The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Lovelace

Blue Jasmine

Directed by Woody Allen.

2013. Rated PG-13, 98 minutes.

Cast:

Cate Blanchett

Alec Baldwin

Sally Hawkins

Bobby Cannavale

Andrew Dice Clay

Peter Sarsgaard

Louis C.K.

Michael Stuhlbarg

Max Casella

Alden Ehrenreich

Jasmine (Blanchett) is no longer with her husband Hal (Baldwin), but can't stop going on about all the wonderful things they used to do together to anyone within earshot. It turns out they were once fabulously wealthy. Her days were spent having expensive lunches with her friends and planning charity events. Circumstances I won't spoil forced them apart and put her in the poor house. With nowhere else to go, and having to start over, Jasmine takes what money she has and flies to San Francisco to stay with her sister Ginger (Hawkings) who has a couple of young sons and is on the verge of having her fiance Chili (Cannavale) move in with her. To say all of this is a shock to her system is putting it mildly. Jasmine trying to put the pieces of her life back together while flashing back to what once was ensues.

Two things jump out at you as outstanding aspects of this film. The first is Cate Blanchett's performance in the titular role. She dazzles with her portrayal of a woman frayed at the edges, and with full knowledge of that, resolutely clinging to her self-righteousness. She's in touch with the reality of her situation, but not entirely sure how reality works. It's a complicated act akin to juggling chainsaws. One false move would mean certain death for her believability. Fortunately, each time she tosses a saw in the air she manages to catch it safely by the handle.

The other great aspect of this movie shines through Blanchett's performance. She makes it easy to recognize how well written Blue Jasmine is. Even during her least stable moments, it doesn't seem showy. It feels like a person having a difficult time coping, not an actor trying to impress the academy. Of course, that's exactly what she did and took home Oscar gold. A large part of that was the dialogue she and everyone else was given. From her, when talking to others, it is a constant stream of needling insults. No one thing she says could incite a riot, but her ever growing verbal combinations drives others insane. This is why the people around her blow up in her face from time to time, and take great joy in doing so. Her holier than thou attitude and complete stand-offishness gives them gless during the various moments in which she receives her comeuppance. When speaking to herself, whether others are present or not, she goes on strangely coherent rambles. By that, I mean what she's saying makes complete sense it just just lacks context to whoever is in her midst. They can easily figure out what she's talking about. They just won't be able to understand why. Writer/director Woody Allen pulls this off brilliantly. He puts his protagonist in a world where she can have control of her surroundings even as she is losing control of her life. If something is not about her, she makes it that way. The question is whether or not she can fix any of it.

It would be tough to sell a movie with one great performance and not much else going for it as worth the bother. Fortunately, I've already mentioned Allen's writing. His directing deserves credit here, as well. He shoots scenes with the appropriate intimacy or distance depending on what's happening with Jasmine. Whenever she's trying to separate herself from a situation, she's off to one side, almost detached from whatever is happening. When others are probing her for answers to personal questions they get close-up, putting them in our face to suggest that they're also in hers. It's a bunch of subtle touches that come together to form our picture.

To help this picture take shape, others in the cast also perform very well. Alec Baldwin is perfectly slimy as Jasmine's beloved Hal. Bobby Cannavale sweats his way through an excellent portrayal of a guy who is happy with his station in life and whiny when things don't go his way. Sally Hawkins does well as the smarter-than-given-credit-for Ginger. However, I'd be lying if I didn't say I thought Sarah Silverman might have stolen the show with this role. For me, the one weak link is a guy who received tons of prais for his work, here. That's Andrew Dice Clay. It's not that he was necessarily bad, just terribly miscast. An integral part of his character, Ginger's ex-husband Augie, is being a San Francisco guy not used to swimming with the financial sharks of New York. In fact, he's never even been to the city. It comes off as the most artificial part of the movie because whenever he opens his mouth, that unmistakable Brooklyn accent comes flying out of it. It was utterly impossible for him to sound more like a native New Yorker.

That small misstep aside, Allen has crafted a wonderful film. The dialogue is sharp and the camera is very purposely placed throughout. Both of these things add the finishing touches on an already sizzling story. Being a Woody Allen script, there is humor, for sure. However, it's of a darker variety than his usual fare. Helping it get that way is Cate Blanchett, standing in for Woody himself. She takes his normally neurotic and longing for love protagonist and adds a layer of growing instability and denial. Idiosyncrasies are no longer the joke, but symptoms of more serious problems. That this is going on within a person who has a huge ego only complicates things. By the end, Allen impresses by offering no easy explanations. He presents us with a set of events and asks us to draw our own conclusions. Yup, I'm a sucker for well done ambiguous endings. For my money, this is the best Woody Allen movie at least since Vicky Cristina Barcelona and possibly as far back as Match Point.

Robot & Frank

Directed by Jake Schreier.

2012. Rated PG-13, 85 minutes.

Cast:

Frank Langella

James Marsden

Susan Sarandon

Liv Tyler

Jeremy Strong

Jeremy Sisto

Peter Sarsgaard

Once a globetrotting cat burglar, Frank (Langella) is retired and lives alone. These days, he gets all of his excitement flirting with Jennifer (Sarandon), the local librarian, while checking out books. The problem is he’s suffering from what appears to be the early stages of Alzheimer’s. That word is never used in the movie to my recollection, just my amateur diagnosis. His adult son Hunter (Marsden) is worried about him and has entertained the idea of putting the old man in a nursing home. Thinking better of it, Hunter buys Frank a robot that functions as an automated in-home healthcare attendant. Though reluctant at first, Frank and machine develop a fascinating relationship.

This movie raises many of the same questions we've been asking for years about the potential good or harm that may come from our ever-increasing dependency on technology. However, it does it in a way that’s refreshing. It’s refreshing because no matter how plainly we can see that their friendship is artificial, it feels as authentic as any other. Clearly, we’re viewing the world through Frank’s cloudy perception. The idea of a mutual bond between he and the robot is as much a figment of his imagination as it is reality. The line between the two blurred by the robot often responding as a friend might. As a result, we’re caught in that abyss between the heart and the mind. We know one thing to be true and hope that the other thing is also, though we know it to be impossible.

Frank Langella gives us a great portal for such feelings. He plays his part perfectly. We see Frank as a stubborn man, aware he’s not as sharp as he once was, but thinking he can handle it. The robot reinvigorates him, helps him reclaim his zest for life. This is not always good thing, necessarily, as Frank entertains the idea of returning to his old tricks. On the other hand, his synapses are firing once more.

There are a couple of narrative issues. Namely, the way Susan Sarandon’s character is handled feels like a bit of a cheat, to me. I see what the filmmakers are trying to do, but it renders Frank much further gone than has been let on to that point. In fact, it makes it seem as if there should never have been a purchase of the robot in the first place. His son should have went with his first instinct. For fear I've already said too much, I’ll leave it at that. I will say that Sarandon herself is great in the role. Other supporting players are just as good. The whirlwind turn by Liv Tyler as Frank’s daughter especially impresses.

While superheroes and dystopian futures dominate the box office, the truth is that most of the best science fiction of recent vintage shies away from explosions and invasions. Instead, they use futuristic premises to examine our present circumstances. In lieu of eye-popping visuals, they engage our minds. Ultimately, they are films about us human beings. Movies like Another Earth and Safety Not Guaranteed understand this and weave wonderfully relatable tales out of their sci-fi frames. They’re barely even recognizable as members of the genre, at all. Robot & Frank strikes a similar chord, though the presence of the machine renders it more obvious. Sure, it presents us with a society where it is becoming increasingly normal to have a robot around to do chores for you, but this isn't the hyper-paranoid universe of I, Robot. This is one man trying to come to grips with his own very personal situation.

Green Lantern

Directed by Martin Campbell.

2011. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.
Cast:
Ryan Reynolds
Blake Lively
Mark Strong
Peter Sarsgaard
Tim Robbins
Angela Bassett
Jay O. Sanders
Temuera Morrison
Clancy Brown
Michael Clarke Duncan

Abin Sur (Morrison) is the most celebrated member of the intergalactic police force known as The Green Lanterns. When he is fatally wounded by all-powerful villain Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown) he manages to make it to the nearest inhabited planet before perishing. Of course, that planet is Earth. Once landing, Abin Sur commands his magical ring to go forth and choose his successor in the Green Lantern corps. It chooses loose cannon, ultra sarcastic playboy test pilot Hal Jordan (Reynolds).

Shortly, Hal is whisked away to the planet Oa (pronounced like Noah, but without the ‘n’). This is HQ for all the lanterns and he’s there to get some quick training. That means he gets an explanation on how the ring works and what it does. For the uninformed, the ring can instantly form anything he thinks of. It also allows him to fly and breathe in outer space. We’re never actually told this last bit, but roll with it. Hal doubts that he’s worthy, goes back home, saves a few lives and really gets thrust into the action when Parallax comes looking to make a snack out of Earth’s inhabitants. Meanwhile, Dr. Hector Hammond (Sarsgaard) suddenly develops telepathic and telekinetic powers and goes crazy after examining Abin Sur’s body. A piece of Parallax lodged in the dead alien’s chest infects the doc. In short, Dr. Hammond becomes the tune-up villain for our hero before the big smog (Parallax) comes to Earth.

Although it’s an origin story, Green Lantern is not one of those slow movers where we have to wait an hour before the action starts. It’s a fast-paced affair that gleefully zips along in a relentless attempt to make each action sequence a bigger spectacle than the last. It seems to be trying to make you say “Ooh, he just made a machine gun! There’s a giant racetrack! Ooh, the giant cloud of dust is zapping people!” And so on. By the way, I haven’t even mentioned the steadily increasing size of Dr. Hammond’s head.

For kids and others who just want to see lots of superhero stuff, this is a fun ride. “Stuff” happens all the time. For more discerning viewers, particularly overly critical fanboys, it will be a neon green tinted mess. Sure, lots of stuff keeps happening but much of it makes little or no sense. It feels like they just keep throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. Instead of developing the story, it rushes to the next action scene. This, combined with a tone that’s way too reminiscent of the Fantastic Four movies and a hero that acts more like Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark than the comic book version of Jordan gives the whole film a very cheesy feel. I’m not necessarily calling for “dark and gritty” like fanboys tend to do when criticizing the movies based on their favorite characters. However, if memory serves The Green Lantern comic books was more serious in approach. That helped offset some of the inherent silliness of a hero that forms a bunch of green things with his magic ring, has a serious problem with yellow and follows the command of a group of rather large-headed blue guys.

The silliness extends to our villain and the movie’s concept of the size of the galaxy. Creatures that can eliminate entire planets of people are difficult to translate to the screen. They gave a valiant effort but weren’t consistent with what Parallax could or couldn’t do. This is mostly a problem because he flat refuses a couple opportunities to kill our hero. Judging by the ending, our villain isn’t too bright, either. This little bit of ridiculousness involves the sun. I’ll just leave it at that. Still, in comparison to The Fantastic Four again, this movie does a better job with a similar bad guy. We get a far better representation of Parallax than the second FF flick has of Galactus. As far as the galaxy goes, I just find it funny that while no one beams anywhere like in Star Trek, anyone can get anywhere in a matter of minutes. It’s like Earth and Oa are next door neighbors.

I could go on for days about the problems with this movie. There are lots to choose from. However, it does one thing well. It gives us super hero action. It also does it at a pretty rapid rate. If this is enough for you, then you’ll enjoy GL. Be honest with yourself about your feelings for those Fantastic Four flicks. Better than I, that will likely help you decide if you think this is part of the brightest day or blackest night.

MY SCORE: 5/10

Boys Don't Cry

Directed by Kimberly Peirce.

1999. Rated R, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Hilary Swank
Chloë Sevigny
Peter Sarsgaard
Brandon Sexton III
Alicia Goranson
Alison Folland
Jeanetta Arnette
Rob Campbell
Matt McGrath

Right away, we find out the one thing in Brandon’s (Swank) life that has caused him the most problems. He is really a she name Teena. Determined to live and pass as a man, this behavior is mostly an issue when whatever girl he’s dating finds out his secret. This is usually followed by Brandon being chased and/or beaten by a group of the girl’s male relatives and friends. It doesn’t look like a fun existence, but Brandon seems bound to keep repeating the cycle. It also appears this way to Brandon’s cousin Lonny (McGrath). Lonny eventually becomes tired of all the drama and decides that Brandon can no longer stay with him in his trailer. With nowhere to go, Brandon falls in with a crowd of ruffians led by John (Sarsgaard). They whisk Brandon away from his hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska to Falls City about an hour away. Shortly, he meets Lana (Sevigny), the girl of his dreams. Based on a true story. To say Brandon is confused or sick is a matter of opinion and belief.

To say Brandon’s deceitful and misguided is fact. His insistence on keeping up a lie at the expense of the emotions of others would normally make him totally unlikeable. Thanks to a masterful performance by Hilary Swank and a very well written script, this isn’t the case. Those of us who haven’t gone through the same struggle probably won’t be in love with Brandon. However, we begin to understand and gain empathy. We admire his courage in some areas while simultaneously lamenting his lack of it in others. To facilitate this, Swank mixes the wild enthusiasm of a child in a candy story with the same child’s fear of being caught stealing. We understand both ends of the spectrum and everything in between.

As well as we come to know Brandon, he’s not the only person we feel for. Our hearts also go out to Lana. She wants us to think she’s tough, that she can handle whatever comes her way. Eventually, we come to realize that not only is she not such a tough nut, but she’s a perpetual victim. She’s a victim of her mother’s carelessness and of the affections of others, including Brandon. Though less heralded, Chloë Sevigny’s performance is no less effective than Swank’s. The surprise is that after this and other critically acclaimed portrayals early in her career, Sevigny hasn’t quite reached the level of stardom she seemed destined to.

Boys Don’t Cry is a movie that asks us to examine the characters on the screen and ourselves, as well. It holds our beliefs up to the light and gives us a look at them we might not have taken. For some, the protagonist will pose a challenge. Brandon is an affront to all they believe. Will they be able to see passed sexuality and into humanity? This is also a fascinating drama that gives us a ride on an emotional roller coaster. After all the climbs, drops and loops we are entertained and drained.

Knight and Day

Directed by James Mangold.
2010. Rated PG-13, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Cruise
Cameron Diaz
Peter Sarsgaard
Viola Davis
Jordi Mollà
Paul Dano
Celia Weston
Jack O’Connell
Maggie Grace

We learn something about Roy (Cruise) long before June (Diaz) finds out. Right at the start of Knight and Day, we find out he’s got some pretty powerful people after him. For some reason, they set it up so that she’d be the only other person aboard a flight with Roy and assassins they’ve sent to kill him. After spectacularly escaping that situation, with June in tow, he goes on the run dragging her along and generally not telling her much of anything. Is Roy the good guy, or the bad guy? Is he lying, or not? What about the people chasing him? Where does June fit into all this? These questions drive all the action and gags that follow. With the next shootout, car chase or fist-fight never more than a couple minutes away, its definitely an action flick. Since much of that action, and nearly everything else fused with jokes, it’s also a comedy.

The near constant action is a big plus. It keeps things moving along. Our runtime breezes by. The whimsical nature of the script helps with this, too. There are no heavy scenes for us to slow down and ponder. The basic pattern goes like this: everything goes boom, a few silly lines of dialogue reveal ever-so-slightly more of the plot, everything goes boom again.

Where it falls apart is in the story. It only gives us a little at a time because its trying to stretch what little is there. What’s there is simply a rehash of something we’ve seen hundreds, if not thousands, of times before. For all the mystery its presented with, it actually holds none. On top of that, the entire movie could’ve been done without the Cameron Diaz character. She’s completely irrelevant, aside from the fact that the filmmakers obviously wanted a female lead to create sexual tension. Otherwise, she just gets in the way, screams hysterically and puts herself in harm’s way on a regular basis merely so she can be rescued. She is a classic damsel in distress, except she’s a damsel our dashing hero just met.

This is strictly for those knights you just want to see a lot of explosions while Tom Cruise does the impossible. Did you see that? Anyhoo, its not terrible popcorn fare, but it isn’t especially memorable, either. About ten minutes after the credits roll, it will simply blend in with all the other action flicks you’ve seen.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Orphan

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra.
2009. Rated R, 123 minutes.
Cast:
Vera Farmiga
Isabelle Fuhrman
Peter Sarsgaard
Aryana Engineer

Plot: After the pregancy of what would've been their third child ends in miscarriage, the Coleman family decides to adopt. They settle on nine year old Esther (Fuhrman) and get a lot more than they bargained for.

The Good: It does a great job creating atmosphere. The whole thing has a dark, brooding temperament. As our adoptive mom Kate, Vera Farmiga is perfectly fragile while hubby John (Sarsgaard) is perfectly oblivious. We can see the two effectively being played against one another by the evil Esther. Speaking of Esther, the movie pulls no punches when it comes to her dastardly deeds and creepiness. At first, the coming and going of her Russian accent bothers you but trust me, there's reason for that. Its all part of a great setup for a wonderfully silly twist that might make you shake your head but works well, regardless, given what happens to that point and enables the movie to give us a really creepy scene involving a lot of makeup towards the end.

The Bad: There are a few plotholes to be found and liberties taken with the legal process (Social Services should've intervened several times). More bothersome is how quickly John is ready to put his wife out, given the circumstances, and also how much of a wuss their son is. If he had manned up like we thought he would this might've been a very different and much shorter movie. For us folks over thirty, the whole thing is very reminiscent of The Good Son which starred Macauley Culkin in the evil kid role.

The Ugly: There's a disclaimer at the start of the movie basically begging us to adopt. Of course in the movie that follows, the orphan lies, steals, commits murder and all out terrorizes the family that adopts her.

Recommendation: Its a fun, over the top thriller that builds nicely until we get a twist you can't see coming. It absolutely works within the context of the film. Some may find it a bit silly. Those people will insist its a terrible movie and compare it to the worst of M. Night Shyamalan. For the rest of us, its an exciting ride that will keep us far away from the orphanage.

MY SCORE: 7/10