movie.

An excerpt from my Sundance review:

"Was the buzz and acclaim that the film has received merited/justified? Of course not. Parker makes mistakes in his filmmaking and those mistake do end up costing him. Portraying Turner as Jesus-like figure doesn't help, nor does the fact that he fumblingly sets up his story in a lame almost skittish way. Also, the actual rebellion, the most interesting and exciting part of the film, only happens near the end. Bad decision. Parker isn't yet fit to carry such a heavy subject matter as a director, his amateurish mistakes are absurd and almost too naive to comprehend, but, of course, his mind and passion are in the right place and his movie relevant as ever, which is why so many were suckered into praising this film to the Gods just a couple of months ago.

Parker means to make an "epic," but there is no "epic" feel to his film. It feels flat and devoid of any artfulness. It doesn't feel cinematic. One might wonder the potential of such a relevant and important story in the hands of an Ava DuVernay or Spike Lee. That would have made for a more fully fleshed out and reflective film than what Parker gives us."


It seems like all the lavishly drawn-out praise that happened in Park City this past January has tamed down a bit. Is it because Parker is now involved in controversy, having to do with a previous rape case, that has mired his reputation? Or is it that people have come back down to planet earth and realized, meh, it's not that good of a movie? Probably a bit of both, but it goes to show how gullible some film critics truly are. "The Birth of a Nation" is not going to win any awards, nor is it going to be remembered over time. What will be remembered from all of this is something Parker would rather you forget.

The Best Movies of 2016 So Far ...


A slow news day brings a post such as this one. This year I went to the usual "important" film festivals: Sundance, Cannes, Toronto and SXSW. Saw close to 200 movies. Today I decided to work my way through the good stuff and the bad stuff to finally get to the list below. Not really in order of quality, but the first five or so movies are probably assured a spot in my year-end top ten list. 

I cut it down to 25 worthy films, a very rough first draft, will eventually have to cut it down to just 10 by December when I submit my list to critics polls. With all that there also is the fact that we have Ang Lee's "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk," Martin Scorsese's "Silence," Stephen Gaghan's "Gold," Robert Zemeckis' "Allied," and Denzel Washington's "Fences" all unscreened for critics and very much steeped in high expectations. 

For the time being look at this list, scroll through it, ponder it, learn it, catch up to it. Every film on it is a rewarding experience and right now is a good time to watch these movies before the deluge of holiday movies storms into theaters in the next few weeks. I consider each and every one of these to be a "great" movie, at the very least "very good." 

1) OJ: Made in America (Ezra Edelman)
2) Paterson (Jim Jarmusch)
3) Krisha (Trey Schultz)
4) Manchester by the Sea (Kenneth Lonergan)
5) Moonlight (Barry Jenkins)
6) La La Land (Damien Chazelle)
7) Indignation (James Schamus)
8) Arrival (Denis Villeneuve)
9) A Bigger Splash (Luca Guadagnino)
10) Zootopia (Howard, Moore and Bush)
10) 10 Cloverfield Lane (Dan Trachtenberg)
11) Jackie (Pablo Larrain)
12) Toni Erdmann (Maren Ade)
13) Elle (Paul Verhoeven)
14) Aquarius (Kleber Mendonza Filho)
15) Right Now, Wrong Then (Sang-Soo Hong)
16) Loving (Jeff Nichols)
17) Green Room (Jeremy Saulnier)
18) Weiner (J. Kriegman and Steinberg)
19) Certain Women (Kelly Reichardt)
20) Gleason (Clay Tweel)
21) American Honey (Andrea Arnold)
22) Edge of Seventeen (Kelly Fremon Craig)
23) The Wailing (Hong-Jin Na)
24) Newtown (Kim A. Snyder)
25) Hush (Mike Flanagan)
26) Miss Sloane (John Madden)
27) Lo and Behold (Werner Herzog)
28) Nocturnal Animals (Tom Ford)
29) Don't Breathe (Fede Alvarez)
30) Equity (Meera Menon)
31) Hacksaw Ridge (Mel Gibson)
32) In a Valley of Violence (Ti West)

Hell or High Water (David Mackenzie)
Silence (Martin Scorsese)
The Handmaiden (Park Chan-Wook)
Everybody Wants Some (Richard Linklater)

"Newtown" is a masterfully subtle indictment of gun violence [REVIEW]


Image result for newtown movie

Just like every year at Sundance, the documentaries stuck out just as much -if not more- than the fiction films this year. "Newtown" is the Sandy Hook documentary that will tear your heart out: simple, haunting and unforgettable. Kim A. Snyder’s searing film is more about the trauma imposed on the small town than the actual graphic detail, as they try to move forward and find a newfound purpose to life. 

Following the families and community members that were most affected with the massacre which had 20 children ages 6-7 years old and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut shot and killed by 20 year-old Adam Lanza. Lanza had murdered his own mother before driving to Sandy Hook and opening fire with an XM-15 military style M4 carbine rifle. The event in Newtown is simply referred to as 12/14/12.

Snyder's narrative has testimonies and interviews mixed in with scenes of Newtown, a beautiful, picturesque small town with layers of turbulent darkness. We get a Sandy Hook School Nurse, Sally Cox, describing her traumatic experiences inside the school as the drama occurred. The same can't be said of a Connecticut State Trooper that refuses to describe on-camera what he saw inside the school that day. We can only imagine, in fact we don't want to even picture it.

A father who lost his son, Daniel, wonders what the final moments must have been like for his toddler that fateful day. Snyder continues to show us account after account, witness after witness, without going into graphic detail. The detail is hidden in the grieving words. Even though none of Snyder's interviewees go into graphic detail as to what they saw that fateful day, we are still shocked by just imagining how it must have been like inside Sandy Hook that day.


Dr. William Begg, Emergency Room Services Director, has a memorably grieving interview where he recounts the horror in watching the little bodies come into the emergency room and accounts for the limited chance at survival that a child has when confronted with the weaponry Landa used on his victims. 

Snyder's deeper message with all this is felt: There is no way to prevent this from happening again in the country, as long as gun laws are as flexible as they are and as corrupt as they are. That message isn't relayed through overtly expressive words or pointing the finger at anybody, but just through the grieving facial features of this small town's residents who will never be able to shake their grief. "Newtown" is a documentary that can change lives. [A]

Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" has first art



Get ready for Denis Villeneuve's take on the 1982 sci-fi classic. Today we go a title, "Blade Runner 2049" and the above title art which looks like a beautifully retro 80s logo. Bring it on.

The cast includes stalwarts such as Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford and Jared Leto and Robin Wright. Also let us not forget that the great Roger Deakins is the cinematographer for this film. Will he finally win his first Oscar for this? Much to get excited about.

Up next for Villeneuve is "Arrival" which I reviewed at TIFF. Here's a snippet:

"Toronto was a kind of homecoming for Canadian boy Denis Villeneuve whose “Arrival” had very successful showings at both Telluride and Venice just a week prior. Amy Adams plays Louise Banks, a linguist twho is recruited by the military after enormous Alien pods show up across the globe. Many countries are prepared for war, but Louise believes that the visitors might actually be on earth for non-violent reasons. Adams, in one of her very best performances, gives a touching and rewarding performance in a film that feels like a better version of Christopher Nolan’s well-known sci-fi blockbusters. The sentimentality is somewhat stripped down for a more concrete and profound look at the ties that bind us all on earth. It’s a thought-provoking adventure that isn’t about war, but communication instead. Villeneuve once again proves to be the real deal. The 49-year-old Quebecois filmmaker is building up a solid, loyal fan-base that could one day rival Nolan’s. The fact that his next movie is “Blade Runner 2” only gets us more excited about his future."

“Blade Runner 2049” opens on October 6, 2017.

Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Mindy Kaling and ... Rihanna? Your "Ocean's 8" cast


We still don't really know anything about the movie. All we do know is that it's a spinoff rather than a remake or reboot, the cast is great though. I'm praying this gets a decent script. Don't fuck it up Warner Bros. We don't need another "Ghostbusters" debacle where the entire online community starts hating on the film before it even screens.

Because humor is, in a way, subjective with the "Ocean's" films, this stands a much better chance at being successful as compared to "Ghosbusters" which had to heavily rely on humor. Also look at the great cast they have assembled here: Blanchett, Bullock, Hathaway and Carter are some of the best actresses of their generations, but Rihanna? I'm skeptical about that casting choice but I presume she won't get too much screen time either.

The date for "Ocean's 8," hey that's a nice little rhyme, is set for Summer of 2018. In a way, those mediocre sequels that followed Soderbergh's original 2001 "Ocean's Eleven" are definitely going to help make the case for this all-female version. Soderbergh version is some kind of heist movie classic, a pop masterpiece if you will.

For the time being I'll leave you with this relevant line from comedian John Mulaney. This was said way before there was any talk of this even happening.


"A heist film can't work with women. You couldn't do Ocean's 11 with women. It won't work because 2 of them would always be breaking off to talk shit about the other 9." - John Mulaney

"War For the Planet of the Apes" Teaser Trailer has arrived


Everything was supposed to go horribly wrong when 20th Century Fox decided to reboot  "The Planet of the Apes" in 2011. Tim Burton's already much maligned reboot in 2001 starring Marky Mark had been consistently mocked. Rupert Wyatt, a relative unknown that made his feature filmmaking debut in 2009 with the rather mixed reviewed "The Escapist" had been given the task to reboot the franchise and YET what an admirable job he did with the material at hand. 


The sequel, "The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes," was just as good, with Matt Reeves ("Let Me In," "Cloverfield") taking over Wyatt at the director's chair and surprising us with the chops he has as an action director that never substitutes character for the usual muscular action we're used to seeing in these types of blockbusters.

However, the real star of the these films was, of course, Andy Serkis who played Cesar, an ape raised by a human scientist (James Franco's Will) that eventually goes haywire and realizes the importance of his own freedom. Serkis deserved an Oscar nomation for the way he brought real feeling to what was essentially CGI based character, just like he did with Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings." It's a tour de force performance that elevated both movies into more than just crass entertainment. This was art.

Twentieth Century Fox had a real winner and word of mouth was contagious. The all out war hinted at between humans and apes in "Rise" will come full frontal in "War For the Planet of the Apes." The just released 30 second Teaser wets our appetites with Cesar proclaiming "You must go before fighting begins. War has begun."

Matt Reeves is back as director. Plot seems to be unknown on IMDB, but Wikipedia seems to have gathered enough information for some kind of route as to where this movie is going:

Following the events of "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" Caesar and his ape colony are embroiled in a battle with an army of humans. When the apes suffer heavy losses, Caesar wrestles with his darker instincts as he resolves to avenge his kind. The battle pits Caesar against the humans' leader, a ruthless Colonel, in an encounter that will determine the fate of their species and Earth's future."

Robert De Niro enters Oscar race with "The Comedian"

Deniro on the set of the recently wrapped "The Comedian"

Given that I'm a diehard Robert De Niro fan and I have been disheartened the last couple of decades by his lack of quality roles, that hasn't stopped me from following whatever projects he signs on to because, well, I'm a hopeful person and I know the man still has it in him to deliver something special. Look what he did in "Silver Linings Playbook," such a comic, resonant and touching performance which earned him a well-deserved Oscar nomination.


With all that in mind I have been following "The Comedian" with a close eye for a couple of years now. At some point Mike Newell was supposed to direct the film, with a script by Comedian Jeff Ross no less, finally Taylor Hackford ("Ray") took over. The film began production this past February. I did not expect it to get released this year, but, lo and behold, it was just announced that Sony Pictures Classics has so much confidence in the film that it will have an Oscar qualifying run this coming December! They test screened it a week ago and word on Twitter was that it was "very funny" and De Niro "killed it." Word of mouth was so encouraging it seems that they believe it should qualify for awards.

The film tracks the highs and lows, the life and times if you will, of an aging insult comic. If that isn't enough, Harvey Keitel co-stars and we all know the legendary cinematic relationship both actors had with Scorsese back in the 70s with "Taxi Driver" and "Mean Streets." Hackford whose credits as a director include "An Officer and a Gentleman," successfully directed Jamie Foxx to Oscar glory in 2004 with "Ray." Here's hoping he does the same for De Niro this year. Wouldn't that be something?

Courtesy of Deadline:

"Get ready to amend those early Oscar season handicapping odds! Sony Pictures Classics has acquired from Cinelou The Comedian, and will set the picture for release in Oscar season. SPC bought North American rights to the Taylor Hackford-directed film stars Robert De Niro as an insult comic in career and personal crisis, and word is that it is the strongest performance in years for De Niro, the two-time Oscar winning actor who was last nominated for Silver Linings Playbook in 2013. The plan is to release early next year, with a qualifying run in late December. I’m hearing that a possible launch of the picture at the upcoming AFI is a strong possibility. Warner Bros International has foreign on the picture through its deal with Cinelou."

“Robert De Niro has been nurturing this story for years, so we’re incredibly honored to have been able to help bring it to life,” said Canton. “Sony Classics is tailor-made to release the film, as Michael Barker and Tom Bernard have the perfect sensibility for it.’ Said Solomon: “There’s amazing chemistry between Bob and leslie. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, but both of these actors have a talent for injecting drama into all the right places, creating a great balance between the humor and drama."

Did we really need a "Suicide Squad" Extended Cut? Nope. Has that stopped Warner Bros? Of course not.


This year has got to be a defining turning point for Superhero movies." Batman v Superman," "X-Men: Apocalypse" and "Suicide Squad" were low-quality works. Yes, there was "Deadpool" and "Civil War," .... passable efforts, but nothing to brag home about.

David Ayer has long maintained that the actual theatrical release of "Sucide Squad" was the cut he intended for release, so let's not actually call this a "Director's Cut" it's actually an "Extended Cut." Ah, gotcha. The movie is just extended. 10 extra minutes have been added to this abysmal movie, minutes that will likely not make it any better nor develop any of the inane characters represented onscreen.

It is also quite clear that Ayer lost creative control of the film once reshoots were announced. If I were Warner Bros I'd be very careful releasing all of these "Director's" "Extended" "Final" cuts. People will start asking themselves "Ok, so should I just skip the poorer version of a DC movie, which is quite clearly reserved for theaters, and just wait for the better version of the film on DVD/Blu-Ray."

Terrence Malick’s ‘Voyage Of Time: The IMAX Experience’ Is A More Rewarding Version Of ‘Life’s Journey’ [Review]

Full review for The Playlist can be found HERE
More or less a work in progress for almost four decades, Terrence Malick‘s much-delayed “Voyage of Time” has been a near odyssey to reach the screen. Even years before his masterwork “The Tree of Life,” Malick had tried to develop a film about the origins of earth forParamount in the 1970s entitled “Q.” He eventually abandoned the project, but some of the footage, shot nearly 40 years ago, is employed in the feature-length “Voyage of Time: Life’s Journey.” But as the format in the title suggests, the briefer “Voyage Of Time: The IMAX Experience” is completely shot in magnificent 65mm.

Malick’s ambitions have ultimately tried to achieve the impossible with this film: make a movie about the beginning, the middle, and the end of time. With such a lofty concept, it’s not surprising “Voyage of Time” took forever to make and complete. What is surprising, given all the years of gestation, is that Malick not only completed the project, but delivered it in two flavors: the 40-minute IMAX version narrated by Brad Pitt, and a lengthier 90 minute version, narrated by Cate Blanchett, which comes out in theaters next year.
‘The IMAX Experience,’ which opens this Friday, encompasses a world of ideas for such a short amount of time. Utilizing practical effects, the big bang scenes in “Voyage Of Time” are spectacular. The formation of the earth’s core conveyed with eye-popping CGI, courtesy of FX wizard Dan Glass, is just magnificent. The documentary’s opening awe-inspiring visuals, incredibly similar to the celestial footage in the early moments of “The Tree Of Life,” are ravishing to look at.
vot_europa_rgb
The film opens with an onscreen text, addressed to a child, signifying that the film we are about to see will trace the origins of life and the birth of the stars. There are cutaways of a young girl, standing in a field and pondering the beauties of nature. Despite what it sounds like, these scenes are subtly rendered and deliver much-needed fluidity to Malick’s film from sequence to sequence. There’s also a poeticism to the slow-moving vistas that inspire much wonder. The 40-minute running time strips away much of the ambitious ideas of the 90-minute version, for a more modestly scaled and straightforward experience.
vot_solarenergies_rgbBut what about earth’s first inhabitants? The film unfolds the evolutionary process superbly, tracing the line from sea creatures to dinosaurs to elephants to apes, and eventually to man. The underwater sequences, in particular, are stunning and we are introduced to odd-looking sea monsters navigating through Earth’s lonely waters, and are astonished by their weird shapes, sizes and colors.
Of course, the science community will likely flip for many of the sequences that Malick has conveyed. If dinosaurs in “The Tree of Life” were just barely seen, his new doc does the creatures some epic justice. Malick shows us the Jurassic era in full flesh and it’s a wonder to behold. He has dinosaurs preying, trying to survive, and eventually wiped out by an asteroid that leaves the screen a haunting black.
vot__communallife_rgb
vot__communallife_rgbMalick can’t help himself, and the voice-over tends to be a touch too precious — though Pitt’s version isn’t as affected as Blanchett’s — but after a clunky start, the narration and visuals start to coming together in harmony, making for a beautiful, occasionally overwhelming work.
While ‘The IMAX Experience’ leans heavy on its visuals as its greatest asset, there is much profundity to be found in the idea of life being formed and watching it bloom. Dreaming with the film comes naturally. While Malick doesn’t exactly pose deeper existential questions, they are nonetheless raised when immersed in the doc. Malick knows his sonorous classic music too. And while some of it feels familiar and Malick-ian, there’s a resonance here that evokes a celestial wonder and spiritual longing.
Subsequent to the end of the dinosaur age, the reformation of Earth is also stunningly rendered, with the planet trying to heal and gain back what it had built before the planet was nearly destroyed. Malick does gracefulness like no one else and the elegance and fluid shape of these scenes is mesmerizing and a stark reminder to never take this beautiful planet for granted.
vot__communallife_rgbvot_geyser_rgb
The Pitt narration is concise and reminiscent of David Attenborough’s narrative style in the BBC nature documentaries he is so famous for contributing his vocals to (think “Frozen Planet”). It is informative and contextualized enough to hold us enthralled in all its stunning images. There is little laborious contemplation, just straightforward storytelling, which is a breath a fresh air given the overtly ponderous hot air of Malick’s last two films “To The Wonder” and “Knight of Cups.”
There’s an ironic paradox to the film’s economy: it still could be longer. With an idea that could quite conceivably be one of the most ambitious in movie history, it is a real shame that Malick doesn’t add more content after the Homosapiens segment and just decides to end his movie on an ambiguous note of what the Earth’s final days might look like, with the planet swept up by a black hole and just vanishing as if it never existed.
The biggest selling point is obviously the IMAX itself and it’s the main reason why this film succeeds magnificently. If there ever was a film that made to maximally display IMAX’s effectiveness and breathtaking technological prowess, this is it.
vot_icebergs_rgb
While ‘Life’s Journey’ might be a deeper meditation on the meaning of life and deeper questions of who we are, ‘The IMAX Experience’ is a more realized version of similar ideas. Ultimately, ‘The IMAX Experience’ is tone poem to not only planet Earth and the life that inhabits it, but marvels at how this miracle was created. [B+]

Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy in masterfully crafted "Jackie"


The first trailer for this film is upon us. Here is what I had to say about the film at TIFF:

"Natalie Portman’s performance as Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy is masterful. If you thought there was nothing else that could be said about that fateful day when JFK was shot and killed in Dallas then you were wrong. Director Pablo Larraín (Neruda) dissects the incident through Jackie’s own eyes. The film takes place in the hours following JFK’s death as the First Lady tries to comprehend the magnitude of the event. Through the use of finely crafted flashbacks, Larrain strips the cinematic conventions that come with bio-pics and gets to the core of Jackie’s psyche at the time. Portman’s performance is a high-wire act of intrigue. She never fully reveals the exact reasons for some of Jackie’s behavior and  though we can never truly know if there was manipulation involved with her grief, this is hinted at. In a way Larrain and Portman are playing with the audience with an immaculate mix of enigma, grief and cynicism. It’s an artfully crafted thing, this “Jackie.”

"Patriot's Day" looks like another "America rah rah" Peter Berg film

"Patriots Day"

If you can go past the "America rah rah" feel of the trailer, and quite possibly the whole movie, there is definite cause for interest. Look at that cast: Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Kevin Bacon, J.K. Simmons. From what I have been hearing this is more of a procedural film, looking for the bombers, than an actual day-of summary. I like that. Although after "Deepwater Horizon" I have a little more doubt about the final result. "Horizon" didn't delve into the big issues of the BP spill, instead focusing on action-packed mayhem. This movie should be more subtle, layered out and, maybe, hold off on the patriotism a bit, but the trailer is all about that.

Berg's films have been, just like Clint Eastwood's of late, very much attuned to the conservative part of America. Blue-collar, middle class heroes on duty, to serve and protect this great nation of ours. "American Sniper" is a perfect example. I dug that film quite a bit, but there was a whole Left vs Right debate to that film about the heroic merits of its title character. Slightly adhering to the right is, in my books, not a problem and, in fact, very welcome, but the first image we see in this trailer is of an America flag waving at half-mast right down to Katherine Lee's stirring "America the Beautiful". Not subtle at all. Keep it a little down Mr. Berg, you have the potential for a great movie here.

Earlier this week I wrote:

"The Boston Marathon bombings as directed by Peter Berg. Word of mouth says this is great, but we will have to wait and see. There are no festival showings as we speak, but this is a hard movie to fuck up. The news that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross will be scoring it brings additional street cred to the film."



If you're still not sure how the American right-wing can bump up a movie at the Box-office, look no further than these fine examples:

American Sniper $350 million
The Passion of the Christ $612 million
Juno $235 million
Lone Survivor $154 million
Black Hawk Down $172 million
Gran Torino $147 million
Sully $107 million
Deepwater Horizon (ongoing)
13 Hours: The Secrets Soldiers of Benghazi $70 million

"Girl on the Train" doesn't live up to hype [Review]

Emily Blunt is great as Rachel, the boozy, depressed and haunted protagonist that has complete rock-bottom in Tate Taylor’s “The Girl on the Train.” The film is based on Paula Hawkins' ultra-popular bestseller, a twisty, pulpy and feminist murder-mystery that Taylor tries to mold into his own “Gone Girl.”
Blunt, a venerable actress with immense talent, is a force of nature here, using her eyes to lure us into Rachel’s disturbed psyche. She’s the “girl” on the train and every day, it seems all day, she rides that train which, rather a little too slowly perhaps, passes by Megan Hipwell’s cozy home (Haley Bennett). Megan has everything Rachel worked so hard to get, but lost in the process.

Then Megan goes missing, which leads Rachel to go into a investigation-mode. Obsessively she starts to think she is losing her mind, which makes her all the more unreliable to the viewer. Rachel has, of course, no idea that Megan has a very personal connection to her life, but to reveal how or why would be to give away the twists and turns that have made Hawkins’ novel such a worldwide success.
Blunt’s performance is the clear highlight of the film. She keeps the film anchored to a degree, even when it threatens to, pardon the pun, derail. Playing a drunk is no easy feat for any actor, the risk of overacting can damn near ruin a film, but Blunt is convincing and, in many instances, heartbreaking. We can’t help, but root Rachel even when she continuously fucks up in scene after scene.
“The Girl on the Train” becomes less involving as the twists start to pile up and the puzzle begins to come together. It is not a terrible attempt at the pulpy female sex novel, but it feels less thrilling than it should be. The flashbacks are a neat narrative technique to get us involved, but the payoff is rather lackluster. Much of the blame must go to Erin Cressida’s screenplay which has half-written characters that barely register as fully fleshed and interesting people. Only Blunt gets away with having any sort of three-dimensional persona. 

Taylor, whose last film “The Help was a little too sunny-looking for its serious subject matter, tries to add dark interiors to every frame. The three women, residents of the posh New York suburb of Ardsley-on-Hudson, have enough secrets to carry hard-earned drama throughout the films 112 minute running time. The problem is that Taylor, unlike Fincher, has no real sense of style or panache to carry such a heavily-dosed, pulpy film. He seems to struggle with the direction he wants his film to go. Is it a drama? A satire? A morality play? Pulp trash? That’s what distinguishes his directorial hand to Fincher’s who found a subversive, satirically dark tone to his source material [C]

[Interview] "American Honey" star Sasha Lane


Andrea Arnold’s "American Honey" is a polarizing film. A 160 minute road trip to an Americana we rarely see onscreen. It is like a "Grapes of Wrath" or "On the Road" for and about millenials. 

Arnold depicts an American society of millennials that are disconnected with their country. They’d rather sell their bodies than live in a capitalist-run society trying to live the “American dream”. The structure runs constant repetitive circles, and yet we are fully engaged. There’s a sense of unimaginable freedom in Arnold’s filmmaking. It’s a vital and great American movie.

Non-professional actress Sasha Lane plays Star, a lost American soul that decides to hop on-board a bus full of Magazine-selling kids that go cross country to make money by selling subscriptions. On the way to nowhere they argue, fight, make love and have bus-ride sing alongs to Top 40 radio. 

The 21 year-old Lane is a natural and perfectly captures the isolation and resistance that is slowly creeping up with American millennials, more specifically their search for purpose in a world filled hopelessness.

I spoke to Lane about her peculiar, unlikely story:

So tell me how this whole adventure with the movie started.
It was the middle of Spring Break – I was at the beach in the middle of Panama City. And that’s such a big beach with so many people, but she noticed me for some reason. My spring break was going pretty crazy. I was getting kicked out of hotels and it was just shitty. She came up to me and was just, ‘I’m Andrea. I’m doing this movie. I know this sounds weird,’ and I don’t really remember what happened next. It’s all justa total blur. I told her she could come to my hotel that night, and I didn’t think she’d come. I was kind of surprised when she did. she called me and said “Im outside” I thought to myself “oh this woman is serious”. My friends actually googled her in the hotel room to make sure this was safe

Had you seen any of her films before?
No, but after that I watched “Fish Tank” and she told me that the way the film followed Mia was the way it would follow me. The whole aesthetic of it, the music, I really enjoyed it and it got me excited for making the movie.

How was she as director?
She’s so open and she loves people, she loves chaos. She also gave me advice and just said “be you I chose you for who you are.” So I felt comfortable. We built this trust that lasted all the way through the movie shoot.

So not only did you end up becoming an actress, but the film then gets selected for Cannes for "Official Competition." How was that experience?
Nothing will top Cannes. That was the first time we all saw the movie. There was so much energy in that room. A lot of love. It was also such a surreal and intense experience. There was so much love in Cannes. I’m just getting emotional right now thinking and talking about it.

Did your parents see the film? What was their reaction?
My dad and stepmom saw it. My dad walked out, I don’t really know why and to what extent, but we don’t really talk about it. But they, supposedly, both loved what they saw”

Your dad walked out?
Yeah, I haven’t really spoken to him about it, but I understand. I have no hard feelings. Everything happened so suddenly and all of a sudden there I am acting in a big movie. It can be an overwhelming experience.

What was it like watching yourself onscreen?
It felt weird. While we were shooting the film I wasn’t really sure what Andrea was trying to create, but once I saw the film it felt like an epiphany. It just all gelled. I was also thinking of all the experiences and moments I had with each individual scene and it's all just such a beautiful thing”

How many hours of footage did you guys get?
There was 100 hours worth of film. The movie also felt so long to everyone, but there’s just so much, but a lot of those were the van scenes.

You mean musical numbers?
Yeah.

How did those work out exactly? They feel so organic and communal onscreen.
We were just trying to get into a lot of the music Andrea was playing for us. You’re loose, you’re having fun and you just get into it. You were allowed to be like “I’m not feeling it today” and that made it very organic and real.” We would think of these random songs, get them played, but if Andrea couldn’t get them approved we wouldn’t be able to use them.

Did anything else change from the original version Andrea had in mind?
The ending changed because she ended up taking on who my character was and how I changed over the course of the movie. I don’t know how it changed, but I was told it was very different.

The cast also seemed to be a very tight unit onscreen.
Yeah, we all became friends. A lot of that excitement and fun onscreen was very genuine and real. A lot of love. Also, many of the hotels we stayed at had bed bugs so we’d hang out a lot outside and we bonded that way, until we could get another shitty hotel which was most probably across the street from the other one. We stayed in those motels and every day was shot like it was that day. The film feels like life.

The film tackles a side of America that we rarely see onscreen.
There's a lot that people don’t know about that part of the country and some people even refuse to see it. These are parts that don’t get looked at but should be looked at. People need to be aware of what’s going on there. I know about that part so well, the people, the poverty. I am that kid that gets discarded and pushed to the side. I am that kid that has dreams that nobody bothered to care or give a chance. There is a lot of beauty and light in people and the communities that are formed in places like that.

How would you describe in one sentence this whole experience?
It just felt really whole, and it felt like the right decision to make, to say yes, I think that was what I was looking for, but I didn’t know what exactly it was. It worked out in such a perfect way.”

Bad Idea? "Mad Max: Fury Road - Black & Chrome Edition" Gets a Theatrical Premiere

mad-max-fury-road-black-and-chrome-2

George Miller has always stated that the best version of "Mad Max: Fury Road" was the black and white version he first intended for release two summer ago. Speaking with /Film last year he stated:

"We spent a lot of time in DI (digital intermediate), and we had a very fine colorist, Eric Whipp. One thing I’ve noticed is that the default position for everyone is to de-saturate post-apocalyptic movies. There’s only two ways to go, make them black and white — the best version of this movie is black and white, but people reserve that for art movies now. The other version is to really go all-out on the color. The usual teal and orange thing? That’s all the colors we had to work with. The desert’s orange and the sky is teal, and we either could de-saturate it, or crank it up, to differentiate the movie. Plus, it can get really tiring watching this dull, de-saturated color, unless you go all the way out and make it black and white."

The "Black & Chrome" edition of the film will have its theatrical premiere at SpectreFest 2016 in Los Angeles on Monday 11/1 at 7:30pm. 

If it were up to Miller the "Black & Chrome" edition would have been the only version released, but one does have to wonder about the actual colored version, the one that got released last year, and the eye-popping colors and landscapes that were perfectly captured by cinematographer John Seale. It will be hard to top that pop masterpiece. It is almost inconceivable to think of "Mad Max: Fury Road" as anything but a colored film. Its Western vibe fits perfectly with its sandy colors. To take a away color from such an eye-popping experience might to the film a major disservice.

Yes, maybe George Miller did intend for a "Black & Chrome" version at first, but it was such a perfect cinematic display that I wonder if he is actually hurting the original film instead of just letting it be and age like fine wine over time. 

"The Birth of a Nation" is an amateurish portrayal of an important story


Winning the Dramatic Grand Jury Prize and Audience Award at Sundance was supposed to be a sign that Nate Parker's "The Birth of a Nation" was about to take Hollywood by storm. It was made to piss people off and get them out of their seats shouting, debating, but what happened instead was unexpected. The controversy that arose about its writer-director's past marred any kind of momentum that was created in Park City this past January.

Recounting the true story of Nat Turner, an African American Slave that lead a rebellion in 1831 to free African-Americans in Virgina, "The Birth of a Nation" seems to be more successful at giving a voice to this important African-American story than by the way it actually articulates it onscreen. However, there’s blood soaked, sweat induced passion in every frame of Nate Parker’s flawed film. You can never discount this kind of filmmaking, even when it’s by a first-time filmmaker still learning his narrative steps.

Was the buzz and acclaim that the film received in January merited/justified? Of course not. Parker makes mistakes in his filmmaking and those mistake do end up costing him. Portraying Turner as Jesus-like figure doesn't help, nor does the fact that he fumblingly sets up his story in a lame almost skittish way. Also, the actual rebellion, the most interesting and exciting part of the film, only happens near the end. Bad decision. Parker isn't yet fit to carry such a heavy subject matter as a director, his amateurish mistakes are absurd and almost too naive to comprehend, but, of course, his mind and passion are in the right place and his movie relevant as ever, which is why so many were suckered into praising this film to the Gods just a couple of months ago.

Parker means to make an "epic," but there is no "epic" feel to his film. It feels flat and devoid of any artfulness. It doesn't feel cinematic. One might wonder the potential of such a relevant and important story in the hands of an Ava DuVernay or Spike Lee. That would have made for a more fully fleshed out and reflective film than what Parker gives us.

A film like this one is very important to bring to the forefront of the mainstream. Nat Turner's story is one of historical significance that has been shunned away and put aside for way too many years. At the end of the day it won't necessarily be the execution that matters with "The Birth of a Nation," but the fundamental significance behind it. It does not deserve rave reviews and awards, but what it does deserve is you attention.

 [C+]

"The Maltese Falcon" turns 75 today



"Hmm, Bogie". That's what Jean-Paul Belmondo's character in "Breathless" silently utters to himself as he spots a "The Harder They Fall" poster on his way out of the cinema. That pretty much explains in a nutshell the influence that Humphrey Bogart has had on cinema. That moment was a kind of passing of the torch. Godard's French New Wave masterpiece is known as the first "modern" movie in the history of cinema. No coincidence it is heavily influenced by Bogart's movies, specifically "The Maltese Falcon."  Directed by John Huston, this 1940 masterpiece featured an astonishing performance from Bogart as Samuel Spade, a private eye that enters a case that involves three eccentric criminals, a gorgeous pathological liar, and a golden statuette that everybody wants a piece of. To find out that this timeless classic turns 75 years of age today is to be reminded of just how ageless the film really is.

Huston and Bogart put any sort of plot in the backseat, instead focusing on character. What we get is the story of a man that isn't your typical hero, and in fact, he isn't a hero at all. Spade is a man who has his own moral code. His own rules of the game. The whodunit becomes less important than how we respond to the characters. That's what makes "The Maltese Falcon" a classic. We see more and appreciate more every time we watch it. 

Although 1940's "Stranger on the Third Floor" is known as the first official "film noir" I tend to credit Huston for shaping and molding the genre right down to its quintessential core a year later with "Falcon." 

For Huston, telling this story posed a problem. Telling it straight wouldn't do it justice – there were too many twists, too much baggage. Plot seemed to be irrelevant here. The vulnerable director decided to, riskily, focus on character and dialogue. One way to appreciate Huston's choices is to LISTEN to the movie. Hear the voices. Notice how Huston relies on the exotic accents of his characters to keep us interested. Could we endure the scene in which main villain Kasper Guttman explains the history of the Maltese falcon unless his clipped, somewhat prissy English accent held our attention? Same with Joe Cairo, his criminal associate and a man with almost indescribable accent. There are clues throughout that the three male villains of the piece might also be gay. Cairo is mocked by Spade for having a "perfumed Handkerchief" and we all know what that meant back in 1941. 

All of this leads to the ending, a few minutes of screen time in which more goes on, gesture by gesture, than a movie today could convey in a million words. Bogie's Samuel loves his dame, maybe, but he won't be a "sucker." Bogart plays Spade rough, playful and with more than his fair share of demons stirring up inside him. That we never see these demons makes Huston's film all the more haunting.

When the film is done we're left with the memory of Spade: a man whose sense of justice and moral code might conflict with our own, but at least he's loyal with his code. Take this for example: Spade didn't much like his murdered partner to begin with - after all, he had an affair with his partner's wife. But he wanted to find the person who ousted him. "When a man's partner is killed, he's supposed to do something about it.” he exclaims. It seems to be a street code, a rule of the game for Spade, even if it means bringing the woman he loves to jail. With all the harsh things Spade is capable of doing, we still respect him for sticking to the set of rules he has chosen to live by, his moral obligations. He seems to be living in his own world of ethics and scenery and it makes it all the more fascinating to watch.

Affleck/Batman Solo Film will be Titled "The Batman" and Zack Snyder isn't directing!

Image result for affleck batman

Know what? Zack Snyder is a terrible filmmaker. I used to look forward to a Batman movie ever since I laid eyes on Tim Burton's eye-popping 1989 classic. Of course, Joel Schumacher's "Batman & Robin" doomed it for me, but then Christopher Nolan happened. Those were three great movies, yes even "The Dark Knight Rises."


I hate to admit it, but I was really tempted to walk out of "Batman vs. Superman." Snyder really sucked out any sort of humanity that was left in his superhero movies with that one. The guy is just a bad filmmaker. He's riding on a visual style that is so artificial and cold. It might have somewhat worked with "300," but that movie is starting to look more and more like a fluke. He adheres to a fanboy culture that is 90% ADD and have no blueprint as to what a good movie should look like.

With all that being said I am glad he's not taking the director's chair for the upcoming Batman film. Instead we have Ben Affleck directing and I'm fine with that. Affleck is more competent and has a better visual eye for action. Although if you watch "The Town," and "Gone Baby Gone" you will notice that he is very much influenced by Michael Mann's "Heat," which coincidentally was a major influence for Christopher Nolan, especially in "The Dark Knight."

I'm guess this will be more Nolan-esque than Snyder-esque, which I'm fine with, but I also hope that Affleck finds some kind of Auteuristic stamp for his film. He was a decent Batman in the last film as well. Consider me a little more hopeful about this next Caped Crusader venture.

In an interview with the Associated Press Affleck confirmed the official title for his film:

“The movie I think is going to be called ‘The Batman’. At least that’s what we’re going with right now. I might change it… That’s about all I got right now. We’re working on the script, the script is going well, I’m really excited about it.”

Full interview can be found HERE

These are, right now, your 10 likely Best Picture contenders

I do believe that the nominees might also change based on the political climate around Oscar time, but as we stand these 10 seem to be the sure-fire contenders with the most buzz at the moment. Notice, four have yet to be seen, but that will change this week as Ang Lee's "Billy Lynn's Long Haltime Walk" will finally get its world premiere at the New York Film Festival.



Best Picture


(1) La La Land
People have really gone Ga Ga over La La. What more is there to say? Also, the fact that it's an actual great picture that merits all the buzz definitely helps its case. I am NOT a fan of the movie musicals we have gotten the last 20 or so years, but I do believe this is the best movie musical since "All That Jazz."

(2) Billy Lynn's Long Half-Time Walk
The big day is this week, that's when Ang Lee's latest premieres at the New York Film Festival. Wouldn't it be tragic if it ends up being an average movie? All signs point to it being a groundbreaker. Some people have actually seen it and there really is nothing negative thus far that has come out about it. Plus, this is Ang Lee. 

(3) Manchester by The Sea
Ever since I saw this at Sundance I've been touting it as a contender. The reviews are unanimous and the buzz is deafening. Casey Affleck is also a likely Best Actor contender. This is a movie movie. No special effects, no showiness whatsoever. It's the perfect example of why we became film fans in the first place. 

(4) Fences
The teaser for this Denzel Washington movie landed last week with universal acclaim. I'm not entirely sold just yet. Washington as a director has been spotty at best, but, again, the #Oscarssowhite movement might push this one to a nomination. If it does end up with positive reviews then we might be talking about a possible winner. 

(5) Silence
I think we're all very happy this is actually coming out this year. It will be a hard sell, 3+ hours Japanese epic about the crusades, but since this is Marti Scorsese I presume it will get a nomination. A win is another story. The trailer has yet to be released, but it might tell us a lot about what to expect and its Oscar chances.

(6) Sully
The reviews are positive. Not all-out raves, but positive. Clint Eastwood is beloved in the industry. But most of all, it was number one at the box-office for three straight weeks. It struck a chord with mainstream audiences. This proves that they do, in fact, want a serious adult drama from time to time. Don't you just love fall movie season? 

(7) Lion
Struck a major chord with the Toronto crowd. I even tweeted after the world premiere, and the response it got from the crowd, that I believed it could win the People's Choice Award. It didn't, but it got a very admirable runner-up spot. It's the Weinstein Brothers doing what they do best and giving us a crowd-pleaser that will surely win many hearts and minds. I didn't care for it, but that doesn't matter.

(8) Loving
What #Oscarssowhite did last year was open up possibilities for a slew of African-American artists in the industry. Good thing that happened. This year we are seeing the effects of that movement. "Loving" is just that, a lovingly told true story that is simply told, but also avoids any of the cliches that come with such a movie. Jeff Nichols is also an up and coming artist that is only starting to get his engines rolling. Ruth Negga will get a Best Actress nomination for her incredible performance.

(9) Patriot's Day
The Boston Marathon bombings as directed by Peter Berg. Word of mouth says this is great, but we will have to wait and see what the critics say about it. There are no festival showings as we speak, but this is a hard movie to fuck up. The news that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross will be scoring it brings additional street cred to the film. 

(10) Moonlight
Why is this #10? Because I have seen it and I know it is not the most accessible film. It's a great, artful, meditative film, but I don't know if it can cross the mainstream. At the very least I hope it gets a nomination because it is such a groundbreaker and director Barry Jenkins is an artist in the truest sense of the word. 

"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tale No Tells" teaser trailer reveals same old, same old


My first reaction upon finding out there was a new "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie coming out: "They're still making those movies?" I gave up watching after the second film, one look at Google telling me my "Pirates" Post-Mortem was 2006's "Dead Men's Chest," but these films still make a ton of money and there seems to be demand for it.  The first film was perfectly fine for what it was, it got Johnny Depp a well deserved Oscar-nomination for his role as Jack Sparrow, a playful riff on the question "How would Keith Richards look as a Pirate?" 

The bad guy in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tale No Tells" is played by Javier Bardem, a great actor, and, as far as casting choices go, this one ain't bad. 

IMDB has the synopsis as follows: 

"Captain Jack Sparrow is pursued by an old rival, Captain Salazar, who along with his crew of ghost pirates has escaped from the Devil's Triangle, and is determined to kill every pirate at sea. Jack seeks the Trident of Poseidon, a powerful artifact that grants its possessor total control over the seas, in order to defeat Salazar."

Is anyone that reads this site seriously excited by this?