Bob Balaban – People Talking

Quick Thoughts – March Mega-Post – ‘Isle of Dogs’ ‘The Death of Stalin’ ‘Unsane’ ‘Red Sparrow’ ‘Thoroughbreds’

Isle of Dogs (2018)

Some people will probably call me crazy (in addition to “rich, white, and bored”) for giving this movie a perfect score, but, what can I say? I enjoyed it from end to end and will probably go see it again to pick out things I missed the first time (and maybe again after that).

I was a bit skeptical that Isle of Dogs would be worth the wait (the four years since The Grand Budapest Hotel is the longest gap between Wes Anderson features), but that notion was quickly put to bed. Every frame of the film is a rich feast for the eyes (which is logical given the time intensity of stop-motion animation), and every performance is a joy to listen to (regardless of your ability to understand all of them at all times).

It’s a simple enough story about a boy and his dog, and whatever influences it has are certainly worn on its sleeve, but somehow the movie still manages to feel original.

I’m on record as saying that I don’t get hyped up for the Oscars anymore, which is still true, but, I will say that if Isle of Dogs doesn’t win Best Animated Feature next year, it’ll be a travesty (although, if I’m being really honest, I’d like to see it as a Best Picture nominee, but then again I don’t really care about the Oscars).

It’s heartfelt, it’s funny, but, mostly, it’s pure movie magic if I’ve ever seen it.

Rating: ★★★★★

The Death of Stalin (2017)

As you might guess by its title, The Death of Stalin (based on the French graphic novel of the same name) is about…the death of Stalin, and the power struggle in the immediate aftermath. What you might not guess is that it’s not some hoity toity political drama, but rather every major player is portrayed to be petty and foolish, if not downright stupid.

This is all thanks to writer/director Armando Iannucci (don’t be fooled by the name, kids; he’s Scottish, like Peter Capaldi), whose work I’m vaguely familiar with. I’ve seen In the Loop and an episode or two of Veep, so I know his political-satire-as-dark-comedy style. You might not think it would work for Soviet Russia, but I thought it was fantastic.

One of the greater purposes of humor is that it allows us to process the unpalatable in a way that leaves us with our sanity intact, which is precisely what this film does. It uses satire and farcical comedy to demonstrate the extreme absurdity of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his cohorts. Certain critics have found this clash to be in poor taste, or simply unfunny, but I think this film makes its point rather eloquently, and the performances from Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale in particular help bolster it even more so.

Honestly, the only element I’m really taking points off for is some digital night shooting that took me out of the movie, and a few bits of humor didn’t quite work for me (that’ll happen in a comedy), but other than that, it’s hard to ask for more than what The Death of Stalin delivered.

Rating: ★★★★½

Unsane (2018)

Right off the bat, I’ll say this is a great example of a 21st Century Hitchcockian Thriller.

The story is horrifyingly plausible (credit to screenwriters Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer), the performances are believable (kudos to Claire Foy and Jay Pharaoh), and the movie fills you with an utter sense of dread that would make Brian De Palma proud.

There’s really just one problem. The film was shot on an iPhone.

I don’t know if this was done purely as an experiment, or strictly to keep production costs down, or what, but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear to be a thematic choice.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like the whole movie is ruined because of this, I just think it would be to the movie’s benefit to look (and sound) like a movie, and there are moments when you are painfully aware that this was done on a phone and not something more substantial.

It’s a fine film, I’ll be happy to watch it again in the future, but it’s difficult for me to say it’s a must-see on the big screen, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

Rating: ★★★½

Red Sparrow (2018)

There’s a fairly popular notion regarding espionage these days that we don’t even need spies anymore because everything can be done by computer, and the response to this in media has largely been to equip fictional spies (both regular and super) with more and more technology, regardless of how cartoonish it seems.

The major reason why I enjoyed Red Sparrow so much is that it completely ignores this erroneous line of thinking, and brings spycraft back to the same old game it’s always been: psychology.

In short, Red Sparrow feels like a throwback in the best way, without feeling obsolete (definitely le Carré-esque, if you were wondering). Apparently some people have found some of the more “adult” elements to be rather shocking (which is kind of shocking to me because I didn’t think people were shocked by anything anymore, at least when it comes to movies), but I didn’t feel that it was exploitative relative to the story being told.

This film is a slow burner with some action, but no action for action’s sake, which may not be enough for some people, but I appreciated how grounded it was.

Not for everyone, but it’s not the trash you may have heard it is.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Thoroughbreds (2017)

Of all the movies in this post, this was probably the one I was the most let down by, and that’s not even saying it’s bad.

Thoroughbreds is a fine film on every level, but it’s tough for me to say there’s anything particularly special about it (which is kind of sad given that it’s Anton Yelchin’s final film performance, but what are you going to do?).

Of the two leads, I give the edge to Olivia Cooke in terms of her performance, and the story at least feels somewhat original, but in the end I’m left feeling like the movie is in the shallows rather than the deep end where it should be.

Worth seeing once, but far from a must-see.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Quick Thoughts – September Round-Up, Part 2 of 2: Septemberg

I said this before in my review of ‘Bridge of Spies‘, but it’s become rather chic to hate on Steven Spielberg, and, in many ways, I get it. He’s gotten older, he’s gotten softer, he’s made some mistakes, but, at the end of the day, he’s still Steven Spielberg: director of many great movies. In September, I was fortunate enough to be able to revisit a handful of them in real theaters with real audiences, and it was fantastic.

Indiana Jones Trilogy (1981, 1984, 1989)

Many will disagree with me on this, but I think Indiana Jones is actually a better Harrison Ford character than Han Solo, but that discussion isn’t really why we’re here. All three of these movies are great in their own way, and each have moments of undeniable brilliance.

‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ is much like ‘Star Wars’: inspired by the serials of the past, but set the standard for the future, and, thanks to its success, got the ball rolling (pun absolutely intended) on a whole generation of knock-offs, rip-offs, and its own sequels. Cannon Films alone made no less than three ‘Raiders’-inspired movies throughout the 80s (two helmed by Oscar-nominated director J. Lee Thompson). What sets ‘Raiders’ apart and the reason it still holds up is that it’s essentially a B-movie with A-picture production; everything from the acting and directing to the music, effects, and STUNTS is top notch, and the result is one of the most-enjoyable movie experiences you’ll ever find from start to finish, no matter what the size of the screen.

‘Temple of Doom’ is very much ‘Raiders 2’; similar to the original, but darker, grittier, and more fiery (many of the action set pieces had been conceived for ‘Raiders’ but obviously not executed for it). Many people, hardcore Indiana Jones fans or not, consider this their least favorite of the trilogy, and that’s true for me as well, but I still think it’s a great action-adventure film on its own merits. Really, it just suffers from an identity crisis; had it not been attached to an established property, I think it would be held in higher regard. At least you can’t accuse the filmmakers of making the exact same movie over again (looking at you, ‘Ghostbusters II’, though I still love you anyway).

‘Last Crusade’, dare I say, elevates the material. It certainly maintains the action flourishes established by the first two, but overall it feels more mature, largely because of the father-son relationship (and John Williams took the score in a new direction). I still get teary-eyed every time I see Henry Sr. call Henry Jr. “Indiana” for the first time. Sean Connery gives the best performance I’ve ever seen him put on screen, and for those of you who say Harrison Ford isn’t an “ack-tour”, perhaps that’s true, but he can act; the advantage of seeing him on the big screen is you can more easily notice how much acting he does with his eyes. ‘Last Crusade’ also lets us give proper goodbyes to fan favorites Sallah and Marcus Brody. Maybe I’m biased because it’s the Indiana Jones movie I grew up watching the most, but ‘Last Crusade’ is my favorite of the three; hands down.

Ratings:
‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ ★★★★½
‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’ ★★★★☆
‘Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade’ ★★★★★

Jaws (1975)

Before I got to see this on the big screen for the first time, I had actually begun to wonder if the world’s first blockbuster (and one of my favorite movies) was overrated. What a foolish thought that was. ‘Jaws’ is like this amazing estuary where old and new Hollywood meet, and the result is something brilliant and nearly completely timeless. Spielberg, though not necessarily because he wanted to, borrowed much from Hitchcock in terms of monster beast strategy, while adding his own signature visual touches. John Williams’ score is equal parts Bernard Hermann and Erich Wolfgang Korngold before him, tying together both the horror and the sea-faring adventure. Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw are perfectly cast as three disparate men united against a common foe.

I actually think Scheider’s performance as Chief Brody might be a little underrated; the character’s arc of having to face down his biggest fear in order to protect both his own family and the islanders who only tacitly accept him is well-written enough, but he adds quite a bit of depth on his own (let’s not forget it was Scheider himself who came up with “You’re gonna need a bigger boat”).

I regret not finding out for sure, but sitting next to me was a woman who appeared to be seeing ‘Jaws’ for the first time (I base this on her reactions to, well, everything). When you can make a movie that still scares people 40 years after its release, you know you did something right. Kudos to Spielberg on that.

Rating: ★★★★★

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

When I was a little boy in elementary school, I was very much into reading about UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, and cryptozoological creatures, so believe me when I tell you that ‘Close Encounters’ does an incredible job of sewing together all sorts of myths, legends, and wild conspiracy theories into a serious and seriously compelling science fiction motion picture (Richard Donner would say it has Verisimilitude). It’s been overshadowed by ‘Star Wars’ in the long run, but there’s no denying that ‘Close Encounters’ had its own distinct cultural impact, not to mention that one is science fiction and the other is science fantasy…

The true triumph of the movie, even more than the story of mankind succeeding in its search for extraterrestrial life, is the idea that music can be a truly universal language that everyone from nerdy scientists to space aliens to small children can understand. When you factor in the level of detail written into the movie, the breadth of locations, and the fact that Carl Weathers shows up as a soldier, that’s a winner of a film in my book.

It’s a slow-burner for sure, and that’ll turn some people off, but on the whole I think it’s a must-see for the genre.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Quick Thoughts – Summer Round-Up, Part 5 of 5

Whew, we finally made it. The last bit of backlog left from the summer.

‘Best in Show’ (2000)

As far as I know, Woody Allen invented the comedic “Mockumentary” with ‘Take the Money and Run’ back in 1969, but it was Rob Reiner, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer who took it to the next level with ‘This is Spinal Tap’ in 1984.

Christopher Guest writes, directs, and acts in this pastiche of dog shows, and the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in particular. Every Guest regular (Eugene Levy, et al.) is in the film, save for Harry Shearer, and everybody gets their moment to shine and give the audience a good laugh.

What makes movies like this so tremendous is that there’s not a single bit of written dialogue. Every line is improvised by the actors and the reactions are equally on-the-spot, like watching a bunch of great jazz musicians playing together. Not only that, but the details in this production’s design are spot on as well; I mean, I think the filmmakers pretty much had to put together a reasonable facsimile of a dog show in a real venue, which gives the movie a grounded sense of realism, even when the dialogue is getting over-the-top silly.

I can’t say if ‘Best in Show’ is the best of Guest, but it’s definitely worth seeing.

Rating: ★★★★☆

‘Maniac Cop 2’ (1990)

I can’t lie, I think this one got a little overhyped for me. People were saying it’s definitely better than the first ‘Maniac Cop’, but I don’t know. To me, both movies work fine as a continuous story, and seeing as how they’re both 90 minutes or less, you could easily watch them back-to-back in a single evening (I have yet to see the third installment, but will definitely check it out one of these days), but the first one has Tom Atkins, so, I’m hard pressed to say the sequel is superior.

‘Maniac Cop 2’ is pretty good for a late-80s B-horror flick, and, like its predecessor, an interesting time capsule for New York City, but it’s hardly any sort of required viewing in my opinion. The one sequence of particular note is the police station shootout, which rivals an analogous scene in ‘The Terminator’.

Performance-wise, Robert Davi is strong as usual, and Bruce Campbell and Laurene Landon do a fine job continuing their roles from the first movie.

Other than that, not much else to say.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

‘Above the Law’ (1988)

This isn’t the best Steven Seagal movie, but it is the first, which makes it somewhat important. It’s also the first of two collaborations between Seagal and director Andrew Davis, who would later reunite for arguably Seagal’s best movie, that being ‘Under Siege’.

‘Above the Law’ is far from perfect. Seeing it now, many of the performances come off as rather hackneyed, but, it does offer some quintessential Steven Seagal martial arts action, and some signature Seagal one-liners. My personal favorite: “Ever notice how clean babies smell? Like nothing in the world has touched them yet.”

‘Above the Law’ is also a very Chicago movie. Not only was it mostly shot on location in the Windy City, but every working Chicago actor of note is in the movie. You’ll recognize them from other movies such as ‘The Blues Brothers’, ‘Backdraft’, ‘The Fugitive’, even ‘The Dark Knight’.

If you’re a Steven Seagal fan, this one’s a must see; otherwise, it’s hit or miss.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Movie Review: ‘The Monuments Men’ – It Just Doesn’t Work

Directed by George Clooney
Written by George Clooney & Grant Heslov, based on the book by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter
Cast: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, Hugh Bonneville, Bob Balaban, Sam Hazeldine
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

You’re probably wondering why I’m choosing to talk about a film that isn’t a box office success, critical hit, or, most importantly, a new release, but this whole talking about whatever thing has to start somewhere, and I have strong opinions about this particular movie, so here we go.

First off, for the record, as a film enthusiast and someone with a history degree, I really wanted to like this movie, so it pained me dearly at the close of the film to have to admit that it just wasn’t very good, and that I wouldn’t recommend it to general audiences.

But, before I get too far in my criticism, I do want to praise this movie for what it does well, and that comes especially in the visual department. First of all, as far as I can tell, Monuments Men was shot on actual film, rather than digitally. I never imagined I’d ever be giving a movie credit for such a choice, but these days it seems as if shooting on film is viewed by most major studios as going above and beyond, which I can understand, as digital technology is just so convenient for so many reasons, not the least of which being cost; but no matter how far digital cameras have come, there are just certain projects that should be shot on actual film, period pieces especially.

(Just don’t tell that to Michael Mann. As much as I respect the guy for movies like Heat and Collateral, I’ll never understand his choice to not only shoot Public Enemies digitally, but to make that choice so obvious. I mean, would he have shot Last of the Mohicans digitally if he’d had the choice? I hope not. But I digress.)

So, from a cinematic standpoint, Monuments Men looks great: the depth, the color, etc. And what enhances this is the attention to detail paid in terms of the costumes, props, vehicles, and visual effects. I don’t know how much CGI was used in the film, but it certainly doesn’t feel like all that much, and it’s used effectively and appropriately. Frankly, I think the filmmakers made every effort to carry on without it as much as they physically could, and I commend them for that as well.

Unfortunately, other than looking great and feeling real in the visual sense, there’s not much else that Monuments Men gets right. The crux of the problem is a general lack of focus in the writing and directing, and that comes down primarily on George Clooney’s shoulders. I understand this was a passion project for him, and it’s hard to give up control of something when it’s your baby, but I think he did the movie a disservice by taking on too much responsibility.

I haven’t read the book the film is based on, so I can’t comment on the quality of the adaptation, but from a creative perspective, the movie is trying to be too many things at once (and I think it assumes the audience has read the book). It wants to be an Old Hollywood light-hearted propaganda film, while also being a by-the-book historical film, while also being a poignant commentary on the nature of war and the importance of art in our lives, and so on and so forth, to the point that the varying concepts simply collapse under their own weight, and you’re left with a flat-as-a-pancake story and characters, with very little to connect to from an audience perspective.

To put it another way, one of the biggest areas where Monuments Men fails is in the emotions. Despite a great cast, we’re not given enough time or reason to connect with the characters; so when each actor gets their individual moment to shine, none of the scenes move us, and so these moments stand in service of nothing.

In comparison, I think of a movie like Memphis Belle. There are ten men in the crew of the titular aircraft, which means there are ten men for us to care about, which can be a stretch for an audience if not handled correctly, but in Memphis Belle we’re given enough time with and information about the characters: where they come from, their personalities, and their dreams for after the war. So, when things get dramatic, we actually feel it as an audience because we know and care about these guys.

This is where choosing someone else to direct Monuments Men would have solved a lot of problems and given us a better film. Frankly, I think Steven Soderbergh would have been the perfect choice. He’s worked with George Clooney many times before, but more importantly I think he would have established one clear and consistent tone for the film, whether more straight-laced and objective, like Contagion, or a more light-hearted ensemble piece, like the Ocean’s 1X series; he certainly wouldn’t have let the movie wander around trying to be everything at once.

Alternatively, perhaps Monuments Men would have worked better as a mini-series than as a two hour movie. As I said, I haven’t read the book, but I know that certain material just doesn’t work when condensed down to such a degree (for example: most of John Le Carre’s novels). More screen time certainly would have helped to solve the issues of shallow characterization and a rushed conclusion. And as the story focuses far more on saving art as opposed to taking lives in combat, a Monuments Men miniseries could have run on an over-the-air network without concern of having to water down the violence for regular television. I can’t imagine many executives foresaw this movie doing much business overseas, so from a financial perspective I think a miniseries would have made as much sense as a feature film, if not more.

In the end, The Monuments Men is yet another movie that leaves us with the question of what might have been had different choices been made along the way. I can’t recommend it to general audiences because it’s not very good, and the average person will probably find themselves bored while watching it. But, if you’re into history like I am, or you’ve read the book and you’re curious about it, I’d recommend it as a rental. At the very least, I can say Monuments Men is not another cynical Hollywood cash grab, and though it fails in many regards, it at least tries before getting there.

★★☆☆☆
(★★½ if you’re into History)