Movie Review: Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower

Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Joe Piscatella.

 

When China took back control of Hong Kong in 1996, Hong Kongers were understandably worried about what that would mean for their way of life – after all, they were used to far more freedom that those in mainland China, and wanted to maintain that. In order to quell some of those concerns, China assured Hong Kong – and the world – that they wouldn’t try to change things for 50 years, and that they would “soon” allow Hong Kong to choose their own leaders to represent them. Those free elections never happened, and while Hong Kong clearly isn’t under as strict control as the rest of China, it also isn’t fair to say that they’ve left them alone, like they said they would either. The documentary Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower is an inspirational doc, centered on Joshua Wang – who as a 14 year old, created a group called “Scholarism” focused on fighting back against National Education, imposed on Hong Kong by China, and would become part of the Umbrella movement, to get Hong Kong free elections. Like many inspirational docs, it’s one of those film that can simultaneously make you feel good, but also suspect that you aren’t quite getting the whole story – and if you were, you wouldn’t quite be so inspired, as reality rends to be more complicated than this.

 

This isn’t to say you shouldn’t be inspired by the story of Joshua Wang. There are few teenagers in Canada or America who would so dedicate their time and energy to fight for what they believe in, and that’s in countries where you probably won’t be thrown in jail for protesting. Joshua is protesting against a government who doesn’t like to be criticized, and usually does not stand for it. The Scholarism protests against National Education eventually end up being a success – Hong Kong backs down, and allows schools to decide whether or not to proceed with its implementations. The Umbrella Movement is more complicated – the protests were widespread across Hong Kong – going on for months, and shutting down various streets and institutions. After a backlash against the police for initially responding with violence, the ended up basically ignoring the protestors, banking, correctly, on the fact that eventually people will move on with their lives.

 

The movie centers on Joshua throughout both parts of the movie – even while the film also acknowledges that he was hardly alone in fighting, and in term of the Umbrella Movement, he wasn’t among the leadership. This seems like an odd tactic, since other than acknowledge that fact, the film doesn’t really explore anyone other than Joshua – who admits that he became the public face, and felt some responsibility in that (there are times when he talks, when I wish the interviews would push him a little – it almost sounds like his ego is inflating, but they back off and don’t push). It’s also strange that the movie leaves a comment like “the students basically hijacked” the movement – and then doesn’t really explore that either.

 

The film is only 79 minutes long, and I think it’s safe to say that point of the movie is to inspire – is to be an uplifting documentary, about a kid who stands up for what he believes in, and keeps on fighting. Even though he has had mixed success, he keeps on fighting. There is inspiration to be taken from that for sure – and the film is good at showing why. But I do think that by so narrowly focusing on Joshua, the film misses much of the larger picture that could have made thing more complex.

Movie Review: I Am Jane Doe

I Am Jane Doe ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Mary Mazzio.

Written by: Jonathan Alter and Bob Fitzgerald and Jay Manson and Mary Mazzio and Alec Sokolow.

 

The documentary I Am Jane Doe tells an urgent and important story about the website Backpage.com – a kind of online classified site where you can sell pretty much anything – including, it seems, children for the purposes of sex. There is an “adult” section, where anyone can post ads for their services, which amounts to prostitution, but Backpages says they are not responsible for that – and they have been backed up by the courts. They simply provide the platform, and if others choose to break the law, it’s them who are responsible for that, not Backpages. If this was a case of adults finding other adults for the purposes of sex – even if money was exchanging hands – it wouldn’t be the scandal it is now – no matter what you think of prostitution, it is the oldest professional in the world, and it’s silly to think it wouldn’t go online. But Backpages has a bigger problem – it’s not just adults who are there, but children, being held by pimps, drugged into submission, and sold over and over and over again to adults for sex. This film tries to tell the story of Backpages in general, and also a few of the personal stories of the girls being sold – 13 and 15 year olds, whose real names are not identified in the, but who do – along with their families – tell their story, and the years of legal battles with Backpages that follows.

 

In all honesty, I think the film documentary tries to accomplish too much. Director Mary Mazzio knows that personal stories of the girls will hit the audience the hardest emotionally – and doesn’t shy away from allowing them and their families tell their story. There are also a number of sequences, where maudlin music plays over scenes of other children playing, dancing, etc. designed specifically to milk more and more tears from the audience – and inspire them to action. It is an undeniable laudable goal – but certainly does push the film into the area of the “hyperlink” documentary, called so because the end credits always include a screen that reads GET INVOLVED: and than a website address for more information.

 

It’s a little frustrating, because the case of Backpages itself, and the legal battle, is a fascinating one – one that pits the idea of child prostitution against Freedom of Speech, Net Neutrality, and a law passed in 1996, that specifically says ISP’s are not responsible for what third parties put on their site. In most cases, I agree that those things should be allowed – but there are limits to everything, and many of those lines are drawn around protecting children. A compelling case is made that Backpages allows people to promote child prostitution because they give advertisers a list of words and phrases to avoid, allow them to use codes words, and while they do employ screeners – they also instruct them not to be overly vigilant, to not reject anything that is borderline, and by allowing the ads to go live while the review process is up. At what point does all this become collusion in child prostitution?

 

I can see a great documentary being made about this subject – but I do think it would need to be more focused than I Am Jane Doe is. This doesn’t mean that, like the courts, it should basically ignore the stories of the victims – they should be given a voice – or that I don’t agree with the point of view of the documentary – because I do. But this is a complicated legal issue, and a better, more confident film may have been able to do more than simply lecture the audience for 90 minutes – which is basically what this film does.

Movie Review: Wonder Woman

Wonder Woman **** / *****

Directed by: Patty Jenkins.

Written by: Allan Heinberg & Zack Snyder and Jason Fuchs based on the comics created by William Moulton Marston. 

Starring: Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Chris Pine (Steve Trevor), Robin Wright (General Antiope), Danny Huston (General Erich Ludendorff), David Thewlis (Sir Patrick), Connie Nielsen (Queen Hippolyta), Elena Anaya (Doctor Isabel Maru / Doctor Poison), Lucy Davis (Etta Candy), Saïd Taghmaoui (Sameer), Ewen Bremner (Charlie), Eugene Brave Rock (Chief).

 

Wonder Woman acts as a corrective to so much that has been wrong with superhero movies – particularly DC Superhero movies in recent years, that even when the films makes missteps, or falls into some of the same traps that all superhero origin stories seem to, we forgive the film. The film is bright, smart and funny – has a few wonderful action sequences. The film isn’t the morose, self-serious drag that have marred the DC films so far – it actually reminded me more of two Marvel films – the first Captain America film, for its wartime setting, and general optimism, and the original Thor, for its fish out of water comedic elements. It helps that although this is another origin story, at least this is one we haven’t seen before – there are radioactive spiders, no gamma rays, no murdered parents (or uncles) and no farms in Smallville. While in many ways Wonder Woman follows the basic outline of so much that has come before it – the film at least does something new with it – not least of which is the fact that it has a female hero in the lead role, a premise the film takes seriously.

 

The film opens on Themyscira, an island in Paradise, where the Amazons live in peace, with no men around to ruin it. Diana is the daughter of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), who molded her out of clay, than prayed for Zeus to bring her to life. Legend tells that the Amazons are there to fight against the only ancient God left – Ares, God of War – and have been gifted a God Killer should he return. Diana is trained by her Aunt Antiope (Robin Wright), the fiercest warrior the Amazons have ever produced, just in case she is needed to fight. That day seemingly arrives when Diana witnesses a plane crash off the coast – and swims out of rescue the pilot. This is Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) – who brings with him news of the War to End All Wars (WWI) – and a few boat loads of Germans determined to kill him. Diana is convinced that this war is the work of Ares – and that she must return with Steve to find and kill Ares, and thus free mankind for his evil, violent grip.

 

As Wonder Woman, Israeli actress Gal Gadot was an unexpected choice, who turns out to be perfect for the role. She has a wonderfully beautiful and expressive face that she uses to great effect in the film, as she is confused by this world she has stepped into that she knows nothing about. She is smarter and stronger than anyone else in the movie, but has stepped into a world where misogyny is the norm – although her way of dealing with it is to basically ignore it (if she even realizes what’s going on) and charged right through anyway. The various costumes that adorn her – from her Amazonian dress on Themyscira to the Suffragette ensemble she wears in London, to the iconic costume – she finally really breaks out late in the film Gadot exudes supreme confidence. She also exudes empathy – a quality that male superheroes seemingly lack – but the film doesn’t see this as her weakness, but rather another strength. I worried that given the three credited screenwriters were men, than they would turn Wonder Woman into either a male fantasy or just a male superhero with breasts – but they didn’t do either of those things. Gadot, who was the best thing about Batman v. Superman last year – delivers on that promise her.

 

It also needs to be said that she matched every step of the way by Chris Pine, who is charming and funny and downright adorable as Steve Trevor. He is used to being the smartest guy in the room – the most charming, dashing, handsome, confident and competent. He recognizes right away that when Diana is there, that’s no longer the case – but he’s not threatened by it. The two have a playful banter between them that feels genuine – the film works better as relationship drama than any previous superhero movie I can think, where the romance always seems tacked on and unnecessary – here it works.

 

The main problem with the film is the problem that many origin stories eventually run into – that they have to spend so much time setting things up, that they run out of time to adequately tell the supposed plot of the film. The film has a couple of villains – a German General (Danny Huston) and his brilliant chemist Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya), who is developing a gas that will kill everyone. Supposedly the mission Diana, Steve and company go on is to stop them – but they hardly feel like fleshed out characters – but merely standings for other bad guys. The ending feels rushed in many ways – but then again, the film already runs well over two hours, how much longer could it be?

 

The film was directed by Patty Jenkins, marking her return to feature filmmaking following her debut film – the Oscar winning Monster way back in 2003. She was the right choice here, bringing with her genuine empathy for the characters, and stepping up for a few jaw dropping action sequences (the single handed WWI battle for Wonder Woman is an action highlight, better than anything yet in the DC universe).

 

In short, while Wonder Woman doesn’t reinvent the superhero movie, it is one of the best recent examples the genre has to offer. I wish my superhero obsessed daughter (whose favorite is Wonder Woman, thanks to DC Super Hero Girls) were just a little bit older, so I could take her to see this (I considered it, but especially after seeing the film, I think I made the right call – I don’t think I need to introduce her to the war stuff in this film quite this young). Nevertheless, as soon as she is old enough this will be the film I use to introduce her to this larger cinematic world. It is the film so many have been waiting for.

Movie Review: Berlin Syndrome

Berlin Syndrome *** / *****

Directed by: Cate Shortland.

Written by: Shaun Grant and Cate Shortland based on the novel by Melanie Joosten.

Starring: Teresa Palmer (Clare), Max Riemelt (Andi). 

 

The premise of Berlin Syndrome sounds like its either going to be one of those hard-to-watch horror films like the recent Hounds of Love, that make you want to turn away is disgust, but refuses to let you go, or an exploitation film – a fun guilty pleasure, that doesn’t take itself seriously, but has a blast along the way. Instead of either of those approaches – both of which probably would have been easier – co-writer/director Cate Shortland decides to take the premise of the film seriously, and tries to dive into the psychological makeup of the two people at the center of her film. It’s an interesting choice to be sure – and a not altogether successful one – but I appreciated the effort.

 

As the film opens, we think we may be watching a romantic comedy or drama – the Australian tourist, Clare (Teresa Palmer) in Berlin, taking photos of the GDR architecture, who meets the handsome, charming Andi (Max Riemelt) – a high school teacher – and the two bond quickly. She’s supposed to move onto Dresden – but decides to stay for a little while longer, to see where this thing with Andi may go. Things do get hot and heavy – the go to his apartment, in an empty building, and everything is just like you see in the movies – those early days of lust and infatuation. He goes to work the next day, and forgets to leave the key so she cannot get out. The next day, he does leave a key – but it doesn’t work. When he comes home that day, she tries to leave – and he stops her. She is now his prisoner.

 

The film is undeniably creepy and disturbing, but never quite in the way you expect it to be. A film like the aforementioned Hounds of Love also dealt with a woman (in that case, a teenager) tied up and held captive, was a film that was disturbing in the extreme, and difficult to watch – despite the fact that it was never really graphic in its depictions of abuse and violence – but the film walked that fine line, where it seemed like violence was always possible at any moments. Berlin Syndrome never heightens the emotions in that way – it keeps things on a more even keel. Clare wants out, but is smart enough to realize who to play Andi to prevent herself from being that hurt. Andi is more banal than anything else – that being part of the point – a hurt little boy, who never really lets his anger show. Shortland treats both with sympathy and respect. The few moments of genuine suspense in the film do show that she is more than capable of staging a more traditional thriller if she wanted to – she just didn’t want to.

 

I appreciated this approach up to a point – and that point is about the time you realize just how slow the film is going. Because Shortland is more interested in psychological terrain than suspense set pieces, there seem to be long stretches where not a lot really happens, and the film repeats itself as it moves along. Andi reveals his layers slowly – finally showing the misogynist he has always been near the end of the film. But the revelations come a little too slowly – the film runs nearly two hours, and it really starts to grow sluggish in the second hour – which is usually where a film like this would be ramping up to its climax. At 85-90 minutes, Berlin Syndrome would likely be a stronger, tighter film.

 

There is still a lot to admire about the film. Shortland is a fine director – and I really do wish she’d work more often (she made her debut film, Somersault in 2004, and only has two films since – including the very good Lore, about a young German girl in WWII). While the pacing of the movie isn’t great, she knows how to slowly build tension. Palmer, who is often underutilized in American movies as merely a pretty face (most recently in Mel Gibson’s Hacksaw Ridge) always seems better working in her native Australian accent (see also 2:37 and Wish You Were Here). Here, she plays a strong, resilient woman – who bids her time.
Berlin Syndrome is an interesting film, without being altogether successful. I wish Shortland had found a way to make the film shorter and tighter – the story is rather slim, and it feels padded in the extreme at nearly two hours. It does reveal an interesting take a more standard issue tale however – and we certainly need more of that.

Movie Review: Fist Fight

Fist Fight ** / *****

Directed by: Richie Keen. 

Written by: Van Robichaux & Evan Susser and Max Greenfield.

Starring: Charlie Day (Andy Campbell), Ice Cube (Strickland), Tracy Morgan (Coach Crawford), Jillian Bell (Holly), Dean Norris (Principal Tyler), Christina Hendricks (Ms. Monet), Kumail Nanjiani (Mehar), Dennis Haysbert (Superintendent Johnson), JoAnna Garcia Swisher (Maggie), Alexa Nisenson (Ally).

 

After watching Fist Fight this past Saturday night, my wife turned to me and asked why we cannot watch funny movies anymore. Our Fist Fight experience came just a couple of weeks after we gave up on the Bryan Cranston/James Franco vehicle Why Him? after about 30 minutes, and about a week after we made it all the way through Office Christmas Party with a normally reliable stable of actors like Jason Bateman, Jennifer Aniston, Kate Mackinnon, Olivia Munn, Vanessa Bayer and TJ Miller, with nary a laugh between us. Fist Fight is, it must be said, slightly better than those two movies – if for no other reason than Tracey Morgan made me laugh a few times, as did Jillian Bell, and although a late musical number relies on the tired and lazy trope of “kids swearing is funny”, that knowledge doesn’t make kids swearing not actually funny. But, I knew what she meant. Studio comedies have become lazy and formulaic – yes to a certain extent, they’ve always been formulaic, but more and more often, they feel like they aren’t even trying anymore. What really was the last great, laugh-out-loud, mainstream American movie comedy?

 

In this comedy, Charlie Day plays Andy Campbell, a mild mannered English teacher on the last day of school. Its senior prank day, and the students are going nuts, but he doesn’t really seem to care. He – along with the rest of the staff – may be fired, he has a wife who is about to give birth at any second, and a daughter who he has to help at her talent show that afternoon. But to Mr. Strickland (Ice Cube) – a history teacher, who has one emotion – anger. He asks Campbell to help him with a TV on the fritz in his class – and goes completely psycho when the students still sabotage it – bring an ax into the classroom. This doesn’t sit well with the Principal (Dean Norris) – who calls the pair into his office. Campbell snitches, Strickland gets fired – and then tells Campbell that at the end of the day, there’s going to be a fight.

 

Fist Fight should be funnier than it is. Charlie Day may only have one mode – all manic energy – but it’s a funny manic energy, and Ice Cube being angry is usually good for a laugh. Throw in Tracy Morgan doing his thing, Jillian Bell as an hilariously horny teacher, Christina Hendricks as a calmly psycho French teacher, and Kumail Nanjiani as a security guard, who unhelpfully tells Campbell that if it’s after the school day is over, it ain’t his problem – and Fist Fight should, at least, be passably funny – at least enough to make my wife and I, a few drinks in, laugh at the end of a long Saturday. Sadly though, it didn’t – not really. The film lacks a certain energy, and everyone seems to be going through the motions. Everyone is talented enough that those motions can be amusing at times, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re still just going through them. American film comedy is in trouble – no one seems to know how to make a good one any more. Fist Fight is hardly to blame – but it sure doesn’t help.

Movie Review: Dig Two Graves

Dig Two Graves ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Hunter Adams.

Written by: Hunter Adams & Jeremy Phillips.   

Starring: Ted Levine (Sheriff Waterhouse), Samantha Isler (Jake Mather), Danny Goldring (Proctor), Troy Ruptash (Wyeth), Rachael Drummond (Mrs. Waterhouse), Dean Evans (Jon), Bradley Grant Smith (Deputy Byron Freeman), Gabriel Cain (Willie Proctor), Audrey Francis (Abigail Hathorne), Ryan Kitley (James Mather), Mark Lancaster (Dee), Mikush Lleshdedaj (Agimi Buchta).

 

The supernatural horror film Dig Two Graves is aiming for a Stephen King short story kind of feel to it. It takes place in small town America, where the sins of the past haunt the present, where on generation is still paying for what happened before they were born. It is well made by first time filmmaker Hunter Adams, who uses the rural setting to great effect, slowly building unease in the audience. The film ultimately suffers though for two reasons – the first being that we never really believe the main character – a girl of about 12 – will do what she has agreed to do, which saps the suspense out of things, and the second is that sooner or later, we know Adams and company will have to reveal the reasons behind everything, and those are often less interesting than the buildup – and here, that’s more true than most. A great Stephen King story sells the reveal, and makes you buy it, a good King story may leave you disappointed by the end, but appreciative of everything else. Unfortunately, this is a third kind – the kind that makes you role your eyes when the secrets come out.

 

The film opens in the 1940s – when we see a Sheriff and his deputy disposing of a couple of bodies in the water – and then the Deputy turning on the Sheriff, essentially telling him he’s no longer Sheriff anymore. Flash forward 30 years to the 1940s, and that Deputy is now Sheriff Waterhouse (Ted Levine), who has a daughter, and a couple of grandkids, but has never forgotten that night, and neither has the former Sheriff – Proctor (Danny Goldring), who has also stayed around their small town, and still hates Waterhouse. A tragic accident takes the the life of Waterhouse’s grandson – and accident that his granddaughter, Jake (Samantha Isler) feels not unreasonable guilt over. When she is approached by three strange men in the woods – and tells her that she can bring her beloved brother back from the dead if she wants – that all that needs to happen is that she get someone to take his place, and how about that young Proctor boy, she agrees. But of course, things aren’t quite that simple.

 

There are two things that make Dig Two Graves of interest. The first is that, no matter what his weaknesses as a screenwriter, as a director Hunter Adams has some skill. The ultra-low-budget film doesn’t for a second feel that way, as he makes great use of his locations, and never goes overboard with the supernatural elements, and builds tension legitimately – without resorting to “BOO” moments. I would gladly watch another movie by him tomorrow – even more gladly if he didn’t have a screenwriter credit on it. The other reason is to see Ted Levine’s performance as the Sheriff. Levine has been a fine character actor for decades – best known for his role as Jame Gumb in The Silence of the Lambs, Levine has shown up in a ton of movies and TV shows – and mainly gives an authoritative air to a few scenes, and then disappears again. Seeing him a role this big is a rare thing – but he makes the most of it. As much as I didn’t like the mechanics of the plot, he almost makes them work – making his Sheriff a man heavy with grief and regret – but willing to do anything to protect his family. It’s a fine performance from an actor who should get more credit.

 

Dig Two Graves isn’t a great movie – it’s not even all that good. But there are elements to it that work – and it’s good to see a young director like Adams work with a vet like Levine. Together, they almost make the film work. Too bad about the script.

Classic Movie Review: The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes (1971)

The Act of Seeing with One’s Own Eyes (1971)

Directed by: Stan Brakhage.

 

Stan Brakhage’s shocking, 32 minute documentary The Act of Seeing with One’s Own Eyes, is one of those films that has imagery that will never leave you, even if you want them to. The title is a direct translation of the meaning of the word “autopsy” – and that is what Brakhage films, without sound, the most graphic images of autopsies you could imagine. It’s often bloody – skin is removed, organs exposed, the brain is exposed, faces almost literally peeled off, etc. Nearly 50 years later, these images still have the powet to shock and disturb.

 

Why did Brakhage shoot this film? And why did he shoot it without sound? When Georges Franju made Le Sangs des Betes in 1949 – about slaughterhouses – he shot it in black and white, assuming that the images in color would be too much for audiences to bear – but he did have sound. Brakhage shoots in color, but doesn’t use sound? Would the sound made things too hard to take? It’s probably even simpler than that – in that sound often gives the audience cues on how to feel (think of horror movie scores for example, that have you gripping your seat even over the most innocuous of imagery). By removing sound, Brakhage is removing one element that directs audiences how to feel about the images they are being presented with. Therefore, you have to confront those images in your own way.

 

The film breaks a very old taboo in that it confronts the audience with death – and doesn’t look away. Watching the film, you cannot help but think of your own death – that one day, your body will be little more than this slab of meat, on a table, surrounded by people you do not know, who are going about their jobs. Whether you believe in God or not – whether you believe your soul, or whatever makes you who you are, leaves the body upon death or not – that is still a rather profound, yet sad statement on us as humans. What makes it that way is just how matter of fact the film really is – to go back to Franju’s Le Sanges des Betes again, the workers in the slaughterhouse are not shocked by what they see and what they do (they may have been when they started, but not anymore) – but we in the audience are.

 

I wouldn’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to watch the film. It is graphic, and really it is thoroughly unpleasant sitting through the film. And, to be honest, even at only 32 minutes, it’s also a little repetitive. But if you go with the film – if you’re willing to watch it, and reflect on what you’re seeing – and reflect on what that means, not just for the people onscreen, but to yourself as well – you may get something profound out of the film. The film is unforgettable because of its imagery to be sure – but that’s not the only way it is.