Grant Heslov – People Talking

Twofer Movie Review – ‘Suburbicon’ and ‘Thank You For Your Service’ – The War at Home

I guess at this point I’ve now officially, completely come full circle.

The genesis of my writings here came in the wake of seeing George Clooney’s The Monuments Men, which I went into wanting to love but in the end just couldn’t, but I realized that I had a lot to say about it. So, after a few months, I created this space to share my thoughts, and three-plus years later I’m still doing it.

So, thanks, George Clooney?

I’m certainly not going to thank him for Suburbicon.

Suburbicon

Directed by George Clooney
Written by Joel & Ethan Coen and George Clooney & Grant Heslov
Cast: Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Oscar Isaac, Noah Jupe, Jack Conley, Glenn Fleshler, Steve Monroe, Gary Basaraba, Ellen Crawford, Alex Hassell, Steven M. Porter, Pamela Dunlap, Robert Pierce, Vince Cefalu
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

Perhaps someone else has already drawn this comparison, but I see George Clooney and Angelina Jolie as equivalents: fine leading actors who have made for less-than-stellar directors, each suffering from the same issues, namely tone and focus.

Suburbicon is not at all dissimilar from The Monuments Men (or Unbroken for Jolie) in that both are fantastic-looking period pieces with great casts giving quality but ultimately undirected performances, and both can’t figure out what kind of movie they want to be.

At the time, I gave Clooney some benefit of the doubt for Monuments Men because I figured maybe he had just taken on too much as the writer, director, and star. For Suburbicon, however, he has no such cover, because he’s not in the film, so I’m left to conclude that he simply is who he is as a filmmaker. In the case of both movies, they could have been great in the hands of different directors; specifically, Steven Soderbergh for Monuments Men, and the Coen Brothers for Suburbicon (who had some role in the script for both this film, and, again, Unbroken).

Regardless, Suburbicon is, in a word, unfulfilling. It’s a satire with no punch, a dark comedy with no laughs, and a MacGuffin of No MacGuffin (which you can do if you’re the Coen Brothers, but Clooney is no Coen, as much as I’m sure he’d like to be).

Even worse though, it’s distasteful, as one of the through lines of the film is the introduction of Suburbicon’s first black family, the Mayers, whose arrival is greeted with shock, outrage, and, eventually, violence (all of which is a barely-veiled reference to the real-life William and Daisy Meyers, the first black couple in Levittown, PA, whose arrival was met with similar unrest). If this was actually worked into the plot somehow, or if it was more than just the two children who had interaction, I probably would feel differently about it, but as it is it’s just kind of in the background, which feels plain wrong (not to mention the timing relative to current events is not great).

However, I will mention one silver lining on this thundercloud of Suburbicon doom, and that is Oscar Isaac. His screen-time is all too brief, but his performance is fantastic, and his character is about the only one with any explicit motivation, so, kudos to him.

In the end though, Suburbicon as a whole is a failure, and I can’t in good conscience recommend it.

Sorry, George.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

Thank You For Your Service

Written and Directed by Jason Hall
Based on the book by David Finkel
Cast: Miles Teller, Haley Bennett, Joe Cole, Amy Schumer, Beulah Koale, Scott Haze, Keisha Castle-Hughes, Kate Lyn Sheil, Erin Darke, Kerry Cahill, Omar J. Dorsey, Brad Beyer, Allison King, Jayson Warner Smith, Tony Winters
Soundtrack: Thomas Newman

Another week, another based-on-a-true-story movie starring Miles Teller (he’s really carved out a niche there, hasn’t he?).

This is a hard movie for me to judge due to the subject matter. I am for sure not a veteran, let alone a combat veteran of America’s most recent armed conflicts, so I understand that my opinion in this case carries less weight, and I’m always curious to see what consensus the military community comes to on this kind of film, but in the meantime, I just know what my eyes and ears tell me.

Thank You For Your Service is the story of a few soldiers attempting to adjust to life back home after returning from a nearly year-long deployment in Iraq, and is the feature debut of writer/director Jason Hall, who previously wrote the screenplay for American Sniper.

Right off the bat, I’ll say that I found American Sniper to be much more impactful, probably because Clint Eastwood is an infinitely more experienced filmmaker (not to mention he had a bigger budget and more action-driven material to work with). Thank You For Your Service isn’t terrible, it’s definitely better than a movie-of-the-week production, but I’m reluctant to call it exceptional.

I haven’t read the book it’s adapted from, but I have a feeling if I did read it I’d often be asking, “Why did they put X in and not Y?” I’m not unsympathetic; I know it’s tough to put everything you want into a film, it’s a condensed medium, but there was more I wanted to see once the movie ended that I felt should have been included, so that’s one strike.

Also, the core cast is fine (again, not great, but acceptable), but there were a few minor characters whose scenes took me out of the movie. I get it, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, but if it’s in a movie, it needs to be believable for the audience (see: verisimilitude), so that’s another strike.

Ultimately, while I feel it could have brought more to the table, Thank You For Your Service just barely gets on base because I think movies like this are important. In an era where the gap between civilian and military has never been wider, we need films and other media like this to help understand and develop some empathy for what it really means when we send our troops into harm’s way, and the physical, emotional, and mental toll it takes on them.

Thank You For Your Service is far from perfect, but at the very least it’s a step in the right direction.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Classic Movie Quinella – ‘HEY, ARNOLD!’: A Schwarzenegger Marathon – See You At The Party

Since the doors first opened in August of 2013, Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers has hosted four fantastic actor-centric marathons: Caged, Stallone Zone, Van Dammage, and Burt Day (aka Cristina Cacioppo‘s Westchester curtain call).

Enter 2017. New Year. New programmer. New marathon.

Lovingly curated by Justin LaLiberty, “Hey, Arnold!” was an epic half-day celebration consisting of five mystery Schwarzenegger films, all on 35mm prints, spanning ten years of the prime of his career (and sparking such debates as “Which Arnold is better: beard or no beard?” …Actually, that’s not a debate at all. Bearded Arnold is clearly superior).

And if that weren’t enough, there was, in fact, a giant cake (which was delicious, by the way) to celebrate his upcoming 70th birthday, among other surprises.

At this point, the man himself needs little introduction, so let’s jump in.

Movie #1: ‘True Lies’ (1994)

It sounds weird to say because he’s been so influential (for better or worse), but, since his directorial debut in 1981 (which he’d rather you forget), James Cameron has put only eight feature films under his belt, which makes the fact that Arnold has starred in three of them even more significant. Frankly, I’d say True Lies is the last Cameron movie worth watching, but that’s a different discussion.

This was the longest film of the day (and second longest of Arnold’s career, behind T2), which was good, because when you’re stuck to your seat for ten hours, you’d rather get the biggest chunk out of the way first.

Anyway, True Lies is a movie I’ve seen the third act of perhaps dozens of times, as it was a cable staple of the 2000s, so it was definitely worth seeing in it’s entirety, as there was much I either didn’t remember or straight up hadn’t seen (like the fact that a good chunk of the move is in Washington D.C.).

A remake of the 1991 French hit La totale ! (which I totally did not learn just now), True Lies is a top notch 90s action thriller that’s also unafraid of laying the comedy on thick. I particularly enjoy the long, slow push-ins on Arnold’s steely eyes when he knows something the person he’s talking to does not. It’s also a surprisingly grounded film given its over the top nature. Honestly, the only element that took me out of the movie was the fact that Charlton Heston’s character had a patch over his obviously scarred eye, as if he walked in from the set of a different movie.

Really though, the magic of True Lies, other than the action set-pieces and ‘splosions, is that just about everyone in the cast is used appropriately, from Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis, to Tia Carrere and Art Malik, to Tom Arnold (fantastic in this) and the now late (sadly) Bill Paxton, everyone’s playing a part they can easily dive into.

It may not be the biggest and baddest Arnold movie in terms of a testosterone-fueled thrill ride, but it’s a very good action/comedy that a lot of people can appreciate (and that doesn’t even include the one-liners [Spoiler]).

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie #2: ‘The Running Man’ (1987)

Ah, the far, distant, post-apocalyptic future of 2017!

You won’t hear me say The Running Man is bad, because it’s not. It’s got a solid backbone of a Steven E. de Souza script (just look up his resume; it’s ridiculous), and a cast that’s chock-full of great character actors and action men. I just can’t help but wonder if the movie could have been something more with a more visionary director at the helm. Not that I blame Paul Michael Glaser. Reportedly, producer Rob Cohen went through four other directors (including Andrew Davis, who got production off the ground but quickly went over budget and behind schedule; and who later would direct Arnold in Collateral Damage) before hiring Glaser to basically just get the movie done.

The final product of The Running Man is still eminently entertaining and audience-pleasing, even if not every visual concept works perfectly (it also receives bonus points for giving us some bearded Arnold, if only briefly). Arnold is great, the rogues gallery is great, and the casting of Richard Dawson as an evil version of himself is a move that feels years ahead of its time (you could argue the movie stands on his shoulders more than anyone else; not to mention it leads to one of my favorite incidental lines from Aqua Teen Hunger Force).

The Running Man may not be an all-time great piece of science fiction (like another movie we’ll get to), but it’s no less influential (Hunger Games, anyone?), and, above all, it’s fun, especially with an audience.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Just before The Running Man started we all received one of these glasses, which was a generous and welcome surprise:

Movie #3: ‘Kindergarten Cop’ (1990)

This movie’s something of a miracle.

I mean, I don’t know about you, but if you pitched me Kindergarten Cop, a comedy/action film starring Arnold as an undercover police officer posing as a substitute kindergarten teacher (who has no experience) in order to track down the estranged family of a fugitive criminal, I’d tell you straight up that this concept has failure written all over it.

And yet, somehow, it works.

How much credit should go to whom, I don’t know, but given Ivan Reitman’s track record with Ghost Busters, wrangling that film together from three or four disparate creative visions, I’m going to bet he gets the lion’s share.

Anyway, Kindergarten Cop isn’t perfect. It’s a bit uneven and a bit clunky at times (understandable given the elements it’s trying to hammer together), but, what little action there is is well executed, the comedy mostly works, and, again, it gets bonus points for some bearded Arnold action.

Frankly, the film’s biggest strength is that it never goes completely over the top (except maybe when Pamela Reed suddenly puts on an Austrian accent to maintain cover, but that’s not unforgivable). There’s enough subtlety and realism in the plot, the characters, and, especially, the children, to hold everything together when a different movie would just come unglued.

It wasn’t my favorite of the day, but I’ll be less inclined to flip the channel on it in the future.

Rating: ★★★½

Movie #4: ‘Eraser’ (1996)

The world of film is not without its binary planets that eventually spin off onto different trajectories. For example, the Coen Brothers collaborated with Sam Raimi earlier in their careers, but it was they, not Raimi, who went on to near-constant critical acclaim in the proceeding decades.

Similarly, Frank Darabont began his career writing with Chuck Russell, but it was he, not Russell, who went onto direct such films as The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, whereas Chuck went on to direct The Mask. Not that we have anything against Chuck Russell, because he also went on to direct a little movie called Eraser.

Every Alamo Drafthouse actor-centric marathon features at least one movie that throws people for a loop, and I’m going to say Eraser is the left field pick in this case, if for no other reason than one of my friends and I had completely discounted it as a possibility (mostly on account of the CGI reptiles).

However, I have to say, Eraser earned its keep.

It may not have been the best movie of the day, nor the best movie of Arnold’s career, but Eraser has a lot going for it. Good villains, solid supporting characters, and enough mid-Nineties action to keep you going for a couple of hours. Whatever elements that haven’t aged well are smoothed over by a rather impressive top-to-bottom cast (including James Caan, James Coburn, and James Cromwell, just to name a few) all putting in solid shifts.

It’ll hurt your brain if you think about it too hard, but, like most of Arnold’s movies, if you’re down for a fun ride, Eraser delivers.

Rating: ★★★½

Movie #5: ‘Total Recall’ (1990)

This film was the pièce de résistance, both for the day itself and for me personally, as I’d never seen it before.

Paul Verhoeven as a filmmaker (and perhaps in his life in general) is nothing if not provocative (I mean, if you haven’t seen Elle…it’s provocative), though, by his own standards, Total Recall may be his least provocative movie (you know, outside of all the horrific gore).

What Total Recall is, however, is an extremely successful sci-fi/action film; an all-time great, in my frank opinion. I won’t claim to be an expert, but it’s generally accepted that Philip K. Dick is a difficult writer to translate from page to screen (e.g. Blade Runner‘s 10,000 different versions), but I’m going to take an educated guess that Total Recall is the best filmed adaptation of his work (or at the very least in the running for such an honor).

In all seriousness though, this is a big, bad, beautiful movie, full of amazing visuals (shot in Mexico, which worked well for Arnold before), bloody violence, and a wry sense of humor, while also featuring a good hard sci-fi story with plenty of twists and turns. Total Recall is also a touch philosophical, asking the question of what makes us who we are, which I appreciate.

Naturally, of course, there’s more than a few familiar faces from Verhoeven’s other work (most notably Ronny Cox, Sharon Stone, and Michael Ironside).

On the one hand, I don’t know why it took me so long to see this one, but, on the other, I’m glad I got to see it for the first time in the same way everybody else did nearly three decades ago.

It’s a real treasure.

Rating: ★★★★½

So, that’s it; that’s all. A great day all around.

Thanks again to Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers for hosting and Justin LaLiberty for curating, and to all the servers, runners, cooks, and bartenders who took care of all of us in the audience. My “Mind Eraser” cocktail (whatever was in it) was quite enjoyable.

Unlike in the past, we know what next year’s marathon will be, and I couldn’t be more excited: Russellmania, here we come!

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)