Category Archives: Movie Review

“The Glass Castle” film review

Posted on by
Reply

An organic, unapologetic emotional rollercoaster. Based on the novel by the same name written by Jeannette Walls, The Glass Castle provides audiences with a glimpse into the childhood, young adulthood, and then-present day life of Jeannette Walls. After watching the film and end-credit scenes of the real Jeanette and family, it is clear that the movie is supported by a screenplay that takes its inspiration from the tome-like book. From what I have read, this film successfully adapts the novel to the screen, inclusive of all the intangibles and the unseen or heard elements from the book. Furthermore, this film strikes a fantastic balance between family drama and biographical motion picture. For all that this film has going for it, it falls short of the big-budget tear-jerker that is expected of Destin Daniel Cretton after his hit Short Term 12. However, those who choose to see this gritty slice of life, who have not seen Cretton’s previous works, will likely miss just how safely objective this film is. Although you will likely identify with one or more of the characters, in general, audiences will feel that they are safely watching the events unfold from a removed vantage point. The danger in bringing a story like this one to screen is creating characters that are either too softened compared to the real people or too detestable. Fortunately, Cretton skillfully tells a story that plays as authentic as cinematically possible.

You can choose your friends and lovers, but you cannot choose your family. The Glass Castle is the film adaptation of the memoire authored by Jeannette Walls (the central character). Jeannette and her three siblings must learn to take care of themselves and survive life as their parents are free-spirited responsibility-adverse individuals who inspire and inhibit growth and education. When he was younger, their father generated a great deal of warmth, compassion, individualism, and creativity; but when he turned to drinking more heavily, he allowed them to go without food and watched over them like a warden watches over prisoners. Meanwhile, mom was completely disgusted with the idea of being a domestic so she allowed the children to care for themselves and even prepare her meals. Jeannette and her siblings faced great adversity growing up, but grew to become contributing members of society.

This is one of those films that you go into thinking that a particular actor or character is the main one, but in all reality, it is the antagonist, if you will, that is the main character. Jeannette Walls (Brie Larson) may be the author of the novel and a lead character, but it is actually Rex’s (Woody Harrelson) movie. On one hand, Rex is a brilliant father who is preparing his kids for the harsh realities of life and how to not fall victim to blending in or turning into someone you are not. On the other, he is a belligerent drunk who cares very little for the well-being of his children and even ships them off to live with his aged mother who is a child molester. Through all the struggles and setbacks, Jeannette and her siblings learn resilience and strength to face whatever life throws their way whether that is extreme poverty or molestation.

The Glass Castle relies upon switching between the present story and flashbacks to hone in on the relationship between Jeannette and her father Rex. Often times, flashbacks are used as means to lazily integrate exposition into the film or explain some other dynamic; however, much like the background story in Fried Green Tomatoes is just as interesting as the foreground story, the rotation between Jeannette’s childhood and her adulthood is performs well and creates quite the interesting dichotomy. Both have the central focus of showing the development or lack thereof in Jeannette’s and Rex’s relationship. Not that other relationships take a backseat, but there focus is squarely on Rex and Jennette. There is one particular scene in the film that deserves special attention, and that is the restaurant scene with Jeannette and Rose Many, her mom played by Naomi Watts. The degree to which this scene is pitch-perfect is almost uncanny. The tension, emotion, and cathartic release commands attention.

Ultimately, the strength of this film lies in the writing and lead cast. Only to a minor extent does the screenplay depart from the source material. And in doing so, the film is strengthened. For those who enjoy films in the vein of The Help, you will enjoy this story as well. To keep the film from being too dark, Cretton adds some feel-good moments to the film that do not attempt to sanitize the past but honors the complicated truth in Jeannette’s and Rex’s relationship.

“Dark Tower” movie review

Posted on by
Reply

A paint-by-the-numbers “epic” story with a prolific number of Stephen King references. Adapted from the Dark Tower series of novels by Stephen King, Dark Tower introduces movie audiences to one of King’s masterpiece works of literature. Unfortunately, the movie takes place in the middle of the series and fails to leave audiences wanting to see more. For the most part, it offers up little more than an enhanced SyFy Channel original movie or a one-time HBO film. With a powerhouse leading cast consisting of Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey, it constantly feels that the actors were held back from that which we are normally accustomed. That is, not to say that there aren’t enjoyable parts of the movie–certainly seeing all the King references are fun and it is a great premise. I only wish the story and characters had been allowed to develop over the course of three films. Although there is sufficient evidence to suggest that some movies in the recent past that have been forced into a trilogy instead of a strong, concise single film, this is an example of a one-time film that truly needed the room of three films to develop and emotionally connect with audiences. There is never a dull moment in the film, nor an opportunity to become bored because the film is incredibly rushed and turning points are forced into place.

At the center of the universe stands a massively tall dark tower that keeps the bulk of evil forces at bay. Under attack by Walter (McConaughey), the last gunslinger Rolland (Elba) must destroy Walter and his following before they destroy the dark tower and wreak havoc on Keystone Earth and the other planets in the universe. Harvesting children with “the shine” from earth, to use their minds to destroy the tower, is the method employed by Walter and he has his eyes on a child whose shine is greater than any other. After Jake (Tom Taylor) evades capture by Walter’s henchmen, he finds himself on Mid World where he meets gunslinger Rolland. Under constant siege by Water, Rolland and Jake must make a arduous journey to Walter’s headquarters where he is mounting his attack against the tower. With the fate of the universe at stake, Rolland, Walter, and Jake face-off in an epic battle of good versus evil.

There is not much to dissect here. One thing is for sure–and I have not read the books–BUT, from what I know of the books, fans of the literature will not like the film because it takes what happens over the course of “King” sized novels and condenses it down to little more than a short story turned 2hr film. Not having read the books, I was not set up for disappointment. That being the case, I enjoyed the film for the most part. But it was obvious that it was incredibly rushed and there was little if any development in plot or character. No emotional investment to be found. It’s a shame; the premise of the film is fascinating and I think there is a high degree of probability that I would have enjoyed following the franchise had it been more than one film. The way the movie ends does lend itself to possible sequels, but after the very “television” feel of this one, it is going to have a hard time convincing future audiences to invest time and spend money on it. If anything, this film does prompt me to read the novels upon which it is based. One argument that could be made in the film’s defense is the same one that can be made when looking at many of the films based upon King’s works. His novels are so dense, internally driven, and detailed that is is difficult to successfully translate effectively from page to screen. Obviously, there are exceptions to this trend (i.e. the upcoming IT theatrical release).

If you are a fan of fantasy and adventure films with a hint of science-fiction, then you will likely enjoy this movie. If you love the series of books, I feel fairly confident that you will not like this adaptation. Perhaps this film will inspire a network to spearhead an epic television series. I think that is where this story will be best shown.

Written by R.L. Terry

Edited by J.M. Wead

“Dunkirk” film review

Posted on by
1

Journalism meets cinematic visual storytelling. Christopher Nolan’s war epic Dunkirk provides audiences with a different kind of war movie experience. Different in that the narrative is nonlinear and highly experimental. From a technical perspective, the film is flawless. The cinematography, sound design, and score all work together to create an immersive experience in which that fourth wall is nearly removed. One of my friends that I saw the film with last night described it as being a fly on the wall within each timeline. With little dialog, the focus is on the various groups of the army, air force, and civilians. The stylistic film reminds me of photo/video journalism. Dunkirk demonstrates that an emotionally satisfying experience can be delivered without conventional storytelling. In many ways Norma Desmond would be proud of Nolan’s film because “[he] didn’t need dialog, [he] had faces.” Dunkirk invites audiences in for a rare glimpse into the reality of war, and the reality of not only the armed forces but the civilian assistance that truly made the difference and just why this particular war story is so remarkable. Be sure to brush up on your knowledge of the events of Dunkirk before watching the film. You’re definitely going to need to have a base of knowledge of the theatre before becoming the proverbial fly on the wall.

Instead of a plot synopsis, here is what Wikipedia has as a summary of the history of Dunkirk Evacuation. This is definitely going to be helpful prior to watching the film.

During the Second World War (1939–1945), in the May 1940 Battle of France, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in France aiding the French, was cut off from the rest of the French Army by the German advance. Encircled by the Germans they retreated to the area around the port of Dunkirk. For years, it was assumed that Adolf Hitler ordered the German Army to stop the attack, favouring bombardment by the Luftwaffe. However, according to the Official War Diary of Army Group A, its commander, Generaloberst Gerd von Rundstedt, ordered the halt. Hitler merely validated the order several hours after the fact. This lull in the action gave the British a few days to evacuate by sea and fortify defences. Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, ordered any ship or boat available, large or small, to collect the stranded soldiers. 338,226 men (including 123,000 French soldiers) were evacuated – the miracle of Dunkirk, as Churchill called it. It took over 900 vessels to evacuate the Allied forces and although over two-thirds of those rescued embarked via the harbour, almost 100,000 were taken off the beaches. More than 40,000 vehicles as well as massive amounts of other military equipment and supplies were left behind, their value being less than that of trained fighting men. The British evacuation of Dunkirk through the English Channel was codenamed Operation Dynamo. Forty thousand Allied soldiers (some who carried on fighting after the official evacuation) were captured or forced to make their own way home through a variety of routes including via neutral Spain.

If you are approaching Dunkirk from a desire to see a Saving Private Ryan, then you may want to rethink going to see this film. With little convention in the storytelling, this film puts you on the beach, in the air, or on the sea alongside the civilians, pilots, soldiers, and officers. The focus is not on the characters, special effects, or the bloody atrocities of war, but focussed on highlighting a significant event in WWII history that has largely gone unknown except for those in France and the UK. You are very much like a journalist who is capturing the imagery with your camera. It’s a snapshot of war, not necessarily the story of war. War history buffs, this IS a film for you!

“The Big Sick” movie review

Posted on by
2

Organic and relatable. From Amazon Studios and Lionsgate comes Judd Apatow’s The Big Sick directed by Michael Showalter. Despite being billed as a romantic comedy (romcom), it is more like a family drama with comedic moments. What makes the plot of The Big Sick so incredibly relatable is its central focus on two star-cross’d lovers caught between two seemingly incompatible worlds. Beyond featuring two people who fall in love quickly, then realize how there is little chance of a future in which they are together, this story has little in common with Romeo & Juliet. No feuding families or riots here, just two 20-somethings who are trying to make it in this world, and by sheer happenstance fall for each other. However, much like the families from which Romeo and Juliet came, there are two opposing forces at work in this love story. It is clear from the screenplay and cast that all the elements are at work to generate a response from the audiences that would make this an endearing classic in the vein of Terms of Endearment. The relatability and organicness of this film comes from the fact that the entire cast–not just the lead characters–are every-day 21st century Americans who are facing the real mountains and pitfalls of romance, acceptance, honesty, and devotion.

The Big Sick tells the true-life story of the courtship between Pakistani-American Kumail (Kumail Nanjiani) and Chicago native Emily (Zoe Kazan). Kumail is a stand-up comic–or rather–he is desperately trying to be. He’s good enough for a small venue but he dreams of performing at the Montreal Comedy Festival. Emily is a graduate student at the University of Chicago studying psychology. Between family backgrounds and professional interests, the two of them could not be more different. When Kumail and Emily fall in love with each other, everything seems to be going so incredibly well over the next few months; but when Emily learns that Kumail cannot take the next step from dating to engagement because of his Pakistani family’s traditions regarding arranged marriage to a Pakistani girl, their relationship falls apart. As circumstance would have it, Emily must be placed under a medically-induced coma in order to stabilize after her health takes an acute turn downward. With Emily’s parents (Holly Hunter and Ray Romano) in town, Kumail must deal with his ex-girlfriend’s health condition and the fact that her her parents despise Kumail after he led their daughter on. Realizing that he cannot allow his family to determine his fate, Kumail is determined to win over Emilys parents and show Emily that he can be who she needs him to be.

What sets The Big Sick apart from a typical par-for-the-course romcom is the dimension and depth of the plot and characters. Ordinarily, a romcom contains a lighthearted story that requires little critical thinking and analysis because it is meant to be simply entertaining with a little heart along the way. Great for date nights and girls nights. Often times, in a traditionally structures romcom, the female character is the most interesting with the rest of the cast playing a lesser role. However, in this film, the most interesting character is the male love interest. Furthermore, the character chemistry and plot are greatly helped by Kumail and Emily being interesting respectively. The underdog trope is often applied to romcoms, and it certainly played a role in this film. In addition to the character and plot development on screen, the audience also goes through some soul-searching. Incidentally, the movie opens the door of discussion regarding the predisposition to how Pakistani and Americans view marriage and dating. Just like past films that commentated on marriage or dating between the black and white communities–which is what was needed in the not so distant past–this film raises awareness regarding marriage and dating as it relates to middle-eastern and American relationships. A timeless plot told through a contemporary setting.

 

“Baby Driver” movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Exhilarating! Edgar Wright’s Baby Driver is an accelerated non-stop comedic action-thriller that will have you in high-gear the entire drive time. Wildly entertaining! It offers up the best car chases, excellent characters, and displays solid writing in this subgenre of action films. During the golden age of Hollywood cinema, grand getaways, robberies, and car chase movies were a staple. Sony/Tristar, et al, demonstrate that one of the foundational plot types that provided audiences with thrills back then can be effectively resurrected today to embody the engine that drove those motion pictures and install it into a new, sleek body design to mesmerize and impress audiences of today. Certainly, Baby drives to the beat of his own mixtape in this movie, but the film itself goes further and integrates the rhythm of action into the sound design of the motion picture. Not to be left behind on the 80s throwback movies and TV shows bandwagon featuring hipsters and mixtapes, Wright crafts a summer film that rises above the all too cliché CGI robots taking to the sky and pirates swashbuckling across the seas to remind us that little can compare to the squeal of the wheel, love, and the witty turning of phrase. In short, Baby Driver is a self-aware pop-culture film but has the soul of a James Dean motion picture.

Meet Baby (Elgort). Yes, that’s B-A-B-Y Baby. He’s the unparalleled talented getaway driver for Doc’s (Spacey) Atlanta crime ring. With earbuds in place, playing classic rock or his own mixtapes, Baby drives, speeds, and maneuvers to the beat of his tunes. No police force is a match for his ability to evade his would-be captors in order to return Doc’s henchman (and woman) to the secret lair. As chance would have it, Baby meets Debora (James), the girl of his dreams, at his usual diner. All that stands in his way is one more job for Doc, or so he thinks. With payment in full of his debt to Doc on the horizon, Baby sees this as his opportunity to make a clean break and to ditch his shady lifestyle of crime. But when Doc approaches Baby with yet another job, Baby must decide to whom his allegiances lie and protect those he loves.

Any veteran filmmaker will tell you that it’s vitally important to hook the audience within the first three to five minutes of a film. Fail to hook producers at the beginning of the screenplay, and it’s file-thirteen for those 120 pages. As a director, it’s encumbered upon him or her to grab hold of the audience’s attention, creating the urge to want more, to know more. The first scene of Baby Driver is an incredible display of excellence in writing, directing, and the technical elements of motion picture creation. The magic of this scene lies in the ability for Wright to wow the audience, without leaving anyone “out there in the dark” (Sunset Blvd) overly-stimulated or left with the feeling of utter exhaustion. The scene is perfectly stimulating. It sets the bar high for the film, and continues to keep it up there for the entire runtime. Just like the pace of Baby’s driving, the pacing of the film is exquisitely handled and couldn’t be better! The biggest difference between this robbery/getaway film and similar films such as The Fast and the Furious is substance. In addition to the incredible cinematography and sound design paired with out of the world car chases, the film provides heart, soul, and qualitative substance that forms the foundation upon which the more superficial elements are laid.

The cast couldn’t have been more brilliantly selected. One of the hallmarks of an Edgar Wright film is the charismatic leads that display solid chemistry on screen. Just who are our heroes in this film? You’ll just have to watch it and decide for yourself. I love it when films take the more conventional concept of heroes and villains and turns it on its head. For whomever you decide are the heroes, you’ll certainly find yourself actively rooting for their survival and rooting for the villains to meet their demise in shockingly creative ways. When Kevin Spacey isn’t busy being the President of the United States, or more recently, an ex-President, he is the king pin of an Atlanta-based crime syndicate that stages fantastically wild robberies. And Baby is indebted to him and must reluctantly aid and abet as the best getaway driver ever to hit the screens in recent years–think a modern-day James Dean. Jaime Foxx plays the veteran head henchman extremely well and adds his own repulsive, yet comedic charm to his role. It would have been far too easy to play off Spacey and Foxx’s conventional talents to steel focus away from the central plot, but Wright strikes a perfect balance between his leads and the story. Elgort and Spacey’s on-screen chemistry was crafted with strategic precision in order to quickly solidify the frenemy relationship between the two characters. With Elgot increasing in popularity, Wright could have deflated to playing up the attractive bad boy tropes but instead allows Elgot’s Baby to develop organically throughout the film.

If you are seeking a summer film that clearly demonstrates a movie in which all the creative elements work seamlessly together in the manner in which they were respectively intended, then don’t miss Baby Driver while it’s in theatres. The energy you will feel in this film is nearly unparalleled by any in recent times, and that’s because both the major and minor components work together like a well-oiled machine. You will be at full throttle as you are instantly transported from your auditorium seat to the passenger seat in Baby’s car.

Written by R.L. Terry

Edited by J.M. Wead