Yesterday I saw All the Money in the World, starring Christopher Plummer and Michelle Williams.
The film is based on the true story of Paul Getty's kidnapping in 1973. Getty (Charlie Plummer) was of course the grandson of JP Getty (Christopher Plummer), the billionaire oil tycoon.
Gail Getty (Michelle Williams) receives a call one day that her son Paul has been abducted and the kidnappers are demanding a ransom of $17 million. Though she's not in contact with her drug-addicted ex-husband, she does appeal to his wealthy father for the money, which he flatly refuses, suspecting Paul staged the kidnapping himself to extort cash from him.
As the weeks go on, it's evident the abduction is real, but Getty still can't be convinced and getting tired of waiting, the captors sell him to another group of criminals who aren't as nice (the first group let him listen to the radio, fed him relatively well, etc.)—everything escalates and a violent action is taken to prove they're serious.
It's only then that the victim's grandfather considers the situation 'real' and decides to help ... with conditions.
The film is heart-pounding suspenseful, even if you know the outcome. To say the acting is good would be an understatement, especially considering that this film was "in the can" so to speak when Kevin Spacey's controversy emerged and director Ridley Scott decided to replace him with Christopher Plummer.
How they seamlessly re-shot all of the senior Getty's scenes and edited them into the final print in time for their original release date is baffling to me, but they did. And they did it well.
No one would ever know that Plummer came in on the fly or that any of the scenes were filmed out of sync with the rest. It's flawless and the story is so strong, you forget about the "replacement" about 5 minutes in.
I loved this movie because it's a good movie, but I recommend it with twice as much emphasis because of the circumstance.
~~~
Thursday, December 28, 2017
The Shape of Water
On Christmas Eve I saw The Shape of Water, starring Sally Hawkins and Michael Shannon.
Elisa (Hawkins) is a mute cleaning lady at a scientific facility in the early 1960s. She leads a simple life: sleeps alone in a modest apartment; watches TV with her neighbor and prepares the same lunch every day. Her best friend Zelda (Octavia Spencer) can easily communicate with her despite the fact she doesn't speak. She seems content with her situation.
One day, the horrible boss (Shannon) brings in a male sea creature that captures Elisa's attention. Though he's chained to his survival tank and has displayed violent behavior to the team, she is unafraid and begins sharing her lunch with him.
The two different species develop a friendship and soon enough Elisa is obsessed with saving the creature from a miserable fate. She enlists the help of Zelda and her neighbor (Richard Jenkins, at his comedic best), risking her job and perhaps her life.
This is a movie with everything. It has humor, sadness, fright, romance, fear—seriously, everything.
As a huge fan of director Guillermo del Toro's Pan Labyrinth, I was expecting to be entertained in an intelligent, unique way, but this soared well above and beyond even that level of greatness. Though there was more blood than I typically tolerate, none of it was gratuitous, nor was the sex or the language (and there's that too).
It's just a brilliantly acted, beautifully shot masterpiece with a beating heart.
~~~
Elisa (Hawkins) is a mute cleaning lady at a scientific facility in the early 1960s. She leads a simple life: sleeps alone in a modest apartment; watches TV with her neighbor and prepares the same lunch every day. Her best friend Zelda (Octavia Spencer) can easily communicate with her despite the fact she doesn't speak. She seems content with her situation.
One day, the horrible boss (Shannon) brings in a male sea creature that captures Elisa's attention. Though he's chained to his survival tank and has displayed violent behavior to the team, she is unafraid and begins sharing her lunch with him.
The two different species develop a friendship and soon enough Elisa is obsessed with saving the creature from a miserable fate. She enlists the help of Zelda and her neighbor (Richard Jenkins, at his comedic best), risking her job and perhaps her life.
This is a movie with everything. It has humor, sadness, fright, romance, fear—seriously, everything.
As a huge fan of director Guillermo del Toro's Pan Labyrinth, I was expecting to be entertained in an intelligent, unique way, but this soared well above and beyond even that level of greatness. Though there was more blood than I typically tolerate, none of it was gratuitous, nor was the sex or the language (and there's that too).
It's just a brilliantly acted, beautifully shot masterpiece with a beating heart.
~~~
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Tonight I saw Star Wars: The Last Jedi, starring Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher.
The film picks up soon after The Force Awakens left off showing us Rey (Daisy Ridley), a cliffside compound and the legendary Luke Skywalker (Hamill). Instead of the badass we know him to be, Luke has retreated to a monk-like lifestyle, watching over the ancient Jedi texts as he reflects on his regrets regarding nephew, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). He has no desire to return to battle.
Meanwhile, the Resistance is facing more drama and they're in desperate need of some backup. After perhaps too many characters get a few moments in the spotlight, everything scatters into chaos. There are welcome additions, however, like the spritely Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) who meshes well with Finn (John Boyega).
I could have done with less of them, though—and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern). Though they're all good characters portrayed by good actors, I'd just have preferred a shorter movie that had less going on the side. The core of the film is Luke and Leia (Fisher) and Ren and Rey. And they can hold their own.
That said, I still think this was a great movie. The original Star Wars was the first film I ever saw in a theater and I will always get goosebumps when that iconic score bursts into sound, no matter what installment of the story I'm watching. I haven't loved all of them, but this one to me felt like the classic in many ways, and for that I am grateful.
Yes, the characters tell us throughout that the torch is being passed. The title itself implies the Jedis are on their way out. A new generation is taking over, blah blah. But I'd argue that the real message here was that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Through all that transpires (and I won't spoil for those who have yet to see), it all goes back to Luke and Leia. C-3PO and R2-D2 pop in, along with Chewbacca and Yoda. In the traditional sense, some of those appearances are cameos, but they don't feel that way. Their presence (whether literal or metaphorical) is a comfort; something that's always been there and that will continue to be when all of us kids from the '70s—who were the first to freak out in this alternate reality—are long gone to enjoy it.
I liked the strong message about the future being female (listen closely to Carrie Fisher's last line), the nod to children and the younger characters emerging strong. But what I liked more was the sense of history and lineage that permeates the franchise and has never been more evident as it is now.
The Force will always be with us.
~~~
The film picks up soon after The Force Awakens left off showing us Rey (Daisy Ridley), a cliffside compound and the legendary Luke Skywalker (Hamill). Instead of the badass we know him to be, Luke has retreated to a monk-like lifestyle, watching over the ancient Jedi texts as he reflects on his regrets regarding nephew, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). He has no desire to return to battle.
Meanwhile, the Resistance is facing more drama and they're in desperate need of some backup. After perhaps too many characters get a few moments in the spotlight, everything scatters into chaos. There are welcome additions, however, like the spritely Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) who meshes well with Finn (John Boyega).
I could have done with less of them, though—and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern). Though they're all good characters portrayed by good actors, I'd just have preferred a shorter movie that had less going on the side. The core of the film is Luke and Leia (Fisher) and Ren and Rey. And they can hold their own.
That said, I still think this was a great movie. The original Star Wars was the first film I ever saw in a theater and I will always get goosebumps when that iconic score bursts into sound, no matter what installment of the story I'm watching. I haven't loved all of them, but this one to me felt like the classic in many ways, and for that I am grateful.
Yes, the characters tell us throughout that the torch is being passed. The title itself implies the Jedis are on their way out. A new generation is taking over, blah blah. But I'd argue that the real message here was that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Through all that transpires (and I won't spoil for those who have yet to see), it all goes back to Luke and Leia. C-3PO and R2-D2 pop in, along with Chewbacca and Yoda. In the traditional sense, some of those appearances are cameos, but they don't feel that way. Their presence (whether literal or metaphorical) is a comfort; something that's always been there and that will continue to be when all of us kids from the '70s—who were the first to freak out in this alternate reality—are long gone to enjoy it.
I liked the strong message about the future being female (listen closely to Carrie Fisher's last line), the nod to children and the younger characters emerging strong. But what I liked more was the sense of history and lineage that permeates the franchise and has never been more evident as it is now.
The Force will always be with us.
~~~
Friday, December 15, 2017
Victoria & Abdul
Today I saw Victoria & Abdul, starring Dame Judi Dench and Ali Fazal.
Queen Victoria (Dench) made friends with one of her Indian servants, Abdul Karim (Fazal) toward the end of her life and ruffled many feathers in her household.
The film is based on a true story, though the disclaimer at the beginning admits it gets it "mostly" right. Knowing that, I decided just to sit back and enjoy the ride, and I very much did.
Dame Judi Dench, who has played this queen before, has her down pat. Based on how the history books describe the legendary Victoria, she exemplifies the best and worst of her without making her a caricature. Ali Fazal in the role of Abdul is handsome and likable, though probably not quite as arrogant as the real man was.
Their chemistry was real and their pairing unlikely, but the two developed a genuine kinship that so annoyed her family and staff that they burned all of her letters to him upon her passing. What survived was Karim's diary, which was passed down in his family and only revealed to the public in 2010.
Though the content is indisputably light, the story has darker tones of racism and class divisions that absolutely contributed to the controversy surrounding their friendship.
What a shame that so many years later, we still have similar issues.
~~~
Queen Victoria (Dench) made friends with one of her Indian servants, Abdul Karim (Fazal) toward the end of her life and ruffled many feathers in her household.
The film is based on a true story, though the disclaimer at the beginning admits it gets it "mostly" right. Knowing that, I decided just to sit back and enjoy the ride, and I very much did.
Dame Judi Dench, who has played this queen before, has her down pat. Based on how the history books describe the legendary Victoria, she exemplifies the best and worst of her without making her a caricature. Ali Fazal in the role of Abdul is handsome and likable, though probably not quite as arrogant as the real man was.
Their chemistry was real and their pairing unlikely, but the two developed a genuine kinship that so annoyed her family and staff that they burned all of her letters to him upon her passing. What survived was Karim's diary, which was passed down in his family and only revealed to the public in 2010.
Though the content is indisputably light, the story has darker tones of racism and class divisions that absolutely contributed to the controversy surrounding their friendship.
What a shame that so many years later, we still have similar issues.
~~~
Voyeur
Today I saw the documentary Voyeur.
In the late '60s, Gerald Foos bought a motel in Aurora, Colorado for the sole purpose of voyeurism. He built a platform in the attic and drilled a viewing panel underneath fake air vents so he could see his guests, but not be seen by them.
On this platform he spent endless days and nights witnessing random private behaviors, intimate sexual acts and once, even a murder. He doesn't express remorse or guilt over all of this because he saw himself at the time as a researcher, not unlike famed doctors Masters and Johnson (though their subjects always knew when they were watching).
Of course, his "research" wasn't always clinical, as he did confess to the sexual pleasure derived from witnessing it. But he did keep meticulous records of the guests and their actions (orgasms included).
In the early '80s, Foos wrote a letter to journalist Gay Talese, who had authored a saucy book, The Neighbor's Wife, about the fluid sex lives of Americans. Foos confessed his practices and offered the story to Talese because he felt it needed to be told. Talese kept the knowledge of this tricked-out motel confidential (even visiting and witnessing acts himself) and spent decades learning all about Foos and his obsessions.
A documentary crew got involved and chronicled the journey of Talese writing the book and regularly meeting with Foos, and that's the finished film we get here.
Though it sounds X-rated, this movie plays it safe with only brief nudity and references to sexual behaviors as part of the reenactments. Really, it's primarily talking head video of the journalist and his subject, the friends they become and the battles they get into as the years go on.
I was intrigued by the subject matter (and the fact Foos was never convicted of any crimes) but must admit after the story was told, I began to find all of the major players quite sad.
It's interesting enough not to walk away from, but not captivating enough to leave you wanting more.
~~~
In the late '60s, Gerald Foos bought a motel in Aurora, Colorado for the sole purpose of voyeurism. He built a platform in the attic and drilled a viewing panel underneath fake air vents so he could see his guests, but not be seen by them.
On this platform he spent endless days and nights witnessing random private behaviors, intimate sexual acts and once, even a murder. He doesn't express remorse or guilt over all of this because he saw himself at the time as a researcher, not unlike famed doctors Masters and Johnson (though their subjects always knew when they were watching).
Of course, his "research" wasn't always clinical, as he did confess to the sexual pleasure derived from witnessing it. But he did keep meticulous records of the guests and their actions (orgasms included).
In the early '80s, Foos wrote a letter to journalist Gay Talese, who had authored a saucy book, The Neighbor's Wife, about the fluid sex lives of Americans. Foos confessed his practices and offered the story to Talese because he felt it needed to be told. Talese kept the knowledge of this tricked-out motel confidential (even visiting and witnessing acts himself) and spent decades learning all about Foos and his obsessions.
A documentary crew got involved and chronicled the journey of Talese writing the book and regularly meeting with Foos, and that's the finished film we get here.
Though it sounds X-rated, this movie plays it safe with only brief nudity and references to sexual behaviors as part of the reenactments. Really, it's primarily talking head video of the journalist and his subject, the friends they become and the battles they get into as the years go on.
I was intrigued by the subject matter (and the fact Foos was never convicted of any crimes) but must admit after the story was told, I began to find all of the major players quite sad.
It's interesting enough not to walk away from, but not captivating enough to leave you wanting more.
~~~
Tuesday, December 05, 2017
Lady Bird
Today I saw Lady Bird, starring Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf.
When discussing films in the coming-of-age genre, with few exceptions we typically refer to films about boys: Stand By Me, The Goonies, etc. Perhaps that's why it's so refreshing to see a girl figuring things out in this brilliant directorial debut from Greta Garwig.
Christine (Ronan) demands to be called Lady Bird and wishes to leave what she calls "the Midwest of California" (a.k.a. Sacramento) in the dust for a New York college. She's bored at Catholic school (although she doesn't do so well in it) and falls in and out of love with boys who seem to like her back. Her family is refreshingly real (Dad's out of work; Mom is overly critical) and her best friend is sweet and supportive.
As Lady Bird makes her way through her senior year of high school, she's both clever and clumsy in her quest to reach her goals. Her honesty sometimes gets her in trouble, but we continue to root for her regardless.
But her story is admittedly not terribly compelling. What's so well done here is the character exposition. We feel as if we know each of the players intimately, but none of them are shoved in our face. What isn't said between Lady Bird and her mother is far more powerful than what is, and the performances by Ronan and Metcalf are a huge part of that success.
It's been a while since a movie made me laugh and cry in equal measure—I'm thankful Ms. Gerwig brought that kind of emotion out in me. And I can't wait to see what she does next.
~~~
When discussing films in the coming-of-age genre, with few exceptions we typically refer to films about boys: Stand By Me, The Goonies, etc. Perhaps that's why it's so refreshing to see a girl figuring things out in this brilliant directorial debut from Greta Garwig.
Christine (Ronan) demands to be called Lady Bird and wishes to leave what she calls "the Midwest of California" (a.k.a. Sacramento) in the dust for a New York college. She's bored at Catholic school (although she doesn't do so well in it) and falls in and out of love with boys who seem to like her back. Her family is refreshingly real (Dad's out of work; Mom is overly critical) and her best friend is sweet and supportive.
As Lady Bird makes her way through her senior year of high school, she's both clever and clumsy in her quest to reach her goals. Her honesty sometimes gets her in trouble, but we continue to root for her regardless.
But her story is admittedly not terribly compelling. What's so well done here is the character exposition. We feel as if we know each of the players intimately, but none of them are shoved in our face. What isn't said between Lady Bird and her mother is far more powerful than what is, and the performances by Ronan and Metcalf are a huge part of that success.
It's been a while since a movie made me laugh and cry in equal measure—I'm thankful Ms. Gerwig brought that kind of emotion out in me. And I can't wait to see what she does next.
~~~
Monday, November 27, 2017
Murder on the Orient Express
On Tuesday, I saw Murder on the Orient Express, starring Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer.
A story that has survived since Agatha Christie's book of the same name was published in 1934, this Murder may have been better off left in the past. With an all-star cast and a star director (Kenneth Branagh), it was almost doomed to fail. And unfortunately, fail it did.
The mystique and character of a Christie novel is admittedly hard to bring to life, but you'd think with such a talented bunch it would happen. It didn't.
Instead of truly "wondering" who committed this heinous act on a glamorous train filled with people of status, the audience spends time hoping something—the train, the plot, the dialogue—will speed up. The quiet, slow pace isn't suspense-building (as it may have been intended); instead it's nerve-wracking.
The cinematography is beautiful, and the actors do their parts well, of course. It just wasn't enough to save it (or the victim) in the end.
~~~
A story that has survived since Agatha Christie's book of the same name was published in 1934, this Murder may have been better off left in the past. With an all-star cast and a star director (Kenneth Branagh), it was almost doomed to fail. And unfortunately, fail it did.
The mystique and character of a Christie novel is admittedly hard to bring to life, but you'd think with such a talented bunch it would happen. It didn't.
Instead of truly "wondering" who committed this heinous act on a glamorous train filled with people of status, the audience spends time hoping something—the train, the plot, the dialogue—will speed up. The quiet, slow pace isn't suspense-building (as it may have been intended); instead it's nerve-wracking.
The cinematography is beautiful, and the actors do their parts well, of course. It just wasn't enough to save it (or the victim) in the end.
~~~
Monday, November 20, 2017
The Man Who Invented Christmas
On Wednesday, I saw The Man Who Invented Christmas, starring Dan Stevens and Christopher Plummer.
Based on a script that was based on a non-fiction work, this film tells a dramatized version of the weeks leading up to the publication of Charles Dickens' masterpiece, A Christmas Carol. As a Dickens freak myself (first stop on my first trip to London was a visit to his historical house), I couldn't have been more excited when I heard this was coming out, with Downton Abbey's Stevens in the lead role. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the outcome.
The film attempts to tell, in an overtly manic way, how chaotic Dickens' life was when he was dreaming up this story. People constantly coming in and out of the house, more children than they knew what to do with and a father that just kept "taking" from his famous son. It can't have been easy to concentrate on writing, and if that was the goal of the movie, then it was well achieved.
The problem is, it's rather annoying. Most importantly, the narrative is devoid of the magic expected in a presentation about a work of literature that changed the way the British (and later the world, it could be argued) celebrated Christmas.
Christopher Plummer isn't in it enough as Scrooge, and the minor characters are perhaps too minor to care out.
A shame, because the topic is such a rich one.
~~~
Based on a script that was based on a non-fiction work, this film tells a dramatized version of the weeks leading up to the publication of Charles Dickens' masterpiece, A Christmas Carol. As a Dickens freak myself (first stop on my first trip to London was a visit to his historical house), I couldn't have been more excited when I heard this was coming out, with Downton Abbey's Stevens in the lead role. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the outcome.
The film attempts to tell, in an overtly manic way, how chaotic Dickens' life was when he was dreaming up this story. People constantly coming in and out of the house, more children than they knew what to do with and a father that just kept "taking" from his famous son. It can't have been easy to concentrate on writing, and if that was the goal of the movie, then it was well achieved.
The problem is, it's rather annoying. Most importantly, the narrative is devoid of the magic expected in a presentation about a work of literature that changed the way the British (and later the world, it could be argued) celebrated Christmas.
Christopher Plummer isn't in it enough as Scrooge, and the minor characters are perhaps too minor to care out.
A shame, because the topic is such a rich one.
~~~
Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Tonight I screened Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, starring Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell.
Mildred (McDormand) seeks justice for the rape and murder of her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) in the small town of (fictional) Ebbing, Missouri, where the police—in her view—spend more time hassling minorities than they do solving crimes.
Because the case has gone dormant, she pays to post three billboards asking the police chief (Woody Harrelson) why. This upsets the tight community and she gets grief from the local priest and other townspeople.
The chief is truly on her side, but after suffering another tragedy, she feels she has nowhere to turn and seeks revenge instead of justice. A series of bloody, scary, hilarious (yes, it's all those things) events follows and McDormand pretty much seals up her Oscar nomination.
But she's not the only great player here. Harrelson is tough, yet sincere as the chief whose hands are tied by circumstance; Sam Rockwell as the dim-witted Officer Dixon keeps his character from becoming a caricature by adding dimension through emotion, and Peter Dinklage is the welcome town oddity as the "midget" who is hot for Mildred.
I'd say the stereotypes are a bit much, but I did live in Missouri for five years, and for better or worse, I encountered people who resembled every last one of these folks.
In addition to addressing the horrific themes of sexual assault, racism and domestic violence—so timely considering our current national conversation—it reminds us that not every good person makes smart choices and not every bad apple is without a conscience.
Writer/director Martin McDonagh was inspired to write the film after driving past similar billboards in real life. I shudder to think what prompted their placement. The movie based on them isn't easy to watch, but you won't be able to take your eyes off of it.
~~~
Mildred (McDormand) seeks justice for the rape and murder of her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) in the small town of (fictional) Ebbing, Missouri, where the police—in her view—spend more time hassling minorities than they do solving crimes.
Because the case has gone dormant, she pays to post three billboards asking the police chief (Woody Harrelson) why. This upsets the tight community and she gets grief from the local priest and other townspeople.
The chief is truly on her side, but after suffering another tragedy, she feels she has nowhere to turn and seeks revenge instead of justice. A series of bloody, scary, hilarious (yes, it's all those things) events follows and McDormand pretty much seals up her Oscar nomination.
But she's not the only great player here. Harrelson is tough, yet sincere as the chief whose hands are tied by circumstance; Sam Rockwell as the dim-witted Officer Dixon keeps his character from becoming a caricature by adding dimension through emotion, and Peter Dinklage is the welcome town oddity as the "midget" who is hot for Mildred.
I'd say the stereotypes are a bit much, but I did live in Missouri for five years, and for better or worse, I encountered people who resembled every last one of these folks.
In addition to addressing the horrific themes of sexual assault, racism and domestic violence—so timely considering our current national conversation—it reminds us that not every good person makes smart choices and not every bad apple is without a conscience.
Writer/director Martin McDonagh was inspired to write the film after driving past similar billboards in real life. I shudder to think what prompted their placement. The movie based on them isn't easy to watch, but you won't be able to take your eyes off of it.
~~~
Saturday, November 04, 2017
A Bad Moms Christmas
Last night I saw A Bad Moms Christmas, starring Mila Kunis and Kathryn Hahn.
Amy (Kunis) is determined to have a normal Christmas without interference from her mother Ruth (Christine Baranski), who is visiting for the holiday. Simultaneously, her friends Carla (Hahn) and Kiki (Kristen Bell) are having issues with their own mothers, also in town.
The film, a sequel to last year's Bad Moms, focuses not on the drama of other parents, but solely on the complicated family ties that bind or break during the Christmas season. I'd love to say this was complete fluff and nonsense, but the story actually touches on some very real issues for women.
From one mother who has no boundaries to another who is a financial mess, to the seriousness of a mom who doesn't think anything her daughter does is good enough, the film is bound to touch a nerve with many.
That aside, it's also laugh-out-loud funny throughout.
Kathryn Hahn is a national treasure. I feel the need to say that, though it's probably already been said. Her timing, her physical comedy, her impeccable delivery—all hysterical, especially when she falls for exotic dancer Ty (Justin Hartley).
The laughs are plenty, the situations (while intentionally inflated) are relatable and at the core of the movie is a lot of heart.
You could do worse at the theater this holiday season.
~~~
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Dunkirk
Today I saw Dunkirk, starring Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance.
The true story of Dunkirk is miraculous, and an often overlooked moment in history. Director Christopher Nolan does a brilliant job of not re-telling the story, but bringing the human pieces of it into a relatable, terrifying narrative.
Instead of bringing us war scenes as we are used to seeing them, he goes one step further. He takes us to the ground, to the water, to the sky into the adrenaline rushes of the men suffering through it.
We don't know their backstories or see them longingly looking at photos of wives back home; we see them catching leaflets telling them they're surrounded moments before being shot at (and in some cases killed). We see them suffocating inside a shot-down plane as they try to break out using the lens of a camera. We see them numb from PTSD, just moments after being pulled to safety.
We experience war, we don't watch it.
Though the tension was excruciating and the sounds of the haunting score will probably echo in my nightmares, I appreciated the first-hand approach.
If only those in power would realize the eternal damage war does to the collective human spirit and put an end to it for the rest of time.
~~~
The true story of Dunkirk is miraculous, and an often overlooked moment in history. Director Christopher Nolan does a brilliant job of not re-telling the story, but bringing the human pieces of it into a relatable, terrifying narrative.
Instead of bringing us war scenes as we are used to seeing them, he goes one step further. He takes us to the ground, to the water, to the sky into the adrenaline rushes of the men suffering through it.
We don't know their backstories or see them longingly looking at photos of wives back home; we see them catching leaflets telling them they're surrounded moments before being shot at (and in some cases killed). We see them suffocating inside a shot-down plane as they try to break out using the lens of a camera. We see them numb from PTSD, just moments after being pulled to safety.
We experience war, we don't watch it.
Though the tension was excruciating and the sounds of the haunting score will probably echo in my nightmares, I appreciated the first-hand approach.
If only those in power would realize the eternal damage war does to the collective human spirit and put an end to it for the rest of time.
~~~
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Last night I saw A Nightmare on Elm Street, starring Heather Langenkamp and Robert Englund.
Nancy (Langenkamp) attends a sleepover with a friend only to wake in the middle of the night to the sounds of that friend's murder. They both had the same nightmare about a burnt-faced man with knives on his fingers. Nancy fears because of this commonality, she is next.
After more nightmares and an eventual confession from her own alcoholic mother, Nancy learns the man in their dreams is Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), and gets his backstory. With this new information, she, along with her boyfriend across the street, Glenn (a very young Johnny Depp), attempt to defeat this monster with a mix of sleep deprivation and calculated nightmare-planning.
This film came out in 1984. I first saw it a year later at a friend's slumber party, much to the dismay of my mother, who forbid me from such parties when I came home afterword, terrified. I refused to sleep for days.
"1 ... 2 ... Freddy's coming for you, 3 ... 4 ... " The song the kids sing as they jump rope in the background of the film stayed with me all these years, and hearing it again gave me a visceral reaction.
It's funny what you remember and what you don't.
For example, I had clear recollections of Freddy: everything from his voice to his nails to his legendary sweater. I also remembered that Nancy was a "good girl" and her house was nice, in a good neighborhood.
What I failed to remember was Nancy's alcoholic mother, the sexual jokes and references (perhaps they just went over my head in youth) and the somewhat shocking ending. All were hilarious and satisfying last night.
The score by Charles Bernstein is a big factor as well—each time the music enters, it's hard not to put your guard up; you know something is coming.
Wes Craven knew how to do horror.
As silly and dated as many of the references and occurrences are, the film holds up. It is spooky, it is creepy, and it makes you jump. The origin story of the villain is also horrific and effective.
A classic already, and surely for years to come.
~~~
Nancy (Langenkamp) attends a sleepover with a friend only to wake in the middle of the night to the sounds of that friend's murder. They both had the same nightmare about a burnt-faced man with knives on his fingers. Nancy fears because of this commonality, she is next.
After more nightmares and an eventual confession from her own alcoholic mother, Nancy learns the man in their dreams is Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), and gets his backstory. With this new information, she, along with her boyfriend across the street, Glenn (a very young Johnny Depp), attempt to defeat this monster with a mix of sleep deprivation and calculated nightmare-planning.
This film came out in 1984. I first saw it a year later at a friend's slumber party, much to the dismay of my mother, who forbid me from such parties when I came home afterword, terrified. I refused to sleep for days.
"1 ... 2 ... Freddy's coming for you, 3 ... 4 ... " The song the kids sing as they jump rope in the background of the film stayed with me all these years, and hearing it again gave me a visceral reaction.
It's funny what you remember and what you don't.
For example, I had clear recollections of Freddy: everything from his voice to his nails to his legendary sweater. I also remembered that Nancy was a "good girl" and her house was nice, in a good neighborhood.
What I failed to remember was Nancy's alcoholic mother, the sexual jokes and references (perhaps they just went over my head in youth) and the somewhat shocking ending. All were hilarious and satisfying last night.
The score by Charles Bernstein is a big factor as well—each time the music enters, it's hard not to put your guard up; you know something is coming.
Wes Craven knew how to do horror.
As silly and dated as many of the references and occurrences are, the film holds up. It is spooky, it is creepy, and it makes you jump. The origin story of the villain is also horrific and effective.
A classic already, and surely for years to come.
~~~
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Fright Night
Last night I saw Fright Night, starring Chris Sarandon and William Ragsdale.
Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a typical 1980s teenager—he enjoys late night television, making out with his girlfriend and spying on neighbors. One evening, he sees the guys next door carry a coffin into their yard and suspects they may be vampires. His fears are confirmed as he witnesses an intimate moment between one of them and their partner. The trouble is, they're onto him.
Soon enough said vampire, Jerry (Chris Sarandon), covets Charlie's naive mother and all hell breaks loose. Charley attempts to kill Jerry unsuccessfully, so he solicits the help of a late night show host who claims to be a vampire killer. Along with him, Charley's recruits his best friend and girlfriend, and the group attempt to eliminate this neighborhood threat.
Here, the film surpasses all attempts at actual horror and becomes a full-on camp fest. But that's not a bad thing—the special effects are so over-the-top, they leave you fascinated by the work that must have gone into creating them.
As for the acting, Sarandon chews scenery like the best of them, smirking and flirting his way across the screen, seducing the audience along with his desired victims. They couldn't have cast a more perfect, pompous vampire. And William Ragsdale's Charley is desperate and scared and paranoid just as a hormonal teenager with a great imagination would be (even though he turns out to be right).
Over 30 years later, I still enjoyed this ride and will continue to return to it in the Octobers to yet to come.
~~~
Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a typical 1980s teenager—he enjoys late night television, making out with his girlfriend and spying on neighbors. One evening, he sees the guys next door carry a coffin into their yard and suspects they may be vampires. His fears are confirmed as he witnesses an intimate moment between one of them and their partner. The trouble is, they're onto him.
Soon enough said vampire, Jerry (Chris Sarandon), covets Charlie's naive mother and all hell breaks loose. Charley attempts to kill Jerry unsuccessfully, so he solicits the help of a late night show host who claims to be a vampire killer. Along with him, Charley's recruits his best friend and girlfriend, and the group attempt to eliminate this neighborhood threat.
Here, the film surpasses all attempts at actual horror and becomes a full-on camp fest. But that's not a bad thing—the special effects are so over-the-top, they leave you fascinated by the work that must have gone into creating them.
As for the acting, Sarandon chews scenery like the best of them, smirking and flirting his way across the screen, seducing the audience along with his desired victims. They couldn't have cast a more perfect, pompous vampire. And William Ragsdale's Charley is desperate and scared and paranoid just as a hormonal teenager with a great imagination would be (even though he turns out to be right).
Over 30 years later, I still enjoyed this ride and will continue to return to it in the Octobers to yet to come.
~~~
Thursday, September 14, 2017
It
Last night I saw It, starring Jaeden Lieberher and Sophia Lillis.
Based on the famous Stephen King novel, It certainly delivers on its promise of shivers and scares.
When we first meet the residents of Derry, Maine, it's because we're watching a sick Bill (Lieberher) finish making a paper boat for his younger brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) to float out in the rainstorm. He can't go out in the storm to supervise because of his illness and mom is busy playing the piano.
Once ready to set sail, Georgie takes the boat outside and giggles happily along the street as he communicates via Walkie Talkie with Bill, who is watching out his bedroom window. Of course, before long, Georgie veers out of view and the boat sails right into the sewer. Worried that his brother will be angry with him, Georgie attempts to retrieve it and is met by a "friendly" clown, Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), who offers to hand it back to him.
We know where this is going before it happens, but it's still jarring to see the young boy snatched up by this menacing monster. The story continues as other kids disappear, and one of the new students in town does historical research on the town. He discovers that awful things have been happening every 27 years.
The group of Bill's friends, made up of kids who consider themselves "losers" because they are bullied, teased, abused, etc. bands together to confront the evil—and in the process face their own demons.
There are many opportunities for the film to go cheesy, but it really never does. Skarsgard's Pennywise is angry and creepy, but not the least bit campy. The other manifestations a la Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, such as a painting that comes to life, are even more disturbing.
What's great about the film is the heart of the kids we get to know and the faithful nod to the era of Walkmans and Rubik's Cubes.
If you can stand the occasional gore and potential nightmares, nothing should stop you from seeing It.
~~~
Based on the famous Stephen King novel, It certainly delivers on its promise of shivers and scares.
When we first meet the residents of Derry, Maine, it's because we're watching a sick Bill (Lieberher) finish making a paper boat for his younger brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) to float out in the rainstorm. He can't go out in the storm to supervise because of his illness and mom is busy playing the piano.
Once ready to set sail, Georgie takes the boat outside and giggles happily along the street as he communicates via Walkie Talkie with Bill, who is watching out his bedroom window. Of course, before long, Georgie veers out of view and the boat sails right into the sewer. Worried that his brother will be angry with him, Georgie attempts to retrieve it and is met by a "friendly" clown, Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), who offers to hand it back to him.
We know where this is going before it happens, but it's still jarring to see the young boy snatched up by this menacing monster. The story continues as other kids disappear, and one of the new students in town does historical research on the town. He discovers that awful things have been happening every 27 years.
The group of Bill's friends, made up of kids who consider themselves "losers" because they are bullied, teased, abused, etc. bands together to confront the evil—and in the process face their own demons.
There are many opportunities for the film to go cheesy, but it really never does. Skarsgard's Pennywise is angry and creepy, but not the least bit campy. The other manifestations a la Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, such as a painting that comes to life, are even more disturbing.
What's great about the film is the heart of the kids we get to know and the faithful nod to the era of Walkmans and Rubik's Cubes.
If you can stand the occasional gore and potential nightmares, nothing should stop you from seeing It.
~~~
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Home Again
On Friday I saw Home Again, starring Reese Witherspoon and Pico Alexander.
Alice (Witherspoon) is a single mother, separated from her husband, who is a big-wig in the music industry. To make a fresh start she moves back home to L.A. with her two girls. On a night out with her friends, she meets Harry (Alexander) and two of his friends; all are trying to break into the film business. Her father was a legendary filmmaker. Before long, the three are living in Alice's guesthouse and she and Harry are falling for each other.
Things get complicated when her husband, Austin (Michael Sheen), decides he'd like to reconcile and makes his way to L.A. Alice is torn between starting over and returning to a comfortable familiarity for her kids.
This is a textbook rom-com with a convenient love triangle, which addresses age, commitment and societal norms. That said, it is also thoroughly enjoyable. Predictable, sure—but enjoyable.
Witherspoon is delightful as a genuinely good mom who only wants what's best for her kids, and the supporting players all foster her decision-making by staying true to their personas. The girls who play her daughters, Lola Flanery and Eden Grace Redfield, are also spectacular. They hit just the right notes of confusion and joy as their lives take a topsy-turvy turn.
If you're looking for something deep or dark, this isn't the film for you. But if you want to take a break from our fractured world and breathe for a while, I can safely say you'll be in good hands with this sweet flick.
~~~
Alice (Witherspoon) is a single mother, separated from her husband, who is a big-wig in the music industry. To make a fresh start she moves back home to L.A. with her two girls. On a night out with her friends, she meets Harry (Alexander) and two of his friends; all are trying to break into the film business. Her father was a legendary filmmaker. Before long, the three are living in Alice's guesthouse and she and Harry are falling for each other.
Things get complicated when her husband, Austin (Michael Sheen), decides he'd like to reconcile and makes his way to L.A. Alice is torn between starting over and returning to a comfortable familiarity for her kids.
This is a textbook rom-com with a convenient love triangle, which addresses age, commitment and societal norms. That said, it is also thoroughly enjoyable. Predictable, sure—but enjoyable.
Witherspoon is delightful as a genuinely good mom who only wants what's best for her kids, and the supporting players all foster her decision-making by staying true to their personas. The girls who play her daughters, Lola Flanery and Eden Grace Redfield, are also spectacular. They hit just the right notes of confusion and joy as their lives take a topsy-turvy turn.
If you're looking for something deep or dark, this isn't the film for you. But if you want to take a break from our fractured world and breathe for a while, I can safely say you'll be in good hands with this sweet flick.
~~~
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Lady Macbeth
Last night I saw Lady Macbeth, starring Florence Pugh and Cosmo Jarvis.
Katherine (Pugh) is sold into a loveless marriage with an abusive, sexually challenged husband. His father who lives with them is also horrible, and coupled with the unhappy help, this all makes for a pretty miserable home.
Based on Nikolai Leskov’s 1865 novel Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, which was inspired by the famous Shakespeare work, this re-telling softens nothing. The audience feels every lashing that Katherine's dark-skinned lover Sebastian (Jarvis) gets and absorbs the emanating hatred Katherine has for the family she married into. In fact, the only one seemingly immune from all this brutality is a thin, sherbet-colored cat that pops up almost humorously, scene after scene, observing the chaos with typical curiosity.
But don't be fooled; there's not much comedy here. After her father-in-law allegedly sends her husband away, Katherine becomes obsessed with Sebastian, who works on the property. They don't do much to conceal their lovemaking and word travels fast. When her father-in-law confronts her with this news, the results are tragic—but Katherine is the one with the upper hand.
She's a force to be reckoned with, and anyone or anything that gets in her way from that point forward is put in clear and imminent danger.
The transformation of this character is a credit to the genius work of newcomer Pugh. Her ability to show the audience what simmers beneath the surface, yet behave as she's expected for the other characters is fascinating to watch. She's the star, after all, but I have a feeling I wouldn't have taken my eyes off of her even if she wasn't.
Lady Macbeth is a sexy, frightening, vivid interpretation of a life lived out of desperation. If you don't mind frequent violence (and a lot of nudity), give it a shot.
~~~
Katherine (Pugh) is sold into a loveless marriage with an abusive, sexually challenged husband. His father who lives with them is also horrible, and coupled with the unhappy help, this all makes for a pretty miserable home.
Based on Nikolai Leskov’s 1865 novel Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, which was inspired by the famous Shakespeare work, this re-telling softens nothing. The audience feels every lashing that Katherine's dark-skinned lover Sebastian (Jarvis) gets and absorbs the emanating hatred Katherine has for the family she married into. In fact, the only one seemingly immune from all this brutality is a thin, sherbet-colored cat that pops up almost humorously, scene after scene, observing the chaos with typical curiosity.
But don't be fooled; there's not much comedy here. After her father-in-law allegedly sends her husband away, Katherine becomes obsessed with Sebastian, who works on the property. They don't do much to conceal their lovemaking and word travels fast. When her father-in-law confronts her with this news, the results are tragic—but Katherine is the one with the upper hand.
She's a force to be reckoned with, and anyone or anything that gets in her way from that point forward is put in clear and imminent danger.
The transformation of this character is a credit to the genius work of newcomer Pugh. Her ability to show the audience what simmers beneath the surface, yet behave as she's expected for the other characters is fascinating to watch. She's the star, after all, but I have a feeling I wouldn't have taken my eyes off of her even if she wasn't.
Lady Macbeth is a sexy, frightening, vivid interpretation of a life lived out of desperation. If you don't mind frequent violence (and a lot of nudity), give it a shot.
~~~
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Detroit
Last night I saw Detroit, starring John Boyega and Will Poulter.
The 1967 Detroit Rebellion was a reaction to a police raid of an after-hours unlicensed black bar, where a celebration was being held to welcome back soldiers. Over 40 lives were lost and nearly 2,000 people were injured during the five days of riots.
One incident that erupted during that unsettling time happened at the Algiers Motel, where a group of young black men and two white women were held hostage by white police and tortured because of a gunshot the cops thought they heard coming from the property. By the end of the incident, three unarmed black men were dead. No weapon was ever found.
In Kathryn Bigelow's fictionalized version of that event, she retells what happened with minor poetic license. Though most are represented accurately (according to survivors and witnesses), dialog of course has to be imagined with the exception of phrases/insults that were recounted in court transcripts at the murder trials.
The film is long, but so was that night for the innocent victims who suffered at the hands of brutal racists. Watching their agony and seeing the merciless actions of the white men continue is just a painful reminder that we haven't come so far since then. Police brutality is alive and well in America, as is racism, so we must force ourselves to sit through art such as this to see why we can't let these injustices continue.
The performance Will Poulter gives as Krauss, the ringleader of the whole operation, is Oscar-worthy, as you can barely look at him by the time the film concludes. Also stellar is John Boyega as Dismukes, a black guard who witnessed the incident, but remained unharmed because he "befriended" the cops. The struggle to stay silent is reflected in his eyes as the horrors play out.
Though it was unpleasant and uncomfortable to watch, I truly hope that high schools around the country will show this film as part of their Civil Rights lessons and show how a dark period in America's past played out. If we don't convince the youth to be color-blind, we'll find ourselves right back in that horrible place in no time.
~~~
The 1967 Detroit Rebellion was a reaction to a police raid of an after-hours unlicensed black bar, where a celebration was being held to welcome back soldiers. Over 40 lives were lost and nearly 2,000 people were injured during the five days of riots.
One incident that erupted during that unsettling time happened at the Algiers Motel, where a group of young black men and two white women were held hostage by white police and tortured because of a gunshot the cops thought they heard coming from the property. By the end of the incident, three unarmed black men were dead. No weapon was ever found.
In Kathryn Bigelow's fictionalized version of that event, she retells what happened with minor poetic license. Though most are represented accurately (according to survivors and witnesses), dialog of course has to be imagined with the exception of phrases/insults that were recounted in court transcripts at the murder trials.
The film is long, but so was that night for the innocent victims who suffered at the hands of brutal racists. Watching their agony and seeing the merciless actions of the white men continue is just a painful reminder that we haven't come so far since then. Police brutality is alive and well in America, as is racism, so we must force ourselves to sit through art such as this to see why we can't let these injustices continue.
The performance Will Poulter gives as Krauss, the ringleader of the whole operation, is Oscar-worthy, as you can barely look at him by the time the film concludes. Also stellar is John Boyega as Dismukes, a black guard who witnessed the incident, but remained unharmed because he "befriended" the cops. The struggle to stay silent is reflected in his eyes as the horrors play out.
Though it was unpleasant and uncomfortable to watch, I truly hope that high schools around the country will show this film as part of their Civil Rights lessons and show how a dark period in America's past played out. If we don't convince the youth to be color-blind, we'll find ourselves right back in that horrible place in no time.
~~~
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Beatriz at Dinner
Tonight I saw Beatriz at Dinner, starring Salma Hayek and Connie Britton.
Beatriz (Hayek) is a Mexican healer who gives her affluent client Cathy (Britton) a massage after a losing a beloved pet. She can't hide her grief, but Cathy is compassionate and listens to her as she tells the story of an angry neighbor who killed her goat. As she's leaving the mansion, her car breaks down so she calls a friend to come and fix it. It will be a few hours until he can get there, so Cathy invites her to stay for dinner.
At the meal are Cathy and her husband, plus two couples. Both of the men work with her husband in the real estate development business. All of them are white.
Beatriz awkwardly greets the dinner party visitors with warm hugs instead of the cold handshakes they're used to and the night is off to a weird start. The more wine Beatriz drinks, the more honest she becomes and soon the polite conversation turns contentious.
John Lithgow is condescending and cool as the mogul Doug, who everyone seems to be kissing up to. Immediately he stereotypes Beatriz, asking her first to get him a drink (mistaking her for the help), then joking that maybe she once danced in Vegas when she mentions he looks familiar.
During the meal, Beatriz has a small meltdown when she mistakes Doug for a corporate animal who ruined her home town in Mexico. She leaves the group to rest and uncovers something more. The story continues with her return to the party.
The film is very light on actual action, but the dialog here crackles so easily that's it's hard to notice. Every note of every word is carefully chosen either by the two who are sparring or those aiming to diffuse them.
It's hard to take your eyes of off Hayek, as her performance has so many dimensions. She emotes from deep within her eyes and carries herself as a confident holistic healer offended by soulless people would.
Alternately, Lithgow makes small sparks of his character redeeming, yet we can't help but shake our heads in disgust at his behavior.
A quiet—but no less powerful—commentary on our culturally volatile times.
~~~
Wednesday, August 09, 2017
The Beguiled
Yesterday I saw The Beguiled, starring Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman.
Corporal John McBurney (Farrell) fell into the Union army by way of desperation—he'd just arrived from Ireland without a penny to speak of, so while he was up for the job, he didn't have a specific affinity to either American side. When he is wounded in battle, a young girl finds him bleeding and helpless in the woods. She does the "Christian" thing (as they often mention), although he is from the opposite side, and brings him to safety at the girls' seminary where she lives.
The seminary is run by strict headmistress Martha (Kidman) who immediately mends his wound, cleans him up and transforms the music area into a makeshift bedroom for him. Soon all the young girls, and their teacher Edwina (Kirsten Dunst), are smitten with their guest, bending over backwards to see to his comfort.
He is grateful and gracious—gentle with the young girls and flirtatious with the women. His wound heals nicely and it is determined that it's not appropriate for him to remain, so (sexual) tensions rise as the group knows their time with him will end soon.
There is rivalry, violence, betrayal and heartbreak as the truth unfolds. To say any more would be to spoil, so I'll just mention that the soft, pearly light that Sofia Coppola always casts over her movies with works well here. Instead of being a raw, dusty war-time drama, it feels more like an occasional thriller with some splashes of romance that hang in the air like a misty Southern fog.
~~~
Corporal John McBurney (Farrell) fell into the Union army by way of desperation—he'd just arrived from Ireland without a penny to speak of, so while he was up for the job, he didn't have a specific affinity to either American side. When he is wounded in battle, a young girl finds him bleeding and helpless in the woods. She does the "Christian" thing (as they often mention), although he is from the opposite side, and brings him to safety at the girls' seminary where she lives.
The seminary is run by strict headmistress Martha (Kidman) who immediately mends his wound, cleans him up and transforms the music area into a makeshift bedroom for him. Soon all the young girls, and their teacher Edwina (Kirsten Dunst), are smitten with their guest, bending over backwards to see to his comfort.
He is grateful and gracious—gentle with the young girls and flirtatious with the women. His wound heals nicely and it is determined that it's not appropriate for him to remain, so (sexual) tensions rise as the group knows their time with him will end soon.
There is rivalry, violence, betrayal and heartbreak as the truth unfolds. To say any more would be to spoil, so I'll just mention that the soft, pearly light that Sofia Coppola always casts over her movies with works well here. Instead of being a raw, dusty war-time drama, it feels more like an occasional thriller with some splashes of romance that hang in the air like a misty Southern fog.
~~~
Sunday, August 06, 2017
An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power
On Friday, I saw the documentary An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.
Anyone who watched the Oscar-winning first installment, An Inconvenient Truth, could tell that former Vice President Al Gore would make saving the environment his life's mission. This film confirms that.
Although there are flashbacks to his time in office, and scenes of him lamenting the results of the election that could have made him president, he has moved on with a Jimmy Carter-like spirit for making the most of his post-political career.
The crew follows him to Paris when the original Paris Agreement was made in the shadow of the horrific terrorist attacks of 2015. He was in the heart of the city when those incidents occurred, and his remarks afterward will make even the toughest among us shed some tears.
The triumph of that global victory was unfortunately short-lived due to our current Commander-in-Chief pulling out of said Agreement just two months ago. Mr. Gore shows us why that was such a devastating blow to the progress that had been made and what we must do as citizens to continue the fight.
He can't resist bringing along his beloved PowerPoint presentations again to share some shocking bar graphs. He advances the slides that prove his point with blatant satisfaction—trouble is, we wish he weren't so right.
This is a crises of epic proportions. Future generations (if we haven't killed the human race by then) will shake their heads in disbelief at America's stupidity if we don't turn things around and make this right.
My favorite part of the film shows Gore meeting with a conservative Texan mayor who is on the right side of history, making his town an environmentally friendly model for the rest of the nation. Though he may disagree with liberal politics, he says that taking care of our earth is just "common sense," and has found a fiscally responsible way of doing it.
Unfortunately, the people who need to see this film probably won't. But if it gets just a few people to change their votes, to write some letters, to make some noise, it won't all have been for nothing.
~~~
Anyone who watched the Oscar-winning first installment, An Inconvenient Truth, could tell that former Vice President Al Gore would make saving the environment his life's mission. This film confirms that.
Although there are flashbacks to his time in office, and scenes of him lamenting the results of the election that could have made him president, he has moved on with a Jimmy Carter-like spirit for making the most of his post-political career.
The crew follows him to Paris when the original Paris Agreement was made in the shadow of the horrific terrorist attacks of 2015. He was in the heart of the city when those incidents occurred, and his remarks afterward will make even the toughest among us shed some tears.
The triumph of that global victory was unfortunately short-lived due to our current Commander-in-Chief pulling out of said Agreement just two months ago. Mr. Gore shows us why that was such a devastating blow to the progress that had been made and what we must do as citizens to continue the fight.
He can't resist bringing along his beloved PowerPoint presentations again to share some shocking bar graphs. He advances the slides that prove his point with blatant satisfaction—trouble is, we wish he weren't so right.
This is a crises of epic proportions. Future generations (if we haven't killed the human race by then) will shake their heads in disbelief at America's stupidity if we don't turn things around and make this right.
My favorite part of the film shows Gore meeting with a conservative Texan mayor who is on the right side of history, making his town an environmentally friendly model for the rest of the nation. Though he may disagree with liberal politics, he says that taking care of our earth is just "common sense," and has found a fiscally responsible way of doing it.
Unfortunately, the people who need to see this film probably won't. But if it gets just a few people to change their votes, to write some letters, to make some noise, it won't all have been for nothing.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)