Movie Review: The Salesman

The Salesman

Directed by: Asghar Farhadi.   

Written by: Asghar Farhadi.

Starring: Taraneh Alidoosti (Rana Etesami), Shahab Hosseini (Emad Etesami), Babak Karimi (Babak), Mina Sadati (Sanam), Farid Sajjadi Hosseini (Naser), Mojtaba Pirzadeh (Majid), Emad Emami (Ali), Maral Bani Adam (Kati), Mehdi Koushki (Siavash), Sam Valipour (Sadra). 

 

 Iranian director Asghar Farhadi makes tricky movies in which our sympathies shift throughout, often in very unexpected ways, as situations that at first seem so simple, become massively complex. His masterpiece is the Oscar winning A Separation (2011), in which one decision has many consequences for all involved. His latest film, The Salesman, does something similar – although I think Farhadi is also trying to do something more this time around (I know many people loved the film he made in between A Separation and The Salesman – the French co-production, The Past, but I thought it wasn’t a particularly good retread of what he had already done). This film isn’t just a moral question, where our sympathies shift as we learn more information – but it is also about the different roles we all play in our lives – most of those roles self-imposed. I don’t think Farhadi is quite able to bring everything together in the way he attempts – but he comes close, and you have to admire the attempt.

 

The film focuses on the a married couple – Emad (Shahab Hosseini – who won the Best Actor Prize at Cannes for this role) and Rana (Tarraneh Alidoosti – who was excellent as the missing title character of Farhadi’s 2009 film About Elly). They are actors – about to embark on a local production of Death as a Salesman – playing Willy and Linda Loman when an earthquake rattles their apartment building, and forces them to move out on short notice. A friend in the theater company Babak (Babak Karimi) – is a building manager, and has just had an apartment open up – and the couple move in. Then one night, while she is alone Rana buzzes in a visitor – who she thinks is Emad - and heads to the bathroom – where she ends up being attacked. She is left bloody, but generally okay. The rest of the movie involves Emad trying to track down the man who committed the crime – Rana doesn’t want to go the police, but Emad does have the man’s truck and keys and cell phone – which he left behind in his hurry to escape. He also starts to learn a little about the former tenant – who the neighbors refer to as “promiscuous” – but it’s easy to tell they mean she was a prostitute.

 

The Salesman is an interesting movie from beginning to end – and it certainly does ask some tough questions. Emad is at the heart of nearly every scene – we see him trying to investigate the crime, as well as at his teaching job, on stage playing Loman, and trying to deal with his traumatized wife. His desire to find his wife’s attacker is genuine – but you also get the impression that he’s doing it in part because he feels that he is “supposed to” – that he feels that he should be the one to avenge his wife. This becomes even more pronounced in the film’s final act – when he finally gets to confront the attacker, in an intense sequence of events, where Farhadi excels, once again, at making our sympathies shift. Emad does seem overly concerned with what the neighbors think- and appearing strong from them. He is playing a role in these scenes as much as he is when he is onstage – on in front of his classroom, or even when he’s trying to comfort his wife – and it eventually exhausts him.

 

I wish some of the complexity had extended to some of the other characters – in particular Rana. I think Alidoosti’s portrait of a woman dealing with PTSD after her attack is excellent, yet in the third act, her actions don’t entirely seem genuine. I also wish that the film had done a better job of tying together Death of a Salesman to the action of the rest of the movie – it doesn’t have to be in an obvious sort of way (like in George Cukor’s A Double Life from 1947, where an actor – Ronald Colman in an Oscar winning role – playing Othello becomes a jealous monster), but it almost seems like the point Farhadi is making here could be made with any play (I have heard some compare the attacker to Willy Loman – which, I guess, I could see – but it’s a stretch). Also I do think Farhadi needed to do a better job with some of the gender dynamics in the film – which are fairly retrograde - the prostitute, who we never even see, is basically blamed for everything, by everyone in the film, with no hint of any critique of it, as well as the fact that Emad is playing out a very old fashioned view of masculinity, in which the wife being attacked is almost viewed as an attack on the husband more than on his wife.

 

Still, while these are issues I had with the movie – and they keep it from being as great as A Separation (or About Elly), doesn’t completely derail the film either. Farhadi remains one of the most interesting writer/directors around, making morally complex film that challenge the audience to see things in multiple ways. The Salesman isn’t his best work – but even lesser Farhadi is well worth seeing.

Movie Review: A Cure for Wellness

A Cure for Wellness *** / *****

Directed by: Gore Verbinski. 

Written by: Justin Haythe & Gore Verbinski.

Starring: Dane DeHaan (Lockhart), Jason Isaacs (Volmer), Mia Goth (Hannah), Ivo Nandi (Enrico),  Adrian Schiller (Deputy Director), Celia Imrie (Victoria Watkins), Harry Groener (Pembroke), Tomas Norström (Frank Hill), Ashok Mandanna (Ron Nair), Magnus Krepper (Pieter The Vet), Peter Benedict (Constable), Michael Mendl (Bartender), Maggie Steed (Mrs. Abramov), Craig Wroe (Morris), David Bishins (Hank Green), Lisa Banes (Hollis), Carl Lumbly (Wilson), Tom Flynn (Humphrey).

 

I wish we lived in a world in which Gore Verbinski’s A Cure for Wellness was a box office hit – instead of it bombing, which it pretty much did in its opening weekend. This isn’t because the film is particularly great – or even all that good (it’s not) – but because this is a large budgeted film that takes genuine risks and chances for the entirety of its two-and-a-half hour runtime, and even if the film flies off the rails at some point, it’s interesting to see how it does that. No, A Cure for Wellness isn’t a very good film – but in a world in which most wide-release, big budget films have become interchangeable, it’s certainly different.

 

The film stars Dane DeHaan as Lockhart – a young Wall Street asshole, who is sent by his firm to a spa in Switzerland to retrieve their CEO – Pembroke. There is an upcoming merger, and Pembroke has seemingly gone crazy – refusing to come back after his vacation. Lockhart is the one chosen because he has apparently done something that will get him in trouble with the SEC – but the Board tells him if he gets Pembroke back, they’ll make that go away. When Lockhart arrives, it at first seems like a normal spa, catering to the ultra-rich and aging – one built in the Swiss mountains, on top of some sort of special watering hole. But it doesn’t take long before Lockhart starts hearing stories about the places distant past – when it was a Castle, and a Baron, obsessed with his bloodline wanted to marry his sister – and the villagers who burnt the place done. And everyone there seem more like cult members than people on a spa retreat. And the head of the spa – Volmer (Jason Isaacs) is one of those creepy people who is incessantly happy all the time. When Lockhart tries to leave – he gets into a car accident, breaking his leg, and ends up back at the spa – but now as a patient. He’s still trying to reach Pembroke, but they won’t let the two of them speak. He is also drawn to Volmer’s daughter Hannah (Mia Goth), a strange young woman, who acts even younger than her age – who is at the spa, in an old fashioned dress, riding a bike everywhere.

 

There is so much to A Cure for Wellness that I liked. The visual look by director Gore Verbinski and his team is distinct- everything drained of color, but not in a way that simple recalls Tim Burton or other such directors. The clinic/castle is a wonderful example of production design, and creates memorable locales – the pristine, cleanliness of the room, the well-manicured lawn, that barely hides dark gates leading somewhere vile. The underground levels, in which horrible things happen. This is a Grand Guignol film – something that could very well have been (and perhaps should have been) made in black and white. This sort of thing is tough to pull off these days – Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island being the exception – and visually, at least, A Cure for Wellness comes close. Verbinski has even perfectly cast the main roles, both in terms of acting ability, and more importantly (to him anyway), because they all perfectly look the part. Dane DeHaan will have a career as long as directors need snide, contemptible, entitled assholes – he’s got a face you want to punch – and even if he’s the hero of the movie, it’s not because you actually like him, it’s because you have no one else to side with. Mia Goth delivers an excellent performance, which is impressive when you consider how underwritten her character her. She looks the part – and I think her performance helps (a little) to get over some of the questionable things to the move does to her. Jason Isaacs is essentially playing his character from Netflix’s The OA again – this time with a German accent (for the record, I really liked the first episode of The OA – and disliked every subsequent episode a little more than the last, until the finale, which was downright awful).

 

There are too many problems with A Cure for Wellness though to really be a good movie however. At two-and-a-half hours, the film is way too long, and struggles to maintain a consistent tone. For the most part, unless you’re Martin Scorsese or Stanley Kubrick – don’t make your horror movie this long, because all it does is draw out the suspense for so long that the audience is going to start thinking about all the ways your film doesn’t make sense (and in A Cure for Wellness that is a lot of way). The film seems to want it have it all ways – at times being subdued – a slow burn horror film, at times going for the jugular with the blood, and in the final act, going batshit crazy over-the-top. Had Verbinski picked a tone, it may have worked a lot better than this tonal mess of a film.

 

Still, what we are left with is a film that has a lot of memorable moments. If you were creeped out by eels before, this one will give you nightmares. Or a dental surgery scene that will haunt me forever. A strange sequence at the local bar – that starts with Mia Goth dancing, that goes kind of crazy. The strange final shot of the film. A Cure for Wellness has moments that will stick you, no matter how silly the film as a whole is.

 

I really do wish there was more of a market for a film like A Cure for Wellness – that there were more people out there willing to take a chance on a film this weird. If people don’t go see something like this, Hollywood won’t make anything like it anymore – they already barely do as it is. I’m not going to claim that the movie is great – or even good – it isn’t. But you’re not likely to forget it anytime soon.

Who Will Win the Oscars: Directing & Writing

Best Director

5. Mel Gibson (Hacksaw Ridge)

For Him: Not only is he the only Best Director winner nominated this year – he’s the only one who has been nominated for this award before. Hollywood loves a comeback story – and Gibson certainly qualifies. The Academy does love war movies – and the battle parts of the film are impressive.

Against Him: While some have clearly forgiven Gibson – or he wouldn’t be nominated – I don’t think everyone has, which will hurt him going for the win. This is the film with the least amount of buzz in this race, and it feels slightly old fashioned compared to everyone else. It’s a nice honor for Gibson – but the nomination is as far as its going.

 

4. Denis Villeneuve (Arrival)

For Him: He has been a rising director for a while now – having gotten nominated for a Foreign Language Oscar, and making an effortless transition to Hollywood. It’s hard to imagine that Villeneuve will not be an Oscar winner at some point if he continues to do work as good – and as mainstream – as his recent output.

Against Him: It isn’t this year though. The buzz just isn’t there for him – this is a two way race, and his name isn’t Barry Jenkins or Damien Chazelle, so the chances of him winning are practically none.

 

3. Kenneth Lonergan (Manchester by the Sea)

For Him: Lonergan is a well-respected filmmaker – he’s been around for a while now, previously nominated twice (for writing) and is kind of a feel good story, considering what happened with his last film, Margaret – and how he rebounded quickly with this one. A very traditional directed film that may resonate with older viewers.

Against Him: If they want to reward Lonergan, they can (and probably will) give him the Screenplay award. In recent years, they like flashy direction – even if they go with a more traditional film for Best Picture, and that certainly isn’t Lonergan’s work here.

 

2. Barry Jenkins (Moonlight)

For Him: Perhaps the very passionate fan base for Jenkins is enough to push him into the winners circle, even if La La Land wins Best Picture – it worked for The Revenant last year for example. Unlike Best Picture, this is a pure most votes win, so a passionate fan base can move a film with less consensus into the winners circle. He has won a lot of big awards this season. After #oscarssowhite last year, some may want to give the first African American the best director Oscar.

Against Him: He’s lost most of the big, big ones though. It’s rare that a filmmaker as new as Barry Jenkins wins the award (yes, I know Chazelle doesn’t have many more films than Jenkins – he does have a previous Best Picture nominee though). Again, I cannot help but wonder if some are skipping the film (the box office isn’t good). He’s almost assured a screenplay win, so maybe the director win will seem like overkill.

 

1. Damien Chazelle (La La Land)

For Him: It looks like La La Land is going to win the Best Picture Oscar, and a film this flashy that wins that prize and doesn’t win Director would be rare. The film is going to win a lot of Oscars – so to not reward the Director would also seem odd. They clearly love the film.

Against Him: The backlash has formed, and if it grows, perhaps it’s enough to push Jenkins above him. While I do think that La La Land has broader support, I think Moonlight has more passionate support – which is good for Jenkins. The last musical to win Best Picture – Chicago – did NOT win best director.

 

Who Will Win: Damien Chazelle, La La Land. I’ve looked for a reason NOT to bet on Chazelle – not because I don’t like him or the film, simply to see if I can make a case, and while I think there’s more of a chance here for Jenkins to upset than in Best Picture, I still don’t think it’s good.

Who Should Win: Barry Jenkins, Moonlight. A very tough call for me between Jenkins and Lonergan – but Jenkins film is wonderfully directed, do so much stylistically that is marvelous, I’ll go with him – and the hope of making history – by just a little bit.

Least of the Nominees: Mel Gibson, Hacksaw Ridge. Those early scenes are awfully ham-fisted, and most of the performances aside from Garfield’s aren’t particularly good. No matter how good the war sequences are, that should have disqualified him from contention for me.

Best Original Screenplay

5. 20th Century Women – Mike Mills

For Him: The film is well-liked, down-to-earth and very funny. They like his films – he’s already directed an Oscar winning performance. Some truly do love the film.

Against Him: But not enough to get in anywhere else – not even best actress for Annette Bening. He didn’t get nominated for Beginners, so his nomination for this is his first – meaning the nomination will be his award this time.

4. The Lobster – Yorgos Lanthimos & Efthymis Filippou

For Them: If they really take the “original” in original screenplay seriously (as they do once in a while), then The Lobster would win this hands down. Many people love the movie, and the screenplay showed up everything – even when they film didn’t show up elsewhere.

Against Them: As the films only nomination, it just doesn’t have the support needed to push aside any of the three frontrunners.

3. Hell or High Water – Taylor Sheridan

For Him: A surprise hit, and one of the most popular films of the year amongst award voters. The film is unlikely to win any other awards – so if the Academy thinks La La Land is winning enough already, and Manchester by the Sea is as well, I could easily see this one pulling off a “shocker”.

Against Him: This is fairly under the radar, and while I can make the case logically, I just don’t think the film has quite enough behind it to actually come through and pull it off. It’s a longshot.

2. La La Land – Damien Chazelle

For Him: The film is the Oscar frontrunner, is likely to sweep through the tech categories, as well as Picture, Director and Actress. Winning all of those, and not winning screenplay would be strange, right? It is well written and funny.

Against Him: Doesn’t Chazelle have enough? He’s likely winning for Director, so does he really need this as well? Musicals – even ones that win Best Picture – often don’t win the screenplay award as well. I cannot help but think that they’ll see it as a technical and directing achievement more than writing.

1. Manchester by the Sea – Kenneth Lonergan

For Him: Probably the most honored screenplay of the year (certainly amongst the original nominees) – Lonergan is a well-respected veteran, and he wrote a movie they love – with balances heartbreak, tragedy and humor brilliantly. With no Moonlight to compete against it – and La La Land not being quite the writer’s movie, I could easily see this winning here.

Against Him: All of that (except for Moonlight not competing) was true at the Globes, and La La Land STILL won. If they love La La Land enough, it will sweep through, no matter how illogical that may seem (see Birdman or Argo for recent examples).

Who Will Win: Manchester by the Sea. I still think the Academy is going to give Lonergan an Oscar for Manchester – but it’s going to be very close. Why do I have sinking feeling Hell or High Water is going to win?

Who Should Win: Manchester by the Sea. It is my favorite screenplay of the year – so complex, later and beautifully written. I know most of my favorites aren’t winning – this could be the exception.

Least of the Nominees: 20^th Century Women. It’s still a strong screenplay – I just don’t really like the main character, or the strained premise – but 90% of it is wonderful, so I don’t really have too many complaints.

 

Best Adapted Screenplay

5. Lion – Luke Davies

For Him: It’s a best picture nominee, and its has no chance to win anything else, so if it’s going to win something…

Against Him: It’s got no chance here either. It seems like they really did like this movie – but I don’t think they loved it enough to give it a major award like this.

4. Fences – August Wilson

For Him: August Wilson is a legendary playwright – one of the greatest of the 20^th Century America, and Fences may just be his masterpiece.

Against Him: August Wilson is also dead – and has been for more than a decade. How much did he “adapt” his play for the screen? He’s got stiff competition.

3. Hidden Figures – Allison Schroeder & Theodore Melfi

For Them: The film is loved by many – and getting more so. It broke late, too late to get into a lot of categories probably, and if they really want to give it an Oscar, this could be the films best chance.

Against Them: I still don’t like those chances. It is fairly mainstream entertainment – and the screenplay, while good, is elevated by the cast – not necessarily great by itself. Not sure the optics of this winning would be great.

2. Arrival – Eric Heisserer

For Him: Arrival is a beloved film by the Academy – and this really is its only shot at a major award. What Heisserer did on a writing level, working with a complex story and time bending narrative, and an emotional main character, really is quite astounding.

Against Him: Most of the talk about the movie has centered on Villeneuve, Adams and the tech credentials of the film. This has a shot – but it really isn’t a great one.

1. Moonlight – Barry Jenkins & Tarell Alvin McCraney

For Them: Moonlight has become one of the most beloved films of the year. As the season has progressed, Chazelle has pulled away in the director category – but giving the award to the screenplay would be an away to reward Barry Jenkins, also nominated for directing. It’s the most acclaimed screenplay in this category, easily.

Against Them: A lot of what makes Moonlight great is in the direction – the visuals – and the screenplay is subtle and understated, which isn’t great for winning Oscars.

Who Will Win: Moonlight. Had the Academy sided with the guild – and ruled this an original screenplay – that category would have been a bloodbath, and this one barren. They didn’t, and ever since then, Moonlight has been the prohibitive favorite – and I don’t see how something else wins.

Who Should Win: Moonlight. I love the Arrival screenplay- but the Moonlight Screenplay really is next level great – simple, yet powerful, subtle and complex – its one of the best of the year, in either category, and should easily win.

Least of the Nominees: Lion. Sorry, I really don’t see why this one is here. The screenplay never really did find a way to make starring at Google earth interesting, or what to do with Rooney Mara. It was a weak year in this category – but not this weak.

Movie Review: John Wick: Chapter 2

John Wick: Chapter 2 **** / *****

Directed by: Chad Stahelski.

Written by: Derek Kolstad.

Starring: Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Riccardo Scamarcio (Santino D'Antonio), Ian McShane (Winston), Ruby Rose (Ares), Common (Cassian), Claudia Gerini (Gianna D'Antonio), Lance Reddick (Charon), Laurence Fishburne (Bowery King), Tobias Segal (Earl), John Leguizamo (Aurelio).

 

I re-watched 2014’s original John Wick on the same day I knew I was going to see the sequel in theaters – and found I liked it even more than the first time through. It is a model of narrative efficiency – pretty much because it doesn’t really bother to have one. Russian gangster show up at new widower John Wick’s house – kills the dog his late wife left him, and steals his beloved Mustang – not knowing that John Wick is the world’s deadliest assassin, and that by angering him, they were bringing him out of retirement to kill them all. All that happens in about 15 minutes, and the next minutes is John Wick doing just that. The sequel has even less plot. After a brilliant opening sequences – which dispenses of the usual standard issue sequel plot to an action movie that didn’t need one, which is to introduced a previously unheard of relative (brother, father, son, cousin, etc.) – who wants vengeance on our hero. The opening scene – about 10 minutes – has John Wick going up against the brother of his arch nemesis from the first film to try and get his car back – it’s an exciting sequence, combining gun fights and car chases, and leaves more people dead than just about any other action movie in total will this year. After that, the actual plot kicks off – an Italian gangster, Santino D’Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio) comes to Wick’s house to call in his marker – something Wick cannot refuse. Santino wants Wick to murder his sister – so Santino can take his place on the grand counsel of crime syndicates – and when Wick refuses, he blows up his house. Wick agrees – and while is, as always, great at his job – there are double crosses and triple crosses, and globetrotting fight sequences, and Wick literally shots hundreds of people in the face, or stabs them, or some other sort of extreme violence. The film essentially straight ahead action for two hours – and I loved every second of it.

 

Keanu Reeves is perfect as John Wick – he is not an actor with a tremendous amount of range, and is better used in stuff like this and The Matrix, where his natural blankness can be used as an asset. If in the first film, his anger fueled him, here there is less of that righteous anger – at least at first. He is just trying to survive. It helps that there are colorful characters all around him – some for a scene or two, and some for longer than that. This movie brings back Ian McShane, as the head of The Continental – a hotel for killers with very strict rules, and McShane smirks throughout, and relishes every line of dialogue – knowing both how ridiculous it is, and how fun it is to say. Lance Reddick, as the clerk at the hotel, has almost as much fun having to pretend that everything is normal. Laurence Fishburne probably has too much fun as the king of the homeless people (he goes too big, even for this film). Common goes the other way – perhaps taking things a little too seriously as one of the men out for vengeance against Wick. Scamarcio is fine as the main antagonist – but he is clearly outshone by Ruby Rose, as his silent sidekick.

 

Still, plot, characters, performances aren’t really why you see John Wick – it is the action. The original’s director Chad Stahelski – a stuntman before he started directing – is back, and further proves he is one of the best directors of action around. He doesn’t (overly) rely on shaky camera work or rapid fire editing to create false adrenaline in his films. He prefers to let the action play out at length in front of his camera – tracking Wick down long, dark corridors and catacombs in one brilliant sequence, and one after another, people jump out and he has to kill them. The fight with Common on the subway goes on an absurd length of time, with multiple starts and stops, but he expertly builds the tension even when it does stop. Staheski isn’t quite at John Woo level of action mastery – Woo camera work is more fluid, and he prefers even longer shots, with more geography in them than Staheski.

 

There is no denying that John Wick Chapter 2 – even more than its predecessor – is all style, and little substance. This is a straight ahead action movie, and as that, it’s probably the best since Mad Max: Fury Road. It does lack that movie additional depth, and isn’t as stylistically bold either. But, as a straight ahead action movie, John Wick Chapter 2 is tough to beat. I cannot wait for Chapter 3.

Movie Review: The Lego Batman Movie

The Lego Batman Movie **** / *****

Directed by: Chris McKay.

Written by: Seth Grahame-Smith and Chris McKenna & Erik Sommers and Jared Stern & John Whittington.

Starring: Will Arnett (Batman / Bruce Wayne), Michael Cera (Robin / Dick Grayson), Rosario Dawson (Batgirl / Barbara Gordon), Ralph Fiennes (Alfred Pennyworth), Siri ('Puter), Zach Galifianakis (Joker), Jenny Slate (Harley Quinn), Jason Mantzoukas (Scarecrow), Conan O'Brien (The Riddler), Doug Benson (Bane), Billy Dee Williams (Two-Face), Zoë Kravitz (Catwoman), Kate Micucci (Clayface), Riki Lindhome (Poison Ivy), Eddie Izzard (Voldemort), Seth Green (King Kong), Jemaine Clement (Sauron), Ellie Kemper (Phyllis), Channing Tatum (Superman), Jonah Hill (Green Lantern), Adam Devine (The Flash), Hector Elizondo (Jim Gordon), Mariah Carey (Mayor McCaskill). 

 

Let’s be honest – Batman has had this coming for a while now. Back when The Dark Knight Rises came out in 2012, I felt that Batman had probably gone about as dark as it possible for it to go without becoming so dour that no one would actually want to watch him anymore. The character, who throughout his decades of his publication history, had gone from light to dark and back again repeatedly, had swung so far into the dark, that you want to tell him to lighten up already. It was because Christian Bale’s performance was so good, Christopher Nolan’s direction even better, and the rich storytelling, and villains, that the Nolan trilogy stands as the best Batman series of all time, but it came dangerously close to be too self-serious. That danger was fully realized in last year’s dismal Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, where poor Ben Affleck had to play a Batman completely and totally devoid of any human emotion other than rage. He was such a loner, he did CrossFit by himself in the Batcave. He was miserable, and we all had a miserable time watching him be miserable. Now, comes The Lego Batman Movie, which seems like it was engineered in a lab specifically to mock the hell out Batman v Superman, and all the Batman fans who think that Batman needs to be dark – or else, people won’t take him seriously. While I don’t think The Lego Batman Movie is the best Batman movie ever made – it is clearly the most fun.

 

The film opens with Batman (voiced, as he was in The Lego Movie, by Will Arnett), once again saving Gotham City from The Joker, as well as a massive host of other villains (all of which are real Batman villains, no matter how stupid they seem). Batman angers The Joker however not so much by foiling his plan – but by not acknowledging that The Joker is his greatest adversary. Batman, you see, is a serious, brooding loner – he doesn’t need anybody, and that includes not needing an arch nemesis. The Joker then decides to launch an even bigger plan – one that requires him and all the villains to be locked up ion Arkham Asylum – the new commissioner Gordon, Barbara, and Batman doesn’t trust The Joker – but what are you going to do. Batman even end up inadvertently adopting an orphan of his own – Dick Grayson – and while he doesn’t like him, he does see how the kid could be of use when he needs to steal something from Superman’s Fortress of Solitude.

 

The first half of The Lego Batman Movie is pretty much spot on. It is a comedy in which the in-jokes have in-jokes, and someone like me, who loves Batman, but is hardly an expert of every facet of him, knows that there are jokes that flew way over by head, but it hardly mattered, because every frame contains even more jokes. It is cleverly written and performed by Arnett, and Michael Cera who is hilarious as Robin, and an all-star cast, some of whom only seem to have a few lines, but all of whom make the most of them. This is a movie that is at its best when it isn’t trying to tell its story, or develop its character, but when it’s simply riffing. Last year’s Deadpool contained a lot of meta-jokes about Superhero movies – this one contains far more, and that is when the film is at its best.

 

If there is a problem with the film, it’s that the plot ends up being very kind thrown together – basically, Batman needs to learn to be a part of family – part of something greater than himself. We know that early in the narrative, and the film does nothing to surprise us throughout. As well, as the film progresses, it – like many a superhero film before it – becomes a series of action sequences in which a lot of crap crashes into a lot of other crap. Now, to be fair, because the film is brilliantly animated using Lego, a lot of that crap crashing into each other is brilliantly staged, and inventive – but still, there’s only so much you can see before it becomes repetitive.

 

Those are, relatively speaking though, minor gripes with a film that I basically had a blast with from first frame to last. Superhero movies continue to get bigger, they continue to try and raise the stakes, and continue to take themselves so seriously – even the good ones. It’s about time something came along to take Batman down a peg, and get him to lighten the hell up.  

Movie Review: Passengers

Passengers

Directed by: Morten Tyldum.

Written by: Jon Spaihts.

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence (Aurora Lane), Chris Pratt (Jim Preston), Michael Sheen (Arthur), Laurence Fishburne (Gus Mancuso), Andy Garcia (Captain Norris). 

 

Spoiler Warning: Since I basically caught Passengers at the tail end of its theatrical run – and only because it picked up two unexpected Oscar nominations (for Production Design and Score), I’ll be freer with the spoilers than normal – in particular because the only thing worth discussing about the movie is the spoiler that the trailer specifically did not reveal, but has been widely discussed since the film was released two months ago).

 

The saddest thing about Passengers, is that the film has a fascinating premise, and had the film been more willing to follow through on that premise, it could have been a darkly fascinating sci-fi movie about morality. Instead, it seems like the filmmakers decided that because they have the ever charming Chris Pratt and even more charming Jennifer Lawrence in the two lead roles, that the film didn’t have to do anything except coast on their charm. This is a major missed opportunity. If the filmmakers had more courage – like say Hitchcock, in the way he cast Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant in very dark roles, because he knew the audience would follow them into dark places, without realizing where they were going until things were too late. Instead, Passengers bends over backwards to make its main character sympathetic from beginning to end – which undermines the dark places the film should be headed. Worse, it gives Lawrence her weakest character to date – not just in terms of the complexity of how her character is written (her character has none) – but that she is stuck playing a character who is basically an observer in her own life.

 

Passengers takes place on board a space ship that is on a 120 year journey to a new planet. All the crew and passengers are in suspended sleep until they arrive – or at least that’s how thing are supposed to work. One of the passengers – Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) wakes up early – 90 years early to be precise. Now, because the thousands of passengers are supposed to be woken up 4 months before arrival – to get used to their new lives before they land – there is no danger of him starving to death. He can live a fairly comfortable life – but he will be entirely by himself for the duration, and die before anyone wakes up. His only company is Arthur (Michael Sheen) – a robot bartender. He spends a year growing his beard and trying to stay sane. But he happens upon the sleeping pod of Aurora Lane (Lawrence) – and becomes smitten with her through her passenger profile. But he couldn’t wake her up, could he? That would be dooming her to his same fate.

 

You could easily make an interesting idea out this – a complex one, where a sympathetic character does a horrible thing. Does that make the audience hate him, or is he able to win back our affection? How does the woman he dooms – she, correctly, calls him a murderer for what he does – respond when placed in a situation where she has but two choices – forgive him, or live the rest of her life by herself. Does she forgive her abuser, or not?

 

These could make for fascinating questions to build a movie around – one that calls into question morality, sexuality, gender roles – and more. The problem with Passengers is that it doesn’t actually seem all that interested in those questions. Instead, all it wants to do is coast on the charm of the two leads – the film waits until fairly late before Jim reveals to Aurora the truth – and then spends more time on various special effects sequences – to save the ship – than on what their characters think. Worse, even in these scenes, it basically reduces Lawrence’s character into an observer – the woman who has to watch the smart man do everything, as she asks insultingly simplistic questions.

 

The film was directed by Morten Tyldum – making his follow-up to the Oscar winning The Imitation Game. I found that film kind of lifeless and bloodless, but it at least had a decent story, and good (if one note) performances. Here, Pratt and Lawrence and their charm is the whole show – but they don’t come close to making the film work, because they are not given roles where that would even be possible. Passengers has a fascinating premise – but it has been so gutted that it ends up mostly a bore.

 

 

 

Who Will Win the Oscars: Below the Line Categories

Best Foreign Film

5. Tanna (Australia)

4. Land of Mine (Denmark)

3. A Man Called Ove (Sweden)

2. Toni Erdmann (Germany)

1. The Salesman (Iran)

Analysis: Toni Erdmann has been the frontrunner since Cannes in May – and yet, I’ve never been fully sold on that, as the film strikes me as the critical favorite that the Academy overlooks for something a little more conventional (something confirmed when I finally saw the film). Couple that with the wave of support for Ashgar Farhadi following Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban – as he was banned – and I think Farhadi could easily win his second. Also, don’t sleep on A Man Called Ove – the most popular film with audiences among the nominees.

Who Will Win: The Salesman. This is always a tough one to predict, but I’ll go with The Salesman.

Who Should Win: Toni Erdmann. This was my #3 film of the year – in any language.

Least of the Nominees: The only other nominee I’ve seen – The Salesman – would be a worthy winner, even if it’s merely very good, compared to Erdmann’s masterpiece. The other three have yet to open in Canada – yes, even Ove, which was a big hit in America (by foreign film standardards)

 

Best Documentary Feature

5. Fire at Sea

4. Life, Animated

3. I Am Not Your Negro

2. OJ: Made in America

1. The 13th

Analysis: Like foreign, I do think it can be difficult to pick how the Academy is going to go in any given year in this category. OJ is the most talked about doc of the year – but will everyone watch all 8 hours of it – and will some think its TV and not vote for it? Life, Animated is the most inspirational of the bunch – and that sometimes help. Fire at Sea is about migrants and refugees – and could be timely. I Am Not Your Negro has broken in fairly late, and become a favorite. Seriously you could make a case for any of them – but I cannot help but think the combination of Ava DuVernary, the ease at which everyone can see 13^th, the timely subject matter, and the brilliance of it, gives it the edge.

Who Will Win: The 13^th . Seriously, only Fire at Sea would really shock me – but I think the thought of giving DuVernay an Oscar – a makeup for Selma – will tilt it to 13^th.

Who Should Win: OJ: Made in America. I love 13^th – and I hope to love I Am Not Your Negro when it opens – but OJ: Made in America is a top 10 (probably top 5) ALL TIME doc for me, so that easily gets my vote.

Least of the Nominees: Life, Animated. I do like Life, Animated – but given the strength of the nominees, it is clearly the weak link.

 

Best Animated Feature

5. My Life as a Zucchini

4. The Red Turtle

3. Kubo and the Two Strings

2. Moana

1. Zootopia

Analysis: Kind of an exciting race to be honest – Zootopia is probably the popular choice, and I suspect it has the edge – although Moana broke in late, and is a more traditional pick – and Kubo and the Two Strings is well loved, and perhaps Laika has a growing number of fans that could push it above the two Disney choices. The two foreign films are longshots – but you can never be sure.

Who Will Win: Zootopia. Here, its never a bad bet to pick the highest grossing film of the bunch – and its also rather timely as well.

Who Should Win: Moana. Perhaps it the influence of two girls under 5 in my house – but Moana is my favorite, although I’d be fine with Zootopia or Kubo as well.

Least of the Nominees: The Red Turtle. I did like this (and haven’t seen Zucchini yet) – but oddly, I liked the traditional kids films this year, rather than the foreign film.

 

Best Film

5. Hell or High Water

4. Moonlight

3. Hacksaw Ridge

2. Arrival

1. La La Land

Analysis: Like many, I think La La Land is probably going to sweep through most of the “below the line awards” – and certainly editing – which often matches with Best Picture is probably one of the safest bets in the bunch. Sure, Moonlight or Arrival or Hacksaw Ridge  could challenge – but I really don’t see that happening.

Who Will Win: La La Land. There are some below the line ones where La La Land faces real challegnes – this isn’t one of them.

Who Should Win: Moonlight. Moonlight’s editing is absolutely brilliant – just perhaps not as flashy as La La Land, so that’s why it will lose, but also why its great.

Least of the Nominees: Hacksaw Ridge. A strong lineup, otherwise, and I know why they went with Hacksaw here – but there was amazing work done this year – and Hacksaw Ridge wasn’t one of them.

 

Best Song

5. Jim: The James Foley Story - The Empty Chair

4. Trolls - Can’t Stop the Feeling!

3. La La Land - Audition (The Fools Who Dream)

2. La La Land - City of Stars

1. Moana – How Far I’ll Go

Analysis: I really don’t see the songs from Jim or Trolls being much of a factor here. Normally, you would think the song from the musical about to win Best Picture would win – but which one? City of Stars is the signature song, but I cannot be the only one who thinks Audition is (much) better. My guess is they split enough – and combined with Lin Manuel Miranda love – you know he’ll give a GREAT speech – gets Moana the award.

Who Will Win: Moana – How Far I’ll Go. It will be tight, and I’m not sure the Moana music is as loved everywhere else as it is in my house (because of my daughters) – but I’d bet on Lin Manuel Miranda completing his EGOT.

Who Should Win: Moana – How Far I’ll Go. I really liked La La Land – but for most part, I found the music forgettable – yes, they nominated the two best ones, but I’ll still take the Disney anthem, thank you.

Least of the Nominees: Jim: The James Foley Story – The Empty Chair. I haven’t seen the film – so perhaps it’s unfair to judge – but listening to the song on its own, and I thought it was rather dull, rather than the somber respect it was going for.

 

Best Original Score

5. Passengers - Thomas Newman

4. Lion - Dustin O’Halloran and Hauschka

3. Jackie - Mica Levi

2. Moonlight - Nicholas Britell

1. La La Land - Justin Hurwitz

Analysis: Poor Thomas Newman, keeps getting nominated, but not winning – and that won’t change this year. I also don’t see Lion’s score winning, and unfortunately Mica Levi’s brilliance with will too divisive. No, this comes down to Moonlight vs. La La Land – and although the choice between the score of these two is obvious to me – I think it will obvious, but opposite, to the Academy.

Who Will Win: La La Land. They really do love the music in this film – and especially since I don’t think it will win Song, they’ll give it the Score award to make up for it – even if it wins Song, I still thinks it takes it.

Who Should Win: Jackie. Do not get me wrong, the Moonlight score is great – and I’d love it to win – but Mica Levi’s score for Jackie is next level brilliant.

Least of the Nominees: Passengers. Poor Thomas Newman – but like the film itself, the score is forgettable.

 

Best Visual Effects

5. Kubo and the Two Strings

4. Deepwater Horion

3. Doctor Strange

2. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

1. The Jungle Book

Analysis: This is a strong lineup to be sure – but I think the best ever work on bringing realistic animals to life in The Jungle Book dwarves everything else – even Star Wars, and Marvel’s best Visual Effects to date.

Who Will Win: The Jungle Book. I really don’t think its close – unless they have short memories.

Who Should Win: The Jungle Book It’s the best work, easily – and I think all five are great work.

Least of the Nominees: Deepwater Horizon. Its strong work – but the other four are stronger.

 

Best Cinematography

5. Silence – Rodrigo Prieto

4. Lion – Greig Fraser

3. Arrival – Bradford Young

2. Moonlight – James Laxton

1. La La Land – Linus Sandgren

Analysis: Really, until Lion won the ASC award – I didn’t think it had any shot at all, and I still have trouble seeing it win here – although it’s got a better shot than Silence, which I doubt many watched. Arrival is great – they’ve shown a willingness to go genre recently, but I’m not sure it will work. Moonlight is truly great – but La La Land is also good, and has the momentum.

Who Will Win: La La Land. It really could go to anyone BUT Silence, but La La Land seems like the safest bet.

Who Should Win: Silence – of course I like the one that has no shot, but that movie is absolutely stunning.

Least of the Nominees: Lion – Grieg Fraser is a rising DP, who has done a lot of great work in recent years – (Rogue One, Foxcatcher, Zero Dark Thirty, Killing Them Softly, Let Me In – etc.) – but this is still my least favorite of the nominees.

 

Best Costume Design

5. Allied

4. Florence Foster Jenkins

3. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

2. La La Land

1. Jackie

Analysis: It really does seem silly to bet against La La Land here – especially since this is one of the few categories where it isn’t against a fellow BP nominee – but still, I think its vulnerable here. The costume design for La La Land is perfect for the film – but not exactly groundbreaking, original or really all that attention catching. I don’t think Allied, Florence Foster Jenkins or Fantastic Beasts can beat it – but I do think that Jackie’s recreation of iconic clothes, and a glamourous era, just might.

Who Will Win: Jackie. Perhaps it’s just because I’m convinced La La Land will not quite sweep – but I think Jackie takes it here.

Who Should Win: Jackie. I really do wish they would be a little more original in their thinking here (The Handmaiden or Kubo and the Two Strings would be great nominees) – but Jackie truly is great work, and it would be my choice out of these nominees.

Least of the Nominees: Florence Foster Jenkins. I admit my dislike of the movie may have clouded my judgement here – but while the work is fine, I don’t think it’s great – is it?

 

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

3. Suicide Squad

2. A Man Called Ove

1. Star Trek Beyond

Analysis: This category feels like an afterthought this year doesn’t it – one hugely disappointing blockbuster, one fine but forgettable blockbuster, and a foreign film. Seriously, this could go any which way – I’ll bet on Star Trek – but don’t be shocked if A Man Called Ove wins.

Who Will Win: Star Trek: Beyond. Shrugs – seems like the best bet of the bunch.

Who Should Win: Star Trek: Beyond. Most will have seen it, and not hated it, like they did with Suicide Squad.

Least of the Nominees: Suicide Squad – no the makeup work isn’t bad, but the movie is, and I really don’t want to have to say Oscar winning Suicide Squad.

 

Best Production Design

5. Passengers

4. Hail, Caesar!

3. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

2. Arrival

1. La La Land

Analysis: La La Land is likely to sweep through the tech categories, and the work here is quite good. Still, it’s hard for me not to notice that the work on Arrival, Fantastic Beasts and Hail, Caesar is probably even more noticeable – and sometimes, what wins here is most production design, not necessarily best.

Who Will Win: La La Land. It wouldn’t shock me to see something else win – but I do think La La Land is the favorite, easily.

Who Should Win: Hail, Caesar!. I think the Coen Brothers films was underrated when it debuted early in 2016 – the production design is a large part of it, brilliantly recreating studio era Hollywood in all its glory. Brilliant work, as always, from the Cones.

Least of the Nominees: Passengers. I didn’t like the movie, but I have to admit the production design is pretty damn good – but the rest of the nominees are better.

 

Best Sound Editing

5. Deepwater Horizon

4. Sully

3. La La Land

2. Hacksaw Ridge

1. Arrival

Analysis: One of the few tech categories I don’t think La La Land has sewn up – I’m actually surprised it got nominated, as musicals usually do well in Sound Mixing, not so much in Sound Editing – where they usually go for louder, action films. This is probably the best chance to award either Arrival or Hacksaw Ridge – and since I think they like the former more, it has the edge.

Who Will Win: Arrival. The sound work on Arrival is impressive – and they love it, so I’ll bet it wins this one – but really, it could go somewhere else.

Who Should Win: Arrival. The work on Arrival helps to build the whole world of the movie, and it is impressive beyond the rest of the strong field.

Least of the Nominees: La La Land. I don’t have a problem with the work on La La Land, but when you listen to the sound work on the rest of them – in terms of Sound Editing, it is a little lacking.

 

Best Sound Mixing

5. Thirteen Hours

4. Hacksaw Ridge

3. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

2. Arrival

1. La La Land

Analysis: Musicals often win the Sound Mixing Award, and given how much they love La La Land, I don’t see a reason why that won’t happen again.

Who Will Win: La La Land. You could make a case for an upset, but I don’t really see a reason why you want to – La La Land should win easily.

Who Should Win: Arrival Like with Sound Editing, I think the Sound Mixing on Arrival helps to make the whole movie – and should be the winner.

Least of the Nominees: I missed 13 Hours - the rest of the nomines are quite good - but I'll say Hacksaw Ridge.