MOVIE REVIEW: Wonder

Posted on by Jeremy Calcara.

Wonder (2017)

Last night at about 6:15 they showed up. There were two firetrucks, an ambulance and half a dozen police cars. They parked in front of my house and rushed in to the house across the street. Roughly two hours later, the stretcher came out of the house. It was empty. After packing up their gear, the firemen and paramedics left the scene. A large number of police officers remained for another hour or two, taking pictures and talking out on the porch. Once a County Sheriff arrived, the policemen also packed their gear and slowly filed out of the neighborhood. My wife and I watched for a while longer as the Sheriff walked around the living room, wondering what was going on. Finally, roughly five hours after it had all begun, a car from the mortuary arrived, and I watched as my neighbor’s body was put in the back of a van and driven away. Because of poor timing, I, myself, was hopping into my vehicle as the Sheriff locked the door to the vacant house and walked to the car. It was a weird time for me to think, “Hey, I’m going to go to the movies,” but I knew I wouldn’t be falling asleep anytime soon anyway, and movies tend to be the way I cope with or escape from difficult life situations. As it turns out, I don’t think there could have been a better time for me to see Wonder.

Wonder, the Stephen Chbosky film based on the popular R.J. Palacio novel, is 100 minutes of being wrapped in a warm blanket on a cold winter day. It’s the story of August (Augie) Pullman (Jacob Tremblay), a 10-year-old boy with a disfigured face due to mandibulofacial dysostosis, and his experiences attending school for the first time as a 5th grader at Beecher Prep. Because of his illness, he’s had more than 30 corrective surgeries to help him hear, see, and to attempt to fix the deformities in his face during his short life. These experiences have knit the Pullmans close together as a family that includes Augie, his mother Isabel (Julia Roberts), his father Nate (Owen Wilson) and his sister Via (Izabela Vidovic). Isabel is an illustrator who put her life on hold to care for Augie and homeschool him for his first ten years. Via is in high school and is facing challenges of her own as her best friend Miranda suddenly has no interest in her. She loves her brother, but is also jealous of the attention that he gets from her parents. While the plot mostly revolves around Augie, a significant amount of time is also spent with Via at her school as she navigates her relationship with Miranda, meets a boy, joins the drama club and works on the school production of Our Town. Nate is the most thinly drawn character in the family, but he’s shown to be a caring and engaged father whose quick wit cuts through otherwise tense situations between his wife and children.

The film begins 24 hours before the first day of school, follows Augie through 5th grade, and culminates at 5th grade graduation. Through the year, Augie meets friends, is betrayed by friends, gets bullied, makes new friends and through it all, excels at school. Wonder is funny, heartwarming and manages not to feel manipulative in its attempts to elicit emotion from the audience. Performances are great all around. Tremblay is an 11-year-old powerhouse. The chemistry between Roberts and Wilson makes their relationship and their home feel lived in and real. Vidovic shows a vulnerability behind Via’s outer façade of resolve. Mandy Patinkin makes the most of limited screen-time as the unfortunately named middle school principal Mr. Tushman.

My favorite character is Augie’s homeroom teacher Mr. Browne played by Daveed Diggs. He’s given little screen time, but the time he has on screen provides the film with most of its thematic weight. Mr. Browne preaches the virtue of kindness through a series of “precepts” that he introduces to his class. I’ve been unable to get his precept from the first day of school out of my mind. “When given the choice between being right or being kind, choose kind.” It’s a beautiful insight that I rarely follow. When we insist on being right, even if you’re able to do so without succumbing to the level of discourse that’s typically reserved for YouTube comment sections, we lose the ability to be kind. Hate is not dispelled when we simply choose to refrain from being hateful. Kindness dispels hate and changes hearts. Kindness builds bridges. It does in a beautiful way for Augie in Wonder. While Augie was born looking different than everyone else, it’s ultimately his kind-heartedness that makes him stand out from his peers.

And as I drove home from the film early this morning I couldn’t help but think about my neighbor. Death has a way of making us think about missed opportunities. I thought about how we’ve lived 50 yards away from each other for over ten years, but our relationship never grew further than superficial chats about the weather at the mailbox. I thought about how I chose to avoid him for the first few years because his house happens to look like a setting for a Wes Craven film. I thought about the weeks he was away with health issues and how I never took the time to offer him a meal. I thought of the times I was annoyed at the overgrowth of weeds in his yard, but never offered a helping hand. And it broke my heart that I had run out of time to show him kindness.

Wonder is not a perfect film. It goes off on weird tangents where it follows neither Augie nor Via, but rather their friends Jack and Miranda. It feels like an effort to be faithful to the novel, but it doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. Unfortunately, there’s also a time or two when the movie revels in bullies getting their comeuppance in a way that runs contrary to the overall theme. That feels like picking nits. What I’m going to remember about Wonder is that it was a well-acted and heartwarming story that served as a good reminder about the importance of showing kindness to others. I’m looking forward to watching this in the future with my wife and kids. If you’re looking for the perfect film to see as your food digests this Thanksgiving, look no further than Wonder. You could even invite your neighbor to come along.

“Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.”

Rating:

 

Jeremy Calcara is a contributing member of the Feelin’ Film team. In addition watching as many movies as he can and writing reviews for Feelin’ Film, Jeremy consumes an unhealthy amount of television and writes about it weekly in his Feelin’ TV column.   Follow him on Facebook and Twitter  to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: Justice League

Posted on by Aaron White.

Justice League (2017)

GOING IN

The lead up to Justice League has been at times joyful to witness, and at others incredibly frustrating. Zack Synder’s DCEU has plenty of loyal fans defending its dark tone, but legions more who seem to prefer the more comedic and light-hearted nature of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As a big fan of all previous DC comic book films not named Suicide Squad, I can’t help but find myself in the former category. I have thoroughly enjoyed Snyder’s willingness to go deeper into the psyches of his characters and despite not loving every casting choice or action sequence, my overall response to the DCEU has been highly positive. While I mostly prefer solo superhero films, this initial team-up of the Justice League does have me very excited. The fanboy in me is really hoping for a Green Lantern appearance. I’ll also admit that I am a bit concerned about the Whedon script doctoring that occurred after Snyder took a hiatus due to the terrible tragic loss of his daughter. My hope is that Synder’s tone is not completely replaced by a focus on humor and lack of stakes.


COMING OUT

Well, consider me surprised. All of that Joss Whedon rewriting that I was concerned about? Totally worked. In fact, the film holds together well with two distinctly different tones flowing throughout, even if the difference is always noticeable and occasionally distracting. Whedon’s dialogue is mostly a hit, and especially so when it comes out of the mouth of The Flash (Ezra Miller). Flash provides us with the quippy nature the MCU has embraced, but it works because only one character is a goofball and not all five. The team dynamic is great and consists entirely of unique personalities. Aquaman (Jason Momoa) is a strong and powerful, independent bad-ass living the life of a loner but with a heart of gold. Cyborg (Ray Fisher) is brooding and angry, certain his new form is a curse. Batman (Ben Affleck) has renewed hope in humanity, regret over Superman’s death, and wants to save the world, while Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) follows-up her strong solo debut with a nice little arc of her own about what it means to be a leader. Truly, what Justice League really has going for it most is the cast chemistry. The relationship between Cyborg and Flash really stands out. These two “accidents” have a lot in common and are both discovering and coming to grips with their powers together, along with slowly developing trust and a friendship.

Its rather miraculous that Whedon’s humor and light-heartedness intertwine with Snyder’s serious storyline so easily. This is still a superhero universe with a lot at stake, where humans die and superheroes are vulnerable. But the dialogue works by delivering moments of levity instead of turning the film into a comedy. Justice League does bring up philosophical questions and ideas that carry over from previous films, too. In doing so, it balances those heavier topics with the epic sense of fun that we should get from reading or watching superheroes in action.

When it comes to the action, it’s vintage Snyder all the way. Fast cuts with explosive visuals and some well-timed slow motion feature prominently. I was worried that the movie might have a serious fake CGI look to it, but surprisingly it didn’t bother me at all. The majority of the action sequences are moving so fast that it’s hard to get a good handle on what’s going on, however, there are a few stand-out scenes – most of them involving Wonder Woman in some capacity, and that’s never a bad thing.

The film isn’t perfect, though. The opening scene and early setup feels rushed and incohesive. Once the team is together everything feels great, but getting there is just a little clunky. The villain is also not particularly memorable, although I did enjoy him more than previous DC baddies. His personality was lacking but the action involving him was a lot of fun, and he conveys a sense of otherworldly strength that was necessary for us to believe in the threat he poses.

One last thing to mention is that the film has two very good GREAT post-credit scenes. One right after the film ends and another all the way at the very end of the credits. They are both worth waiting for. Do not miss these. The final one, especially, is textbook for how a post-credit scene should be done.

Verdict

Justice League endured a lot of changes during its production and the result is a film that has glimpses of greatness but never quite reaches that plateau. Still, the film balances its dual tones just fine and manages to provide well-rounded character development  for the whole team. Ezra Miller steals the show as The Flash and team chemistry, in general, is a big highlight. A movie doesn’t have to be perfect to entertain, and Justice League does plenty of the latter. It is a joy to see these heroes together on the big screen and many emotions were felt. My prevailing thought when walking out of the theater with a huge smile on my face was simply,  “I want more,” and that happiness is a big relief.

Rating:

Aaron White is a Seattle-based film critic and co-creator/co-host of the Feelin’ Film Podcast. He is also a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society. He writes reviews with a focus on how his expectations influenced his experience. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: Daddy’s Home 2

Posted on by Jeremy Calcara.

Daddy’s Home 2 (2017)

Daddy’s Home was a surprisingly funny and mildly heartwarming 2015 comedy that reunited (2010’s The Other Guys, still the best comedy of the 2000’s, don’t @ me.) Mark Wahlberg, Will Ferrell and their proven comic chemistry in a comedy about a stepdad, Barry (Ferrell), attempting to gain the respect of his stepchildren and their father Dusty (Wahlberg). While the film itself is extremely formulaic, Wahlberg and Ferrell kept it from feeling like a bland rehash of something you’ve seen before. It’s a fun little movie to watch when you just want to shut your brain off and laugh. When I heard about the sequel, I was mildly intrigued, figuring that I’d at least enjoy seeing the pairing of Wahlberg and Ferrell again. Unfortunately, Daddy’s Home 2 is nothing more than an ill-conceived cash grab, taking advantage of the reputation of its predecessor, the star power of the cast and the holiday movie season.

I always like to start with the good first, and DH2 isn’t all bad. Ferrell and Wahlberg are still a lot of fun together. John Lithgow’s turn as Ferrell’s overly affectionate and endlessly supportive father Don is fantastic as well. Brad and Don are two enthusiastic peas in a pod and their relationship provides what little spark the film has to offer. There are two scenes that are really very funny, but unfortunately those two scenes book end the film, leaving the middle to feel bloated, bland and boring. Linda Cardellini does fine with what she’s given, and the kids are cute and amusing, but like the original, they aren’t given much to work with. This franchise isn’t about the women or the children, it’s all about the dads.

Unfortunately, that’s about all of the positives that I can muster. Other than a few minutes at the very beginning, Mel Gibson, who plays Wahlberg’s father Kurt, just doesn’t fit in this movie at all. The plot, if you can call it that, involves Kurt intentionally trying to ruin Christmas for…reasons? With motivations that go mostly unexplained, he believes it would be a gas to pit Brad and Dusty against each other to destroy their holiday. Dumb. Confusingly, the film goes out of its way to make Kurt the crotchety old guy, disgusted by today’s new parenting method, but every time someone takes his advice, he’s proven to be correct. Dusty has a wife, who exists only to be hot and to shoplift (yeah, I don’t know). John Cena shows up when the movie is about 3/4 over as the father to Dusty’s stepdaughter. I was excited to see him in the credits as he’s proven to be a pretty enjoyable comedic actor, but he’s completely wasted and doesn’t really need to exist at all. Most of the third act of the film takes place in a movie theater and that’s where it completely falls apart, abandoning anything that resembles narrative structure in favor of easy jokes about the film industry and an eye-roll inducing musical number.

Daddy’s Home 2 isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen this year. If you’re wanting to watch a Christmas movie, it’s better than anything ever produced by the Hallmark Channel. But it’s not good. Save your hard earned money and your precious time and stream this one later if you must. But you’re not missing anything if you skip it altogether.

Rating:

 

Jeremy Calcara is a contributing member of the Feelin’ Film team. In addition watching as many movies as he can and writing reviews for Feelin’ Film, Jeremy consumes an unhealthy amount of television and writes about it weekly in his Feelin’ TV column.   Follow him on Facebook and Twitter  to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS

Posted on by Aaron White.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

GOING IN

In all my years of devouring classic literature, I never read a single Agatha Christie novel. A travesty, I know. Arguably her most famous work, Murder on the Orient Express features the famous reoccurring detective Hercule Poirot. The story tells of thirteen stranded strangers on a luxurious train ride, one of them a murderer who Poirot must discover and stop before they kill again. As intriguing as the story is, I’ve intentionally avoided reading the novel or seeing the 1974 film that came before, and therefore will be able to go into this mystery spoiler-free. Branagh’s work is never short on panache and the all-star cast assembled points to an exciting cinematic game of whodunit, reminiscent of the board game Clue.


COMING OUT

For me, the success of movie mysteries is largely measured by the answer to two questions: “was it entertaining” and “did it keep me guessing until the end? ” Unexpectedly, the film is very much not a thriller. The style is theatrical in nature, which should be no surprise with Branagh directing, combined with some modern stylish cinematography. It felt very much like Branagh’s tone in Cinderella and made for a weird experience, which to be honest, did not always work for me. At many times I expected the energy of the film to increase as suspects were considered and the investigation grew nearer to resolution, but aside from one or two scenes this felt more like a stage play minus the heightened drama. And that leads into question number two, because despite not knowing the story and end result, I was certainly not guessing until the end. I’ll admit that I did not know every detail until Poirot’s classic reveal speech, but the clues were easy enough to read that it felt more like I was watching to discover how the detective would deal with the outcome versus whether he would learn the truth or not. The “whodunit” simply wasn’t filmed in such a way that lived up to my expectations for an exciting mystery and at times was downright boring.

So far, by my standards, Murder on the Orient Express does not succeed. What saved the experience for me, however, was the story itself. Though I don’t feel like this is a great adaptation, I was definitely intrigued by the moral implications that arose once the killer’s identity was revealed. The questions about justice, and what is right versus wrong, were compelling and it is easy to see why this is one of Agatha Christie’s most beloved stories. Talking through the implications of the ending on the drive home with my 14-year old made for great conversation.

With regards to the stellar cast, I feel a bit cheated. We simply don’t get enough time with each of the many characters to establish much of a connection. The acting is fine, although I’m quite tired of Johnny Depp as a gangster at this point, but no one really stands out because all of the characters are equal and overshadowed by the hero detective. Branagh really just can’t help himself here and his camera keeps Poirot in focus in almost nearly every scene. Those he isn’t in are filmed from his perspective.  There are so many closeups and monologues that the film starts to feel much more about him and less about the mystery. Branagh is no doubt a stellar actor and his presence serves the character well,  but his direction creates an unevenness to the style in Murder on the Orient Express that makes it feel awkward.

Verdict

I’m glad that I now know the story of Murder on the Orient Express. Christie’s tale is fantastic and is a unique scenario in murder mysteries. It brings up questions about justice, judgment, and forgiveness. Branagh’s adaptation is good, and I don’t regret seeing it, but instead of wanting to re-watch it, I am more compelled to seek out the source material and previous adaptations. Murder on the Orient Express is just an okay film. You can see better, but you could also see a whole lot worse.

Rating:

Aaron White is a Seattle-based film critic and co-creator/co-host of the Feelin’ Film Podcast. He is also a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society. He writes reviews with a focus on how his expectations influenced his experience. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: Darkest Hour

Posted on by Aaron White.

DARKEST HOUR (2017)



Going In

Before 2017, I had never heard of the Battle of Dunkirk. But thanks to Hollywood, we’ve all had quite the history lesson this year, with two films (Their Finest and Dunkirk) addressing that particular event in some fashion. Now a third film enters the mix, set during the same time period but not dealing with the battle specifically. Instead, Darkest Hour focuses primarily (see what I did there?) on one man – newly appointed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. As Hitler’s forces close in on England, Churchill must make difficult decisions that would affect the outcome of World War II. Playing Churchill is Gary Oldman, and he is already receiving an incredible amount of critical praise for his portrayal of the famous statesman. It will be interesting to see how his performance compares to that of John Lithgow, who just a few months ago won an Emmy for his own depiction of Churchill in the Netflix drama The Crown.  Also a curiosity is whether director Joe Wright will rebound from his underwhelming 2015 remake of the Peter Pan story. Wright’s experience with period pieces such as Atonement, Pride & Prejudice, and Anna Karenina point toward this type of material as being perfect for him, and that provides me with a lot of hope.


COMING OUT

Darkest Hour is my kind of biopic. Joe Wright’s film is a little less of a period piece than I expected, though. With only a few scenes of deep melodrama, it unfolds more like a fast-paced political thriller. Wright directs with a dazzling electricity that moves the film forward at a tremendous pace. Dario Marianelli, composer of the wonderful music in Kubo and the Two Strings, provides an incredible audible energy that matches the intensity of Churchill’s fiery personality and the wartime tension felt at the time. The result is a film that, despite being almost entirely dialogue driven, has the ability to put you at the edge of your seat. Since this story is about the great orator Winston Churchill, it is extremely fitting.

The story is also mostly true and I’d encourage viewers to read up on exactly what took place during these important months in 1940. Although Darkest Hours adds a few dramatic elements toward the end of the film, it mostly does justice to the primary players: Churchill (Gary Oldman), King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn), former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup), and Lord Halifax (Stephen Dillane). Anthony McCarten’s script covers only the month of May – Churchill’s appointment through his famous “we shall never surrender” speech. As Germany draws closer each day, Churchill must weigh the pushing of peace talks from the likes of Chamberlain and Halifax against the proposition of seeing the entire British Army wiped out while continuing to fight back. The Battle of Dunkirk does feature prominently here and Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk will make a perfect complimentary film for a twin bill.

What elevates the film into greatness, however, is Oldman. He is nearly unrecognizable as Churchill, buried under the hefty weight of prosthetics. But where he succeeds most is selling the idea that Churchill truly did use language and words to turn the tide of English thinking toward resistance of Hitler’s regime. Wright and McCarten do a fantastic job of building this up, giving us little moments of Winston’s oratory brilliance, so that when he walks into Parliament for the final speech we fully believe his words will have the power they need. Oldman’s performance feels like a total immersion into the character, his veins seemingly about to pop at any time, and his stutters and pauses perfectly capturing the enormous pressure weighing Churchill down. I’m not sure whether two actors have ever won an Emmy and an Oscar within six months of each other for playing the same character, but Lithgow and Oldman definitely have that chance.

Verdict

Winston Churchill is a fascinating figure. Historian and politician, but also extraordinary leader. His actions within that first month as British Prime Minister changed the course of world history. Had he sued for peace, who knows if Hitler would have been stopped from overtaking Europe (and beyond). Darkest Hour is as thrilling as it is dramatic in telling this very important story of how a leader used words to inspire a nation. A fabulous film in all respects, consider this a must-see and a rival to the title of best film about Dunkirk in 2017.

Rating:

Aaron White is a Seattle-based film critic and co-creator/co-host of the Feelin’ Film Podcast. He is also a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society. He writes reviews with a focus on how his expectations influenced his experience. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: Thor: Ragnarok

Posted on by Aaron White.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)




Going In

More like Thor: Ragnarock ‘n Roll, amirite? From what we’ve seen in trailers, Taika Waititi’s film looks to be a wild ride bursting with color, sound, and laughs. I am admittedly burned out on the superhero genre, but Thor: Ragnarok could be something fresh instead of the standard Marvel fare, and that gives me hope. Embracing the Asgardian mythology and combining Thor’s world with one of my favorite comic book stories (Planet Hulk) provides opportunities galore for rich storytelling. I have faith in Waititi and expect that at the very least he and this impressively assembled cast will provide viewers with a fun time at the movies.


COMING OUT

If Thor: Ragnarok is one thing, it’s funny.  No, that’s not a strong enough word. It’s hilarious. Laugh out loud funny. Multiple times. For those who are familiar with Taika Waititi’s filmography this should come as no surprise. The man’s comedic timing is truly great, and his role (you didn’t even know he was acting in the film did you?) steals the show. As a director, Waititi sets the film firmly in its comedic tone right from the start, and it never lets up. Almost everyone gets in the action, from Jeff Goldblum’s eccentric and entertaining Grandmaster to Tessa Thompson’s alcoholic but strong Valkyrie, and of course Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) have plenty of fantastic banter between them. Thor: Ragnarok‘s humor really is its strongest feature and it’s some of the best the MCU has to offer.

But what about the story? If you’re looking for this to be the Marvel film that bucks the routine style of previous films, you’ll be sorely disappointed. The incredible electronic, neon, fantasy aesthetic is a very cool coat of paint on the same old formula. Heroic actions and sacrifice just don’t have much weight to them because everything is a joke in this world. There were numerous conversations where I thought that meaningful character development was coming, but there is never a dramatic payoff. The humor is a constant undercurrent and while it makes the film a lot of fun to watch, it has no depth or staying power because we never connect with the characters or events on anything more than a surface level.

That’s not to say that characters don’t have arcs – they do. This is a hero’s journey for Thor, but other characters must also find out who they truly are if Asgard is going to be saved from the Goddess of Death. That goddess, played by the incredible Cate Blanchett, had potential to be one of the best Marvel villains. Her backstory is intriguing and the film does a great job with the Norse mythology as a whole. Unfortunately, she has little to do other than sling knives around and recite history. She does definitely bring it in the action department, though, and is a worthy foe for Thor and his team. When she’s at her strongest and Thor goes full God of Thunder, it is a sight to see.

Verdict

Thor: Ragnarok plays in an exciting new genre for Marvel. Its overall aesthetic and tone commit fully to the comedic nature of the MCU and results in one of the funniest Marvel films to date. If a fun, entertaining, visually striking, and hilarious experience is what you’re after, this is a must see. It’s too bad that Waititi couldn’t give it a little more depth and heart, though, because that’s what would have truly been something new. As it stands, Thor: Ragnarok will wow you for a few hours, but you’re likely to forget all about it in a few days.

Rating:

Aaron White is a Seattle-based film critic and co-creator/co-host of the Feelin’ Film Podcast. He is also a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society. He writes reviews with a focus on how his expectations influenced his experience. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: Suburbicon

Posted on by Aaron White.

Suburbicon (2017)


Going In

Written by Joel and Ethan Coen. Directed by George Clooney. Starring Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, and Oscar Isaac. The truth is that I didn’t even need to know the plot to become interested in this film. Despite hearing the word “mediocre” thrown around, I find it difficult to believe that this group of supremely talented artists won’t provide an entertaining time at the movies. From the look of its trailers, Suburbicon appears to be mostly dark comedy, and though I greatly prefer the Coens’ strictly dramatic work over their more comedic efforts, every time I see a white-collar Matt Damon losing his mind and taking on organized crime it makes me grin. I’m holding out hope that there is something of substance that will elevate this beyond just satire.


COMING OUT

Suburbicon is wild. The Coens’ signature dark comedic touch is all over this, and its trailers, come to find out, have been a bit of a misdirection. At first glance you’d think the city of Suburbicon was a clone of Pleasantville. It doesn’t take long for that idea to be blown out of the water, though, as we learn that Suburbicon residents are quite fond of their community demographics and not very accepting of change. The surprises come pretty quickly and the setup for the main plot is intriguing. In fact, if this movie had been more of a straight-forward thriller it could have worked well.

Unfortunately, Suburbicon has no idea what kind of film it is. There are two stories taking place at once and they do not coexist well. Cuts between the two result in an odd tonal shift and the satirical nature of main plot doesn’t mesh with what’s going on in the secondary one. If the movie is trying to say something important, it fails at making that clear. Suburbicon does feature moments of genuine humor and that slick Coen Bros. writing that we know and love so well. In particular, the brief time that Oscar Isaac is on screen stands out. His charisma plays perfectly in the role this film calls for. I also rather enjoyed the twists and turns the story takes, and I probably would have responded positively to the ending if it hadn’t been ruined for me by the trailer. Why they chose to show us something in the trailer that would tip us off to the exact ending of the film 15 minutes before it happens is extremely frustrating. Maybe the studio just counts on us all having very bad memories? Regardless, it was a major mistake that negatively affected my viewing and response to the end.

Verdict

The trailer for Suburbicon, sans extra story-line that didn’t fit in, is a tighter film than the finished product. Despite an incredible amount of star power attached to this project, it simply tries to be too many things at once and the result is a frustrating, confused mess. It’s not all bad, and sections of it show flashes of what could have been, but the finished (I use that word loosely) product is just not something worthy of being recommended.

Rating:

Aaron White is a Seattle-based film critic and co-creator/co-host of the Feelin’ Film Podcast. He is also a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society. He writes reviews with a focus on how his expectations influenced his experience. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: Song to Song

Posted on by Aaron White.

Song to Song (2017)

Song to Song is the latest film from auteur Terrence Malick, one of Hollywood’s most reclusive and polarizing directors. It’s story follows a young guitarist named Faye (Rooney Mara) who begins an affair with hotshot record producer Cook (Michael Fassbender), secretly hoping that his name and influence will result in a boon to her career. Soon after, she meets BV (Ryan Gosling), a singer-songwriter working with Cook, and begins a relationship with him that blossoms into something more real than anything Cook could ever provide. Over the course of the film these three interact to varying degrees. We see romance, love gained, love lost, fear, jealousy, lies, depression, and a wealth of poor choices. It is a powerful look at the pitfalls which can come with power and fame, and the dangers of building your life around those who have it. In the end, though, the film offers a sense of hope and understanding that is profoundly moving.

It has been written that Song to Song is narratively sparse, but I must wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, I consider the film to have one of the best scripts of the year. Malick’s style can be jarring at times, certainly, as he aggressively cuts between perspective and time with no explanation whatsoever, but I never found the film difficult to follow.  Whereas most films feature lengthy scenes to progress plot, what Malick does is utilize brief moments with perfectly spoken dialogue to convey where on the emotional journey a character is at a given time. These emotional changes from scene to scene serve as markers that move the story forward. When combined with the incredible, masterful cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki, this creates a film that viewers can connect with and relate to, recalling fleeting memories from their own past. You won’t have to have walked the exact path of the characters in Song to Song to resonate with their experiences.

The title of Song to Song couldn’t be more appropriate. Malick’s film flows like a record as it takes you on this realistic life journey. It begins with the powerful electronic beats of South African hip hop group Die Antwood and ends with an orchestral composition from classical composer Claude Debussy. It is incredible just how well the soundtrack transitions between musical styles, all of which seem to perfectly compliment the particular scene in which they appear. And like a soundtrack, the visual cuts and editing style of Song to Song are reminiscent of listening to a soundtrack, sometimes skipping ahead… from song to song.

Where the film truly develops into something special, though, is in its final 10-20 minutes. Here the film comes together and pays off the journey by offering hope. Forgiveness and mercy are learned, and love is finally understood. The language used even evokes the well-known Biblical parable of the prodigal son. It could as much reference the return to a commitment of faith as that of a realized devotion to true love. It is in this redemption that we see the state of happiness we endlessly search for can be achieved, it just may not look like we thought it would.

Verdict

For those willing to meet Malick halfway and open themselves to engaging with the film, Song to Song offers an emotionally visceral experience. Its dialogue is lyrical poetry that works perfectly in concert with Lubezki’s stunning cinematography, an expertly balanced soundtrack, and fine acting performances all around. This may be some of the least abstract and aimless work Malick has ever produced, while also being among his best. Song to Song is a film that needs to be more than just seen, it demands to be felt.

Rating:

Aaron White is a Seattle-based film critic and co-creator/co-host of the Feelin’ Film Podcast. He is also a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society. He writes reviews with a focus on how his expectations influenced his experience. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Snowman

Posted on by Jeremy Calcara.

The Snowman (2017)


When one reads the reviews of film critics, chances are that you’ll notice they tend to talk about a film for a bit before getting into what they actually thought about the movie itself. I assume this is because they want people to scroll through the whole thing, maximizing your exposure to their advertisers, so they bury the lede. I’m not a film critic, I’m just a guy who sees a lot of movies, so I don’t really know about all that. What I do know is that The Snowman sucks. It sucks hard.

I should probably tell you about the plot, even though I don’t really want to. Basically someone is killing women and putting their heads on snowmen. Michael Fassbender plays Harry Hole (yes, Harry Hole), a drunk detective who teams up with his new co-worker (Rebecca Ferguson) to solve these murders. At the same time, Fassbender is trying to be a father figure to his ex-girlfriend’s son while Ferguson is secretly working hunches of her own on the case due to a connection with where she’s originally from. If I had to find something good to say, I’d commend Fassbender and Ferguson for being as good as you’d expect them to be. The film isn’t terrible because they mailed it in, that’s for sure. Oh, and Val Kilmer shows up for a few minutes, or at least someone who is wearing Val Kilmer’s face. It’s hard to tell, really. To say much more would be to spoil it I suppose, although I’d argue that if the choices are paying to see the film and my spoiling it for you, spoiling it would be the more humane way out. Everything about it was mind-bogglingly stupid. There are several characters that exist exclusively to be suspects, but then the way they’re made to look shady is so heavy handed that no 4 year old child who has ever seen an episode of Blue’s Clues would even entertain the notion that they actually did it. There’s no suspense or intrigue at all. The director, Tomas Alfredson, who has come out and said that 15% of the script wasn’t filmed due to rushed production, compared the finished product to a puzzle that has a few pieces missing. But it would be ridiculous to call this a puzzle. A puzzle builds on itself until all of the pieces working together start to tell a composed picture. This movie doesn’t even come close to demanding any problem solving ability on the part of its audience and it doesn’t build to anything resembling a composed picture. It’s a complete and total mess.

Listen, I don’t want to tell you what to do or how to live your life. You have to make your own decisions. But if you have a couple of hours carved out to go to the movies this weekend, I’d suggest going to something else. Anything else really. Go see something you’ve already seen. Go see something you’ve already seen that you didn’t even like. Get Jack Frost on demand instead! There really aren’t many types of movies that I enjoy more than thrillers about serial killers. I’m pretty easy to please with this genre. I even like the mediocre ones. The Snowman is just bad. Really, really bad.

Rating:

 

Jeremy Calcara is a contributing member of the Feelin’ Film team. In addition watching as many movies as he can and writing reviews for Feelin’ Film, Jeremy consumes an unhealthy amount of television and writes about it weekly in his Feelin’ TV column.   Follow him on Facebook and Twitter  to be notified when new content is posted.

MOVIE REVIEW: Columbus

Posted on by Aaron White.

Columbus (2017)

“I was going for something subtle,” Casey (Haley Lu Richardson) says to her mother while discussing a dinner recipe. This line, spoken early in the film, informs us of what video essayist turned first-time director Kogonada has planned, and is one of the films many moments of self-awareness. The film hardly even has a plot. Two people meet (as strangers sharing a cigarette) and talk (mostly about architecture and sometimes about themselves). Kogonada’s focus isn’t on what happens to the characters weeks or months down the line, but rather on capturing everyday moments between them. During a conversation between Casey and co-worker/semi-romantic interest Gabriel (Rory Culkin) about how individual interests affect attention spans, the latter even says “Are we losing interest in everyday life?” Columbus is a quiet introspective, made for viewers who wish to observe, think, and feel. For those who want to stop and smells the roses.

While Casey and Jin (John Cho) are the two primary characters of the film, at its heart is architecture. Columbus, Indiana is known for its stunning modern designs and Kogonada ensures that we are given a wonderful tour with many highlights which results in some of the most beautiful imagery in a film this year. Every building, from the public library where Casey works to a tall-spired church to bridges and archways and walls made of glass, inspire the conversation. They are as much a part of the narrative as they are a backdrop. The detailed nature of discussions is at times informative and points to a filmmaker who understands the artistry of these unique designs.

Cho is fantastic as a resentful son who doesn’t wish to be present for his father’s potential death. He holds a strong grudge against the man, an architecture expert, who prioritized his work over his children. It is ironic then that Jin should meet Casey, a young woman fresh out of college who is obsessed with the very thing that his father’s love of caused so much hurt. Jin also is tired of his native Korean traditions and would give anything to be rid of them, while Casey won’t stop taking care of her recovering addict mother despite dreaming of leaving the city for college. This is a lonely pair of souls looking for a spark, but their bonding occurs slowly and naturally. They are drawn to each other through conversations and intelligence. In a world where romance is overshadowed by “hook-up culture,” the innocence of their relationship is refreshing.

Richardson, I must say, is a revelation. Her previous roles in The Edge of Seventeen and Split both showed talent, but she was overshadowed by incredible lead performances by other women. Here she trades charisma and screen presence for a world-weary look as a young woman smarter than her circumstances allow her to show. She can really act and her star is definitely bright.

Verdict

Columbus, as much as any film in 2017, made me feel. The passion of its director is evident in every frame. Cinematographer Elisha Christian drew me in through gorgeous cinematography underscored by a soothing ambient electronic score by Hammock, and the subtle yet brilliant performances by Cho and Richardson anchored me in this world of theirs that I did not want to leave. Its visuals may get the lion’s share of attention, but this is a complete package, a unique and moving experience that will linger in your thoughts if only you pause and give it your full attention.

Rating:

Aaron White is a Seattle-based film critic and co-creator/co-host of the Feelin’ Film Podcast. He is also a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society. He writes reviews with a focus on how his expectations influenced his experience. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter to be notified when new content is posted.