The Birth of a Nation (2016)

Robocop (2014)

Directed by Jose Padilha.

2014. Rated PG-13, 117 minutes.

Cast:

Joel Kinnaman

Gary Oldman

Michael Keaton

Samuel L. Jackson

Abbie Cornish

Jackie Earle Haley

Michael K. Williams

Jennifer Ehle

Jay Baruchel

Marianne Jean-Baptiste

Aimee Garcia

Around the world, American company OmniCorp employs robots of various sizes to take the place of actual U.S. soldiers, thus saving the lives of many American men and women. However, the practice is banned here in the states. Despite deep pockets and powerful lobbyists, the company can't persuade the powers that be to lift the ban. CEO Raymond Sellars (Keaton) believes the key to getting it overturned is by actually putting a man inside one of his machines. This is where Detroit detective Alex Murphy (Kinnaman) comes in. Alex and his partner Jack (Williams) are working undercover on a big case. When things go south, Jack winds up in the hospital after having been shot. Since the bad guys want to finish the job, they soon come after Alex, by blowing up his car with him right next to it. Without some form of life support, he will die. However, he is deemed to be the perfect candidate by head doctor Dennett Norton (Oldman) and is soon given his very own technologically advanced suit of armor that doubles as his body and becomes Robocop. Trying to get him just right before sending him out on the streets ensues. In case you've somehow never heard of it, this is a remake of the 1987. original.

Right off the bat, there is a major problem with this movie. That problem is Alex Murphy. What it is about him that makes him the perfect candidate for such a daring experiment is never sufficiently explained. We're never shown, either. What we do see makes him more likely to go on the reject pile. He's hot-headed, impulsive, reckless, and has a problem with authority. On top of that, he's not the most likable guy. All of these are things that should disqualify him from such a program. Matters aren't helped by the fact that even though we know there must be something more to him, we're never really given the chance to find out what that is. He is basically the same hard-boiled cop we've seen in hundreds of movies that barks at everyone and is going to do things his way and then suddenly he's Robocop. That type of character works in a movie where the hero following his instincts serves him right while it becomes obvious that following protocol would work to his detriment. It doesn't work when the movie depicts a big corporation looking for someone to walk the company line and present a good face to the public. It's something that keeps us from becoming invested in the character.

Once our hero is in the suit, Robocop takes its cue from comic book origin movies, and spends lots of time on the training of our hero. We get lengthy scenes of conversations about what should be done with him followed by us witnessing the implication of whatever strategies Sellars and Norton come up with. At least the latter usually shows some type of showdown between Robocop and Rick Mattox (Haley), the guy that works with all the machines. Eventually, we get to the actual police work part of the movie. When we do, it rather quickly becomes a revenge flick as our hero is simply out to get the people responsible for his condition. The action showing this is mostly fun, and exciting stuff. Unfortunately, because of what has or hasn't transpired to this point, it is lacking any sort of heart. All we've done is connect the dots that we're supposed to in this sort of film. It simply goes 'life changing event, training, loud stuff, end.' We see it, but never care about it. Action junkies won't dismiss it, but even they aren't likely to embrace it, either. It simply becomes stuff happening on the screen while time passes.

Those of us who have seen the original, of course, get a double whammy. Not only is what we're seeing not all that compelling, but it removes the elements that made the original work. We first have to revisit the portrayal of the protagonist. The Alex Murphy played by Peter Weller in '87 is a genuinely likable guy. We see how important his family is to him. We also know that he not only wants to do the right thing, but to accomplish it the right way. This new version also wants to do what is right, however, it's clear he's willing to cut corners to do it. Once he's in the suit, it's made worse by the handling of the functionality of his artificial parts verses his natural ones. Namely, we're talking about how his psyche is handled. The original understood that for him to be at all believable the parts of him that made him distinctly human must remain intact. This is what creates the conflict between himself and the machine he's trapped in. The remake pays lip service to that idea, explicitly stating that what makes a person a person is their brain, not the parts surrounding it. Then, a few minutes later, when that brain is causing a problem it's simply shut off. How much of his own thought process is in play can literally be controlled by the turning of a dial. It's an artificial, not to mention arbitrary, obstacle that didn't need to be there. The idea of a man merged with a machine is already hard to swallow, but something we can buy into. Being able to just shut off the human side, especially without sufficient buildup to this, is not. It's an added layer of silliness that detracts from the movie rather than adding to it.

The other big differences between this and its predecessor are the tone and the visuals. In the original, these two things work in concert to create a hyper-violent dark comedy. Tonally, it is mostly tongue-in-cheek and takes aim at our insatiable consumerism, among other things. From that end of it, we get a razor sharp satire. From the visual end, we get a fairly gory movie. To keep from going into a lengthy description of it, let's just say it makes you familiar with the term splatter. The remake goes in the opposite direction. As far as satire goes, this version will have none of it. It takes itself overly serious and just trudges forward. If there is any attempt at it, it's wrapped in the scenes featuring Samuel L. Jackson as Pat Novak, a political talk show host. Essentially, he's a shill for OmniCorp. The situation is ripe for examining corporate influence on both the media and the government. However, the opportunity passes unexamined. In the violence department, the amount is reduced quite a bit and what we do get is sanitized to fit into its PG-13 box. So, while that part of it is fun in the way lots of action scenes are, it's not a visceral experience. Nothing about it makes us sit up and say 'wow.'

That lack of a wow factor is the biggest problem with this movie. Even if you're not at all familiar with the original, it just doesn't have much pizazz. For those of you in that category, it'll probably be a passable action flick, nothing more. Instead of standing out from the crowd, it fits snugly within it. The all-star cast can only help so much because they are all working in service of an unmemorable hero. The best thing about him is the design of his suit. Compared to the old one, it's sleeker and sexier, even if it inexplicably (and weirdly) includes Murphy's actual right hand. For those of us that have seen the original, the suit is the only thing this movie does better. Most things, the old one does better by a large margin. That was an inventive and gutsy movie. The 2014 version of Robocop is a re-imagining without much imagination.

Parkland

Directed by Peter Landesman. 

2013. Rated R, 93 minutes. 

Cast: 

Paul Giamatti 

James Badge Dale 

Zac Efron 

Colin Hanks 

Marcia Gay Harden 

Billy Bob Thornton 

Jacki Weaver 

Jackie Earl Haley 

Ron Livingston 

Jeremy Strong

As we were all reminded last year, during which the 50th anniversary of the event occurred, Pres. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963. Parkland tells the story of what happened starting a few moments before he was shot until the time he was buried a few days later. The title refers to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where Pres. Kennedy was taken after being shot. We go there with him and go through the attempts to save his life, headed up by Dr. Jim Carrico (Efron), a very young doctor, and seasoned head nurse Doris Nelson (Harden). We see how first the Secret Service and then hordes of media folk descend upon Abraham Zapruder (Giamatti) when it becomes known that he caught the tragedy on film. We're also privy to the fed's handling of Lee Harvey Oswald (Strong) and his family. Finally, we deal with the shift in focus to protecting Lyndon B. Johnson who suddenly found himself President of the United States.

The fly on the wall perspective makes this about as close to being there as a movie is likely to get. To perpetuate that feeling, the camera is often in odd locations. A lot of times it is at a distance we would normally think of as too close. We can't make out much of the rooms these people are in. This is particularly true of the scenes in the operating room. It helps foster the feeling of being in a crowded space with almost no wiggle room. Outside the hospital, this technique hints at how little each person involved was really aware of, or could see from their vantage point.

In keeping with its documentary like survey of events, the acting is so good across the board it feels like we are watching the actual people live through a moment in history. Paul Giamatti and Marcia Gay Harden are, excellent as always. Billy Bob Thornton simply dominates the screen in one of his better, but bound to be underrated performances. Even Zac Efron impresses. His portrayal of Dr. Carrico rings true right from the start. In the film's showiest performance, Jacki Weaver is absolutely mind-blowing as Lee Harvey Oswald's mother Marguerite. She quickly becomes a person we love to hate, possibly even more than her son who killed arguably the most beloved U.S. president of the 20th century. Kudos to Weaver for completely selling it. Conversely, the person we most sympathize with is her other son Robert played with remorse for his brother's actions by James Badge Dale.

Clocking in at a shade under ninety minutes when you subtract the credits, it is a movie that moves at an extraordinary pace. It packs each frame to the gills and sprints by. As fast as it moves, it has no time to do what a lot of movies based on true events can. There is no theorizing about grassy knolls, second shooters, and the like. There also doesn't appear to be much in the way of agenda pushing. It just punches us right in the mouth with the most corroborated parts of a still mysterious story. It ends without any speculation whatsoever. Therefore, Parkland is certainly not the most contemplative JFK movie you'll ever see, but it's likely the most visceral one.

MY SCORE: 9/10

Dark Shadows

Directed Tim Burton.

2012. Rated PG-13, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Johnny Depp
Michelle Pfeiffer
Eva Green
Helena Bonham Carter
Bella Heathcote
Chloë Grace Moretz
Jackie Earle Haley
Jonny Lee Miller
Christopher Lee
Alice Cooper

In 1972, the Collinses live in a gigantic secluded mansion in Maine that their ancestors built over 200 years earlier. Once extremely wealthy, they now barely manage to pay the bills since the family business isn’t doing so well. Luckily for them, they’re about to get some help. Thought long dead since he lived in the house when it was first built, Barnabus Collins (Depp) rises from his grave. Having been turned into a vampire by Angelique Bouchard (Green), a jilted witch, he has a score to settle. For you young whipper-snappers, this is based on the late 60s/early 70s soap opera of the same name.

We proceed with the normal jokes that follow people reemerging in a time much different than their own. Some are funny, some are not. More consistently humorous, but not overwhelmingly so, is Michelle Pfeiffer’s sarcasm and the (sorta) functional drunkenness of Burton regular Helena Bonham Carter. Both women are superb as is Eva Green in all her cackling witch glory. Chloë Grace Moretz gives a performance that comes across as bizarre. However, I don’t blame her as much as I do the screenplay which doesn’t properly flesh out her character. The one actor I do blame for their lackluster work is the star, Johnny Depp. This is hard for me because I’m pretty much a Depp apologist, but he doesn’t seem to have his heart in this one.

Still, our hero isn't the most noticeable problem with Dark Shadows. More of an issue is how insecure director Tim Burton is in his storytelling. The movie never seems sure of what it wants to be. It takes turns at parody (including of self), family drama, and straight forward horror without the proper meshing of the genres. The seams are clearly visible. As a result, we feel like we’re switching back and forth between several different movies involving the same characters. Any of them could be good but none are allowed to gather enough steam. We never get into the right frame of mind to enjoy it because as soon as we start to settle in there’s an abrupt change in tone and we have to start all over. Other problems include prematurely discarding subplots, especially those of the children, and a werewolf inexplicably popping up out of nowhere.

The magic of the Depp/Burton connection seems to be waning. As mentioned, Depp’s performance is somewhat less than thrilling and the typically goth-chic visuals of Tim Burton feel peculiarly restrained and his narrative is all over the map. Even the star in his trademark white face paint and funny hairdo is now cliché. The last truly excellent effort produced by the pair is 2007’s morbid musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. I like their following picture, 2010’s Alice in Wonderland, but that’s a polarizing film. This seems to be likewise.

Lincoln

Directed by Steven Spielberg.

2012. Rated PG-13, 150 minutes.

Cast:

Daniel Day-Lewis

Sally Field

David Strathairn

Tommy Lee Jones

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Gloria Reuben

John Hawkes

Jackie Earle Haley

David Oyelowo

James Spader

Bruce McGill

Lee Pace

Gulliver McGrath

Having just been re-elected as President of the United States, with the Civil War still raging on, Abraham Lincoln (Day-Lewis) focuses his efforts on getting the 13th Amendment to the Constitution passed which will abolish slavery in America. As with most laws that most presidents want passed, there is almost total support from his own party, Republican in this case, and almost none from the other. Some swaying must be done. To complicate matters, he wants it to pass in a rather short period of time since the South appears ready to negotiate an end to the war. However, he knows that any agreement they settle on would have to include the survival of slavery. Amidst pressure from everyone around him, Lincoln stays his course.

As has been said so many times already, Daniel Day-Lewis inhabits the character to such a degree he is truly lost within Abraham Lincoln. We see him as a man who, in his professional capacity, has an enormous presence. He fills the room both literally and figuratively. If not always complete confidence, he oozes authority. Leadership seems to come easy for him. We can see why people follow him. On the other hand, we can also see he's flawed. Political opponents see him as abusive of his power and/or chasing a pipe dream. Privately, his marriage is contentious and he's completely stifling his older son Robert (Gordon-Levitt) in order to protect his wife's well-being since she teeters on the verge of a complete breakdown. In the role of First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln, Sally Field is nearly her leading man's equal, coming apart at the seams one moment and the very picture of composure the next. When neither of those two are on the screen, the movie is carried by a magnificent Tommy Lee Jones who give his most inspired performance in years playing Republican Congressional Leader Thaddeus Stevens.

Carrying the weight of history, the plot unfolds in a riveting manner. This is because the supporting cast is allowed ample room to breathe. In a departure from most contemporary films, especially biopics, much happens when our hero is not on the screen. He spends large chunks of the movie off-camera while we watch the bickering going on in the House of Representatives. These spirited debates mostly take the place of action scenes. Though there are a few actual battle scenes, the high powered pontification on display is more entertaining. These guys, led by the aforementioned Jones, don't just argue. They scream, shout and string together fifty cent words all to the cheers and jeers of a crowd. Then there's the covert vote-grabbing operation going on initiated Secretary of State William H. Seward (Strathairn). There are a few times when the movie drags as the same arguments are repeated but usually something else happens that snaps us out of it.

For director Steven Spielberg, in my very humble opinion, this is his easily his finest directorial outing since Munich and quite possibly his best since Saving Private Ryan. The Adventures of Tintin, the best of his three movies since Munich is merely okay. It has it's moments. The last Indiana Jones flick left a lot to be desired. Finally, War Horse was somehow nominated for Best Picture last year but is just a dreadful, overwrought, unstoppable force of cheesiness. Lincoln also has its share of the director's trademarked sentimentality and even some corniness. The opening scene where soldiers take turns reciting the president's most famous speech to him comes to mind. Thankfully, that sort of stuff is ratcheted down a thousand notches from War Horse. We're left with a wonderful biopic and Daniel Day-Lewis' performance for the ages.

MY SCORE: 9/10

A Nightmare of Elm Street (2010)

Directed by Samuel Bayer.
2010. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Jackie Earle Haley
Rooney Mara
Kyle Gallner
Katie Cassidy
Thomas Dekker
Clancy Brown
Connie Britton

The kids from Elm Street aren’t sleeping because of the horrifically realistic nightmares they’re having. Soon enough, they discover their bad dreams are all of the same man trying kill them. He even succeeds on a number of occasions. Unless you’ve been under a rock for the last quarter-century, you know that this guy is Freddy Krueger.

Yup, this is merely a remake of Wes Craven’s 1984 horror classic, with the master’s blessings, of course. It’s not a prequel or sequel or even a re-imagining, no matter what you’ve heard. Therein, lies the problem. A sequel attempts to extend a story we already know. A prequel tries to do the same, just in the other direction on the timeline, showing us what got characters we already know to the spot where we first met them. Even a re-imagining extends the story by fleshing out details its predecessor glossed over, or maybe not even mentioned. This is pure remake, doing none of those things. It tries to add in some stuff about Nancy being Freddy’s favorite and expands on Freddy’s torching at the hands of an angry mob of parents. Still, we’re simply watching the same movie, with different people playing the roles and nothing of their own to add.

Like most such films, where it loses to the original is in the intangibles. It’s tale is no longer fresh. In 1984, plenty of slasher flicks had already been made, but none quite like the original Nightmare. In 2010, many of us have seen all of the movies in the franchise and/or a countless number of movies influenced by it. We've moved on to torture porn and 3D gore. We know what to expect. Any fears we may have had with regards to sleeping are checked at the door. While the original was a visual spectacle, psychological attack and a watershed moment for the genre, this is only a movie.

Since it is only a movie, the tension never feels quite high enough. The death scenes are mostly altered or updated versions of what happened in it’s predecessor, but neither better nor worse. Freddy isn't quite menacing enough, either. Thankfully, he’s far from the stand-up comedian version of later Freddy movies, but not quite up to snuff with what the character is in the original. Jackie Earle Haley, who handles the role, is a fine actor. He’s had an excellent career, to this point. I still expect him to at least be nominated for a major award, someday. However, no matter how good he is, he’s simply playing Freddy Krueger. On the other hand, Robert Englund, never before or since better than a B-grade performer in B-grade horror movies, caught lightning in a bottle. He seems to actually be Freddy Krueger.

To be quite honest, the remake is perfectly adequate in every way. It is good enough not to be an abomination, like the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. And if, by some chance, you haven’t seen its predecessor or are new to horror flicks, it might be an excellent thrill ride. There is just nothing here that should cause you to hate it, except for the fact that it isn't the original.

MY SCORE: 6/10

Shutter Island

Directed by Martin Scorsese.
2009. Rated R, 138 minutes.
Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio
Mark Ruffalo
Ben Kingsley
Max von Sydow
Jackie Earle Haley
Michelle Williams
Emily Mortimer
Patricia Clarkson
Ted Levine
John Carroll Lynch

It’s 1954 and federal agent Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) is sent to Shutter Island to investigate the escape of a patient from the mental institution. Actually, that’s redundant. The entire island basically serves as the mental institution. We learn that it’s where they keep the criminally insane. Though the faculty seems to want the issue resolved, they put up various walls of resistance. Our hero is having a hard time getting results.

Agent Daniels also has ulterior motives. It seems he’s had prior dealings with a mysteriously inconspicuous patient and is quite suspicious of what might really be going on in this remote location. He vows to his partner Chuck (Ruffalo) to get to the bottom of things.

As we follow the proceedings, we’re sucked in and wondering how our hero is going to save the day. We get hints along the way that saving the day may be impossible. We can eventually guess where this is all going. That’s normally a death knell. Here, it’s fine because it does something lesser movies don’t. It defiantly straddles the fence, not choosing either of the two possible outcomes it gives us. Neither is very pleasant. Yet, we still feel the need to decipher what we’ve seen, trying to extract the film’s truth. To be, or not to be really is the question. Supporters of both will have plenty of evidence to support their interpretation.

Once again teaming up with director Martin Scorsese, DiCaprio turns in another great performance. For Scorcese, it’s a departure from the norm. This is no gritty urban crime drama, but his storytelling is as effective as ever.

The drawback is that it runs too long. There is a scene in which the movie climaxes by giving us the two options to decide between. The next two or three minutes flesh out one of them. If the Coen Brothers had directed this, it would’ve ended right there, probably without those few minutes but abruptly stopping right when…I’ll let you see it. Scorcese drags it on too long after that, almost explaining too much.

“SI” is a top notch psychological thriller. It diminishes its own predictability with a heavy dose of ambiguity. It also plays with our heads by using lots of smoke and mirrors, but in a good way. This isn’t your uncle pulling a penny out of your ear, it’s a really slick sleight of hand David Blaine would be proud of.

The Opposite View: A.O. Scott, New York Times

What the Internet Says: 8.0/10 on imdb.com (7/16/10), 67% on rottentomatoes.com, 63/100 on metacritic.com

8.5/10