Monday, 16 July 2018

Leave No Trace


That’s back-to-back wows in what has, so far, been a fairly unimpressive year at the cinema.

Unlike this year’s previous wow films, however, Leave No Trace is a film I can recommend to almost everyone (I say ‘almost’ because, for some people, the slow pace will be a problem). Leave No Trace is described as a family drama, which is certainly accurate, but Debra Granik’s films are so unique in their structure and atmosphere that it’s misleading to use such descriptions. I would simply describe it as a Granik drama.

Granik made my favourite film of 2010 (Winter’s Bone), which launched Jennifer Lawrence’s career. Leave No Trace, which will make my top ten but not get to number one, may launch another career, that of Thomasin Harcourt McKenzie, whose performance as 14-year-old Tom is nothing short of perfection. It needs to be for this film to work, because so much of this quiet film rides on her expressions and tones of voice.

Leave No Trace tells the story of Tom and her father, Will (Ben Foster), who live in the woods just outside Portland, Oregon. Why they live in the woods is never really explained, which is part of the magic of this incredibly subtle and understated story. We are given just enough information to know that Will has PTSD from his experience in the military (Iraq? Afghanistan?) and in a sense he is one of many homeless veterans found all over the U.S. (others in the Portland area also feature in the film). But Will is unique in that he is parenting a teenage girl while living a life of hiding from the authorities (changing camp regularly) in an urban forest. And somehow Will is doing a terrific job of being a loving and attentive parent. When Will and Tom are caught, very early in the film, and taken into custody, Jean (Dana Millican), a social worker, is amazed that Tom is so well-educated and so content with her life.

That contentment will fade as Tom and Will are taken to their new home on a tree farm/ranch. It’s a living situation Will cannot tolerate for long, but Tom is intrigued by the people around her and she begins to make friends. The growing separation between Tom and Will, based on very different needs, lies at the heart of this sad and bleak, but also heartwarming and hopeful, drama.

Like McKenzie, Foster’s understated performance is spot-on. It doesn’t hurt that the screenplay by Granik and Anne Rosellini makes Tom and Will such fully-developed characters. The cinematography, score and direction are all outstanding, creating a film that feels so real it could almost be a documentary, which somehow only makes the story more haunting, though also deeply moving because of the way we can empathize with the experiences of the protagonists.

But whats sets Leave No Trace apart and puts it into my top ten has not yet been mentioned. I’m taking about the way all the characters who come into contact with Tom and Will are treated by the writers. I don’t want to spoil the film, in even a minimal way, by elaborating on this, so for now I will only say that the way Leave No Trace constantly defies predictable interactions blew me away. I'll write an entire article about this one day.

Leave No Trace is a profound film about relationships, community, growing up and life in the 21st century. And while it’s a slow quiet film, I couldn’t believe it was over already when it ended, which is always a very good sign. ****. My mug is up. Not to be missed!

Friday, 13 July 2018

First Reformed

Wow! (Only the third wow of 2018, but more are on the way)

Lots of catching up to do, with at least eight reviews coming, but this is the best of them. You can read my review at Third Way:

Paul Schrader's First Reformed gets an easy ****. My mug is up for a guaranteed entry in my top fifteen films of the year.

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

On Chesil Beach

I had read Ian McEwan’s On Chesil Beach to Kathy in April, just a few days before we saw the trailer for the film, and we had much enjoyed it, so we could hardly miss an opportunity to watch the film version on the big screen. That big screen was certainly helpful in allowing us to enjoy the excellent cinematography (it was actually filmed on Chesil Beach), but watching Dominic Cooke’s film so soon after reading the novel wasn’t ideal: Despite the fact that Ian McEwan wrote the screenplay himself, the film failed to do justice to his novel.

On Chesil Beach uses the backdrop of a wedding night in 1962 to tell the story of the bride and groom through flashbacks. Florence Ponting (played by Saoirse Ronan) is a brilliant young musician from an upper class family who dreams of leading a String Quartet on the world stage. Florence knows little about sex and is terrified about what she does know. Edward Mayhew (Billy Howle) also doesn’t know much about sex, but otherwise is avery different person. Coming from a working class home and living with a mother whose brain was damaged in an accident, Edward has few ambitions other than getting away from home.

The unique flashback structure (in which most of the film involves flashbacks) worked well in the novel, filling in the story of the two nervous newlyweds in a way that fit nicely into the short excursions back to the wedding night. Unfortunately, I did not find that this structure worked well in the film. On the contrary, I found it awkward, with no clear flow from past to present or vice versa, making for slow going at times. I also found the new extended ending to be awkwardly contrived. Where I was hoping for some new scenes to add to my appreciation of the novel, I found the new scenes did the opposite. 

Which is not to say that the writing was inferior. Many scenes in the film, as in the novel, featured thoughtful and well-crafted dialogue. And the acting was outstanding throughout. With such acting and writing, I had hoped for a more engaging film, but that was not the case for me. Perhaps this is partly the fault of having a rookie director.

In the end, Kathy and I enjoyed watching On Chesil Beach, with no regrets for having seen it, but we came away disappointed because of how much more we had enjoyed the novel. A solid ***. My mug is up. 

Friday, 15 June 2018

Ocean's 8

Ocean’s 8, directed and co-written by Gary Ross, is a film about eight women trying to pull off the biggest jewel heist in history - at the Met (museum) in New York City. Leading the gang is Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock), sister to Danny Ocean (George Clooney, who isn’t in the film) from the Soderbergh films. Debbie just got out of prison, where she spent five years planning this heist. Now she gathers together her team, played by actors like Cate Blanchett, Sarah Paulsen, Helena Bonham Carter, Rihanna, Mindy Kaling, Awkwafina and, later, also Anne Hathaway. Ocean’s 8, in other words, is a film about women. Women don’t usually pull off heists, and I assume this is a film that’s supposed to draw attention to the lack of films featuring women in such roles and do its part to counter that lack.

But here’s the thing: Ocean’s 8 only really got entertaining for me when James Cordon got involved in the last quarter of the film. Cordon plays John Frazier, an insurance investigator who knows the Oceans all to well. Every minute of Ocean’s 8 with Cordon in it was more entertaining than all the minutes without him. I consider that a huge fail on the part of the writers. The problem isn’t that Cordon outshines the women as an actor. He is very good, but so were all of the women, especially Bullock and Blanchett (as Debbie’s partner). The problem is that Frazier is just a better-drawn character than the ones the women play (whom I’m not even bothering to name), and his lines snap the way all the lines should have snapped. The only other male actor of note was Richard Armitage, but he didn’t fare as well.

The entire film needed to snap and flow instead of meandering along with some scattered fun scenes between the women (the best involving Bullock and Blanchett). And by the time we get to the twists that are mandatory for the end of every heist caper, they almost made me yawn because of their lack of originality and boring delivery. 

And what was with the change of date at Danny Ocean’s grave marker: At the beginning of the film it read 2017; at the end it was 2018, which no one else seems to have noticed?

Thanks to Cordon, Ocean’s 8 was worth a look and there was just enough fun along the way to slide over into ***. My mug is up, but, again, just barely.

Thursday, 7 June 2018


Walter was in town, and we were fortunate to catch a new indie film to watch together.

Sebastian Lelio made my seventh-favourite film of 2017 (A Fantastic Woman), so I wasn’t about to miss his new film, regardless of subject matter. I was surprised by how very different Disobedience feels to his last film, but I was not disappointed, though its one major flaw prevents it from receiving the four stars which would have guaranteed Lelio’s second consecutive appearance on my top-fifteen list.

Disobedience tells the story of three close friends in London whose lives have taken unexpected turns and who are brought together again after years of separation (one lives in New York, for reasons which become clear during the film), resulting in the release of long pent-up emotions and passions.

Rachel Weisz plays Ronit Krushka, a New York City artist who has abandoned her Jewish faith but now returns to the Orthodox Jewish community in London after the death of her father (the community’s rabbi). Ronit does not receive much of a welcome, even from one of her close friends, Dovid Kuperman (Alessandro Nivola), who has married Esti (Rachel McAdams), Ronit’s other close friend. In an absolutely brilliant first half hour, we are slowly introduced to these three characters (whose surface successes seem clouded by deep unhappiness and even loneliness), their relationship and the reason Ronit left her father and friends to move across the ocean.

It’s only an introduction, though, as additional pieces fall into place throughout the film. Disobedience is in no hurry to reveal its secrets, which is great, though its major flaw is related to this strength. I would like to leave all the secrets for you to discover (as you know, I rarely do spoilers), but since every other reviewer (and even the film’s poster) gives away the central secret, I suppose I need to do so as well (minor spoiler alert): Ronit and Esti’s friendship goes much deeper than friendship and was the cause of the estrangement between Ronit and her father. 

I share this because one of the film’s highlights is the perfect chemistry between Ronit and Esti, made possible by the wonderful understated performances of Weisz and McAdams (perhaps their best performances ever). The acting of everyone in the film is excellent and this is matched by the outstanding cinematography and score (the singing is another highlight). 

Unfortunately, Disobedience could not sustain the brilliance of its first half hour. As it moves towards its unexpected ending, there is an increasing sense that vital pieces of character development are missing, especially for Dovid. Decisions seem to lack enough context, as if the film is sometimes as lost as its three central figures. The result is a last half hour with moments of great beauty and power but too many moments that don’t quite satisfy. 

Nevertheless, Disobedience is a marvellous, thoughtful and moving drama that gets a solid ***+. Two mugs up.

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Solo: A Star Wars Story

And now for another episode of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly:

The Good:

1) What’s not to love about L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge), Lando Calrissian’s droid?

2) The acting and dialogue (written by Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) are, again, well above the old Star Wars level. Emilia Clarke stands out as Qi’ra, the woman who has somehow stolen Han Solo’s heart and is at the heart of the action during the second half of the film (and the most fascinating character in the film). Then there’s Thandie Newton (playing Val) and Woody Harrelson (playing Beckett), who are always fun to watch. Paul Bettany plays Dryden Voss and Donald Glover is Calrissian. They’re okay. Alden Ehrenreich (Solo) grew on me, but is never really convincing as Solo. So-so.

3) The last half hour of the film actually has a compelling storyline, though by then I was almost asleep.

4) Given all the controversy around the making of this film, Ron Howard (director) acquitted himself well.

5) There were moments of fun and adventure that reminded me of Indiana Jones. Not a bad thing.

The Bad:

1) The first three-quarters of the film. What a mess. Non-stop action involving endless chases and PG violence of the kind that bore me to tears. No story to speak of. Just an attempt by Han, Chewbacca, and company to steal some valuable resource to pacify Voss and something called Crimson Dawn. Very sad.

2) Given that we know where Han Solo and Chewbacca will end up, this film should be providing a much much much more interesting backstory (blaming the Kasdans this time). What waste!

The Ugly:

1) The cinematography is appallingly awful!!! It was like watching the film through a dark grey fog. No colour! No faces! The original Star Wars films were magnificent beyond words in comparison. I assume it was all because of 3D, but that certainly doesn’t excuse it. Unforgivable!!

Solo: A Star Wars Story has just enough good to outweigh the bad and ugly, and allow me to award it ***. My mug is up, but just barely. 

Friday, 18 May 2018

TV77: Babylon Berlin

I was recently surprised to discover that one of my favourite European filmmakers was part of a team that created, wrote and directed a 16-episode (so far) German TV show called Babylon Berlin, playing on Netflix. Since nothing Tom Tykwer has made has received less than ***+ from me, I immediately dived in. I wasn’t disappointed, though the show has a few flaws.

Babylon Berlin stars Volker Bruch as Gereon Rath, a police inspector in Berlin in 1929, in the days of the Weimar Republic. Rath is a survivor of WWI, but has a very bad case of PTSD, one that leaves him shaking without a constant dose of morphine. Rath has been in a relationship with Helga (Hannah Herzsprung), his brother’s wife, since the war (his brother went missing in action). Rath, who is working homicide, is in Berlin (from Cologne) to find a certain pornographic film but gets involved in a case involving a train from Russia carrying poisonous gas and a wealth in gold. Working with Rath (or against him?) is an older detective named Bruno Wolter (Peter Kurth).

Liv Lisa Fries co-stars as Charlotte Ritter, a young woman with a lot of ambition who wants to become the first female homicide detective in Berlin. She also gets mixed up in the two investigations, taking on the dangerous role of Rath’s assistant. Ritter’s friend, Greta (Leonie Benesch), shows up in town and becomes a maid for August Benda (Matthias Brandt), the head of Berlin’s political police, who becomes Rath’s closest ally.

There are a lot more characters in the show, including communists who want to overthrow Stalin and a secret group of soldiers rebuilding Germany’s air force in Russia. With sixteen episodes, you can have a lot going on and, in 1929 Berlin, there was a lot going on, with major changes around the corner.

Babylon Berlin has a marvellous period feel, aided by gorgeous cinematography and a great soundtrack. The acting is generally outstanding, especially for TV, as is the writing. While there was a little too much melodrama on occasion (especially late in the series), and some credibility issues, I found the story compelling and intelligent throughout, with a lot to say about the history of Germany during that time. Best of all, Babylon Berlin has a strong noir feel that works perfectly with its 1929 setting. Rumour has it that this is the most expensive non-English TV show ever made. I’m not surprised. 

Despite its flaws, I am giving Babylon Berlin ****. This is outstanding TV and better than most of the stuff on Netflix. But I should note that this is a slow-moving and decidedly adult TV show. My mug is up. 

Friday, 11 May 2018


Tully is one of those films you need to see twice before you can fully appreciate it. I have not yet watched it twice, but already know that I will like it more the second time around (for reasons I won't say). In the meantime, I am giving Tully a solid ***+. I will update that, as needed, once I have seen Tully again. My mug is up.

My review of Tully can be found at Third Way:

Monday, 7 May 2018


As I have mentioned on this blog before, Andrew Niccol is a fascinating director. He has made a couple of excellent thought-provoking anti-weapons films (Lord of War, Good Kill) and a great thought-provoking sci-fi film (Gattaca). But his other efforts, while also thought-provoking (and his heart is clearly in the right place), have been seriously flawed sci-fi flicks (SimOne, In Time, The Host). Niccol’s latest film, Anon, a Netflix Original sci-fi noir (a favourite genre) that was just released last Friday, unfortunately joins those lesser ranks.

Anon, written and directed by Niccol, stars Clive Owen as Sal Frieland, a New York City homicide detective in the not-so-distant future. In this future, everything people see is permanently recorded by something in their minds (nanobots?), effectively reducing crime to a fraction of what we have today, and making it very difficult to get away with murder. Nevertheless, someone has tried it multiple times and managed to mask their identity in the process, even making the victims look out of their killer’s eyes. Meanwhile, Sal’s ability to identify everyone he sees (including a full bio) has come across a glitch, a young woman  (Amanda Seyfried) whose identity comes up in his mind as ‘unknown - error’. Sal suspects this mysterious Anon has something to do with the murders. But tracking her down is going to be a dangerous game indeed, because she can apparently manipulate everything he sees. 

The plot is rather weak and full of holes (not entirely unexpected), but its vision of the future is, as expected, thought-provoking and not unrealistic. Owen, Seyfried and Colm Feore (as Sal’s boss) make the best of a thin, though intelligent, screenplay, and they are fun to watch. The worst thing about Anon is the graphic violence. Was it really necessary? In my opinion, the answer is no, at least not as often as it was shown. There were some unnecessary sex scenes as well.

But what makes Anon worth watching despite its flaws is the breathtaking and stylish cinematography. It’s almost devoid of any colour, but that just accentuates the noir feel. Magnificent stuff! There are some great shots of NYC and I loved all the white lines of data that people can look at. 

So I am giving Anon a solid *** in spite of its flaws. It’s a fun ride, even if it doesn’t satisfy. My mug is up.

Tuesday, 1 May 2018

Avengers: Infinity War

You wish!

I grow weary of The Avengers (and the whole superhero genre, which has had occasional bursts of promise but has generally failed to live up to its potential - noting that I don't think Black Panther qualifies as a superhero film). In reading a few reviews from my favourite critics, I get the distinct impression that none of them think Infinity War is worth the hype - that, in fact, it’s a hollow film that viewers love because it’s an entertaining distraction full of mindless action (i.e it’s fun), not because it has anything of value to offer as a story or as a film. But these critics feel compelled to give Infinity War a decent rating because they’re afraid of losing credibility and support from the masses who may make Infinity War the most popular film of all time.

I suffer from no such fear (after all, I receive no income for writing these reviews). I may be alienated by those masses, but I consider it a badge of honour as a film critic to say I will never watch one of the most popular films of all time (just as I avoided watching Civil War in 2016 and Guardians last year). I mean, who needs more of that endless and endlessly tedious superhero action (i.e. PG violence), set in a mediocre plot? Not me. But if you want to tell me why you think Infinity War is worth watching, I’m listening.

Update: I was just talking to a certain daughter of mine who had just watched Infinity War and enjoyed it very much. But she confirmed that I would be upset by the film, especially by the violence. The violence was so dark and brutal that it even made her cringe and wonder what was in the minds of those who would allow so much violence to get a PG rating. This is very disturbing, especially when I observe how many violent action films aimed at a young audience are regularly among the most popular films of our time. How can this possibly be a good thing? When is Hollywood/Disney going to admit that watching so much violence as entertainment is not that far removed from the kinds of horrors found in some of the circuses of ancient Rome?

I couldn’t find my mug the last time I reviewed an Avengers film. I won’t need to look for it this time.

Monday, 30 April 2018

TV76: Updates on Some Great TV Serials: Black Sails, Mr. Robot, Homeland

Black Sails, Seasons 3 and 4

The final two seasons of Black Sails were very much in keeping with the first two seasons: a compelling, well-written and well-conceived plot (see original review (TV45) for characters and plot) along with intelligent and nuanced dialogue, excellent acting, lots of extraordinary cinematography and a great score. If anything, the amount of gratuitous sex and graphic violence decreased in these final seasons, so in some ways I liked them better than the first two seasons.

Watching the first season, it took me two episodes to realize that one of the characters was none other than John Silver. I understood immediately that this was one character, at least, who wouldn’t be killed off, but I didn’t fully realize until the end of the fourth season that the entire purpose of Black Sails was to provide a prequel to Stevenson’s Treasure Island. I should have guessed this, but I assumed the writers were just trying to throw in any pirates associated with the Caribbean at the time. Not so. This serial is carefully researched and brings together not only the key players we know from history, but also ends in such a way that it sets up Treasure Island perfectly (I know because I reread Treasure Island immediately after finishing Black Sails).

TV critics weren’t much impressed with Black Sails (other than the cinematography), which I can’t understand at all, especially since they tended to pick on the character development. I thought the characters were endlessly fascinating and that the character development was as almost as good as the best cable shows. I was generally very satisfied with the entire serial and if anything I am now inclined to give Black Sails somewhere between ***+ and ****. My mug is up (but remember that the show is quite violent at times).

Mr. Robot, Seasons 2 and 3

Unlike Black Sails, Mr. Robot gets rave reviews from critics. These are well-deserved, as Mr. Robot continues to be an incredibly compelling, intelligent, well-acted and beautifully shot TV serial (again, see my original review (TV44) for details about the plot and characters). 

I didn’t like season 2 quite as much as season 1, but it was still great TV, and season 3 is almost as good as season 1. Unfortunately, the ending of season 3 didn’t work for me. As always, the sudden bursts of graphic violence in Mr. Robot turn me right off, but the final episode of the third season goes well beyond the pale in this regard and the entire episode left me rather unsatisfied. 

Nevertheless, this cutting-edge surreal psychological cyber-thriller remains among my favourite TV serials of all time and retains its solid ****. My mug is up.

Homeland, Seasons 5 and 6

I promised to keep you updated on Homeland, a brilliantly-acted TV serial about the CIA that experienced a dramatic decline in its storytelling after the first couple of seasons. I became so worried about the writing in seasons 3 and 4 that I contemplated no longer watching the show, but Homeland was on my list of all-time Top Ten TV serials after season 2, so I couldn’t stop watching. Good thing.

The plots of seasons 5 and 6 are too complex to deal with here, but of particular interest is the involvement of Israel and the Mossad in both seasons, and how that involvement leads to major tensions between Dar Adal (F. Murray Abraham) and Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin). Carrie (Claire Danes) remains the show’s heart, of course, but Saul’s role is of paramount importance because of my previous worries about Homeland’s political direction (as expressed in my earlier reviews). Regular readers know how little respect (that would be zero) I have for the CIA and Mossad, so I am wary of any show that grants them too much respect.

In my earliest review, I noted that the only thing that kept my hopes strong in this regard was the presence of Patinkin, a left-leaning Jew with strong views about the Israeli occupation of Palestine. I was convinced that Patinkin’s tremendous integrity would not allow Homeland to go too far wrong. My patience was finally rewarded in the sixth season as Saul indicates to his sister that his views coincide with those of the actor playing him. So while the critics were less impressed with season 6 than with season 5, season 6 is one of my favourite seasons of Homeland. If only the last episode hadn’t gone off the rails. The ending of season 6 felt hurried, anticlimactic and downright crazy. Not impressed at all. 

But even in that unimpressive ending, as well as in the ending of season 5, there were some wonderful moments in the midst of the chaos. As of now, Homeland retains its solid **** and remains among my favourite TV serials.

Saturday, 28 April 2018

TV75: Collateral

A four-hour British miniseries (or a four-episode season one, if you prefer), this Netflix Original is a unique police serial featuring one of the UK’s best film actors, Carey Mulligan, and two of its best TV actors, Nicola Walker and John Simm. Add to this that Collateral was written by one of my favourite British TV writers, David Hare, and there should be no way this show could go wrong.

And, indeed, the first episode blew me away with its brilliant dialogue and acting, fascinating characters, gorgeous stylistic cinematography and fast-paced intelligent plot, not to mention that its heart was most definitely in the right place, with wise words about immigration and the justice system. An easy four stars, I thought. Then came the second episode, and the third, and everything began to unravel. Sigh. So sad.

The heart of the story is the police investigation into the murder of an Arab immigrant as he was delivering a pizza. Leading the investigation is DI Kip Glaspie (Mulligan), who is six months pregnant and leading her first case. Her police partner is DI Nathan Bilk (Nathaniel Martello-White) and her boss is DSU Jack Haley (Ben Miles). But the investigation is only a small part of the plot, which also features the killer (an army captain played by Jeany Spark), a gay vicar (Walker), her immigrant partner (Kae Alexander), who witnessed the murder, the woman who ordered the pizza (Billie Piper), her ex-husband (Simm), who is now the local pro-immigrant Labour MP, the manager of the pizza place (Hayley Squires), the victim’s two sisters (Ahd and Julie Namir), an MI-5 agent (John Heffernan) and many more.

The above paragraph reveals Collateral’s biggest flaw, and it’s a major one: There are far too many characters and storylines for a four-hour miniseries. In order for Collateral to have been as great as it could have been, one of two things needed to happen: 1) Take eight hours to develop all the characters and storylines adequately; or 2) Tell the story in four hours but focus on Glaspie’s investigation and the killer’s story, with maybe one side-story. As it was, the show felt ridiculously convoluted and scattered, with the feeling that every side-story was rushed to its inadequate conclusion.

Collateral could have been one of the greats; all the ingredients were there. Instead, each episode is less compelling than the one before and by the end there is only a sigh for what might have been. Collateral deserves no more than *** as a result, but I was so appreciative of its political views that I’ll slide it over into a lightweight ***+. My mug is up, but the brew inside is nowhere near as tasty as its aroma promised.

Thursday, 26 April 2018

You Were Never Really Here


Not too many films written and directed by a woman have gotten a ‘wow’ from me, and very few of those are dark and violent psychological thrillers. But the times are changing and I expect to find a lot more films made by women on my top ten lists in the years ahead. That is a very good thing (i.e. it’s about time). You Were Never Really Here is written and directed by Lynne Ramsay, who made one of my top ten films of the year in 2011: We Need to Talk About Kevin (also a dark psychological thriller). She is likely to get on my list again this year with what I can only describe as a masterpiece of cinematic art, albeit a brutal masterpiece that is very hard to watch (as was Kevin) and that most of you will want to stay away from.

You Were Never Really Here features one of the darkest, most well-developed and most fascinating protagonists I have ever seen. His name is Joe and he is played sublimely by Joaquin Phoenix, who surely deserves an Oscar for his performance. Joe is a troubled (understatement!) Gulf War veteran with a nightmarish childhood who specializes in finding missing teens and making sure anyone abusing those teens pays a price. He is a brutal man whose weapon of choice is a hammer. Few survive a violent encounter with him. 

But this only scratches the surface of who Joe is. Joe is also a loving son who regularly looks in on his very old mother (Judith Roberts). And he is a man whose suffering is so deep that he contemplates taking his own life every minute of every day. Joe is a lost soul living in an unimaginable internal hell. When he is called upon to retrieve a senator’s 13-year-old daughter from a gang of nasty fellows, Joe seems to be just going through the motions. But his life will change dramatically from the moment he finds the girl (Nina, played by Ekaterina Samsonov), spiralling out of control as he tries to hang on to a last vestige of sanity. 

Through it all, many people will lose their lives, often in a grisly manner. But while a few of these deaths are shown in graphic detail, the majority happen away from the camera (a very wise decision). Speaking of which, the cinematography is extraordinary, infusing this thriller with a unique breathtaking style, aided by the use of sound and the often loud score (typical of Ramsay), which overwhelms at places in just the right way to allow you to feel what Joe is feeling, to see New York City the way he sees it. The result is mesmerizing, drawing you in to Joe’s world, a place no one wants to live.

As you know, I am no fan of horrifically violent films and I especially detest violent revenge films, but You Were Never Really Here is not like any violent film I have watched. There are moments that make you think you’re watching just another revenge film, albeit a very stylistic arthouse revenge film, but to me this film is not about revenge or violence, neither of which are meant to satisfy or entertain in any way - those are only side-stories in the nightmarish tale of Joe.  

The last time I saw a critically-acclaimed, raw, brutal, stylistic thriller (Good Time), I was hugely disappointed. Not this time. This time I was blown away. You Were Never Really Here gets an easy ****. My mug is up, but this film is also not a ‘good time’, so be warned. 

Tuesday, 24 April 2018


As you know, I’m a big fan of old-fashioned spy films that focus on intelligent drama instead of action. For the most part, Beirut qualifies. And yet, something didn’t feel quite right.

Directed by Brad Anderson and written by Tony Gilroy (back in 1982), Beirut stars Jon Hamm as Mason Skiles, a former U.S. diplomat in Beirut who is called into service by the CIA when his old friend, Cal Riley (Mark Pellegrino), is kidnapped during the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. Rosamund Pike plays Sandy Crowder, the undercover CIA agent in charge of keeping Skiles safe in Beirut. The rest of the team trying to negotiate Riley’s release before he is forced to reveal all his secrets includes three state department officials: Donald Gaines (Dean Norris), Gary Ruzak (Shea Wigwam) and Frank Shalen (Larry Pine).

Skiles lost his wife in a terrorist attack in 1972 and has become a serious alcoholic. He really doesn’t want to be in Beirut and has no interest in playing by any rules. But he’s a master negotiator and poker player and the kidnappers have specifically asked for him to handle the ransom demands. Everyone thinks that this is because of his friendship with Riley but that turns out not to be the case. I won’t say more, other than that Israel’s Mossad plays a key role in the ransom negotiations.

The trailer for Beirut was viciously attacked by journalists for making the film look like another Hollywood film that stereotypes all Arabs/Muslims as uncivilized terrorists and has a white American saviour. This might have been a fair critique of the trailer, but it doesn’t do justice to the film, which is fairly nuanced, politically, and tries at least a little to humanize Arabs and terrorists while depicting the Mossad, and to some extent the CIA, as the conniving duplicitous organizations they are. Nevertheless, it is true that Beirut doesn’t do near enough to provide a context for the war or to show the plight of the Lebanese people during that war. It doesn’t help that it was filmed in Tangier, Morocco and had little if any Lebanese involvement. 

On the positive side, Beirut is well-acted (Hamm and Pike are at their best), has great atmosphere, has an intelligent complex story that is well-written and directed and it isn’t too heavy on action (though perhaps a little more than I would like).

So I am going to give Beirut a light ***+, acknowledging that spy films today should try harder to be fair to their settings. My mug is up.

Sunday, 22 April 2018

Isle of Dogs

Wes Anderson’s last two films (The Grand Budapest Hotel, Moonrise Kingdom) both made my top ten lists in their respective years, so I didn’t wait long to catch his latest film on the big screen. While I wouldn’t say Isle of Dogs disappointed me, because I thoroughly enjoyed it, it won’t be making my top ten list for 2018. 

Isle of Dogs features beautiful stop-motion animation, which is an art form I hugely respect, but it’s true that I prefer non-animated films. Like all Anderson films, Isle of Dogs is so quirky it can’t easily be compared to other films. That uniqueness is what’s so lovable about Anderson’s films and I enjoyed Isle of Dogs all the more for it.

Isle of Dogs is set in a dystopian future Japan, where all dogs in Megasaki City have been exiled to Trash Island due to a mysterious illness carried only by dogs. A scientist states he is close to finding a cure for the disease, but the mayor of the city is determined to carry out his decree. A foreign exchange student (Tracy Walker) suspects a conspiracy and begins to investigate.

Meanwhile, the plot follows the adventures of a young boy named Atari Kobayashi (the mayor’s nephew and ward) as he flies to Trash Island to hunt for his dog, Spots, which was the first dog to be exiled. Atari is assisted in his quest by five dogs who rescued him when his plane crashed on the island. Lots of craziness ensues. 

One of the things that makes Isle of Dogs special is the terrific cast, which includes Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Greta Gerwig, Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, F. Murray Abraham, Harvey Keitel and many more, including Japanese actors Koyu Rankin, Kunichi Nomura, Akira Takayama and Akira Ito. I won’t bother to identify who plays whom. The humans in the film (except for Walker, played by Gerwig) speak Japanese (often with no subtitles), while the dogs speak English. Like I said, It’s not like anything you’ve seen before.

Besides being well-acted, Isle of Dogs is very intelligently written, with some hilarious dry humour and lots of imagination. Most of the film is engaging and fun, but there are two key problems that keep the film from receiving ****. The first of these is the film’s lack of ‘soul’, a word used by a certain daughter of mine, who asked to remain nameless lest she be denounced by rabid Anderson fans. To elaborate, my daughter claims that the characters and dialogue in Isle of Dogs (as in all Anderson films) lack emotional depth. I understand what she means and tend to agree, though I don’t feel as strongly about this as she does.

My biggest complaint is that too many scenes in Isle of Dogs felt superfluous to me, offering opportunities to show off the aesthetics while not adding anything vital to the story. This made the film needlessly disjointed and a little too long. So Isle of Dogs gets a solid ***+. My mug is up. 

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Indian Horse

Due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to see Indian Horse when it played at the Edmonton International Film Festival last October. Having finally seen it this week (it was just released in Winnipeg), I deeply regret having missed it - not because it was a fantastic film (though I thought it was very good), but because I would have been promoting it in advance so that every Canadian reading this review would not miss the chance to watch Indian Horse on the big screen.

The big screen is for the cinematography, which is gorgeous throughout - from the opening scenes in the Northern Ontario wilderness to the shots inside the residential school and on the hockey rinks. But the big screen is also to take advantage of watching this hugely important film as soon as you possibly can and telling all your friends to do the same. 

Indian Horse is based on the 2012 novel by Richard Wagamese, who died last year (while the film was in production). It tells the story of an Ojibwe boy named Saul Indian Horse from when he loses his family in 1959 and ends up in a residential school to some twenty years later when he is in a treatment program. 

The film begins with Saul’s grandmother trying to hide the six-year-old Saul (played by Sladen Peltier) from the authorities. She knows what will happen to him at the residential school and is determined to keep him out. But when Saul’s brother dies of an illness and his parents (Christians because of a Catholic residential school) take the body away for a proper Christian burial, Saul and his grandmother must go it alone in the middle of the wilderness. An accident on the river leaves Saul by himself until he is picked up and taken to a Catholic residential school in Northern Ontario.

At the school, Saul learns quickly that the goal of his education is to remove his Indigenous language, spirituality and cultural traditions and assimilate him into a white Christian culture. Those students who fail to comply with the nuns’ strict demands are severely punished, from the strap to being put into a small cage in the dark damp basement, leading to desperate attempts at escape, including taking one’s own life.

But a priest named Father Gaston (Michael Huisman) takes an interest in Saul and introduces him to hockey on TV. Saul immediately falls in love with the sport. Getting out of bed before anyone else is up, he practices hockey on the school's small ice rink, using frozen horse dung as pucks and skates that are far too big on him. With TV hockey as his teacher, Saul quickly becomes the best player at the school. This will change his life, as opportunities arise that will take him away from the school to a small mining town and then Toronto and even give him a few years of happiness in a loving family environment (by now, Saul is a teen and is played by Forrest Goodluck). 

Unfortunately, wherever Saul’s travels expose him to white people, he encounters racism, reminding of his days in the school. Eventually, these encounters will lead him to a rage he can’t control and his life will begin its downward spiral (by now, Saul is a young adult, played by Ajuawak Kapashesit). 

For a small Canadian film, Indian Horse is an excellent film. The acting is a little uneven but most performances are solid, with the two actors playing the younger Saul standing out. The writing and direction (Dennis Foon and Stephen Campanelli) are also uneven but generally well done. The twist at the end of the film is a questionable choice, but forgivable.

The most important thing about Indian Horse is that it tells a story, in narrative form, that every Canadian needs to hear, and it tells the story well. That makes Indian Horse essential viewing for every Canadian reader. It also means that I feel compelled to give Indian Horse ****. The quality of the film may not warrant such a rating, but it is such an important film (in some ways groundbreaking), and a moving one, that it deserves no less. My mug is up!