Showing posts with label Tom Hanks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Hanks. Show all posts

Monday, February 5, 2018

Popcorn Kernels: Best Picture Contenders, Vol. 1

In which I once again attempt to sit through all the nominees for Best Picture, knowing full well that the presence of Darkest Hour shall surely prevent me from accomplishing this goal. Here are two of those efforts.

The Post
Year: 2017
Director: Steven Spielberg
Cast: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bob Odenkirk
Run Time: 1 hour 56 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13

When the Washington Post gets ahold of the Pentagon Papers, which expose a decade of government secrets, they must decide whether or not to publish them, which could potentially shut down the paper and send them to jail.

Look, I admitted that Spotlight was good, even though it's preposterous that it won Best Picture. And I dislike the state of the country as much as any reasonable American. But as timely as The Post is, it will never feel like anything other than Spotlight 2 (and in fact, it was co-written by one of the co-writers of Spotlight, if it wasn't already watered down enough for you). And as much as director Steven Spielberg has proven time and again he's a genius, we all have our bad days. The Post is such a huge waste of everyone's time and effort that it's not even funny.

Not that it was meant to be funny. The film finds Spielberg in intensely sober-minded Oscarbait mode, with only one scene (the best scene in the movie, involving a little girl selling lemonade) providing a moment of levity in this grandiose, self-important, completely arid awards season trifle.

The Post has a cruelly inflated sense of its own relevance, tying the problems of the past to current affairs in the most blunt, obvious way possible. Look, I'm all for arguments in favor of the free press, but they don't have to be couched in a series of artless, implacable zooms while characters monologue about how important the themes of the movie are. It hardly pretends to be dialogue, it's just one long essay mummifying an admittedly important historical event.

It's honestly rather clumsy, constantly framing Meryl Streep in drifts of men to pointedly remind you that she's not in a woman's space, all while the dialogue revolves around her being a woman in a man's space. It's very pointedly a message movie, and while shots like that can work - I'm thinking of Clarice Starling in the elevator at Quantico in Silence of the Lambs - it's forced down your throat so hard you start gagging before the fifteen minute mark.

It's just kind of a generally lousy movie, bookended by its worst scenes (a shoehorned-in Saving Private Ryan moment in Vietnam and a hilariously terrible Marvel-esque coda involving the world's worst Richard Nixon impersonator frantically waving his arms like a caffeinated mime and not even attempting to time his movements to the actual Nixon recording posing as dialogue) and endlessly unspooling trite, uninspired dialogue in between ("That picture makes me sad," exclaims Sarah Paulson, hopelessly drowning in a nothing role).

There's just no feeling involved here, it's all lecturing. And considering that The Post contains two of the world's most charismatic movie stars, it's astonishing how this could have even been accomplished. Meryl Streep is fine, as always, but she's snoozing through a role she could play with both hands and feet tied behind her back. And Tom Hanks is acting SO. HARD. But no matter how much he rakishly props his leg up on desks or undoes his sleeves, he's straining through an inexplicable old timey radio host accent that just drips with insincerity.

The Post was never going to be a great movie. It could only have ever been a acceptably Important prestige picture. But the way it fails its actors and the audience so substantially is frankly shocking. The music (John Williams, again visibly bored) seems to actively rebel against the tone of the film, the script is begging for attention yet barely there, and the coterie of strong performers (including, randomly, a handful of comic actors like Zach Woods and David Cross) is given nothing to do but be conduits for a firehose stream of flop sweat. One to miss.

Rating: 4/10

Dunkirk
Year: 2017
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy, Mark Rylance
Run Time: 1 hour 46 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13

We follow a fighter pilot, a civilian ship, and some ground troops through the effort to rescue the British military from the beach at Dunkirk during World War II.

Dunkirk is about as boldly experimental as a big budget blockbuster can get. But the thing is, experimentation leads to failure about half the time. Not that Dunkirk is a failure; what it gets right outweighs what it gets wrong, but its open risk-taking comes with some very odd choices that don't quite work.

For one thing, take the peculiar dilation of time that occurs over the course of the film. One story elapses over a week, one over a day, and one over an hour. The film cuts between these stories simultaneously, and they overlap at certain key moments. But the way they are presented doesn't really allow for any more insight or intrigue than if they had just been shown chronologically. And the landing of a fighter plane is dragged out over the course of what feels like half an hour of excruciatingly long screen time, milked for all it's worth in the film's biggest patch of jingoistic militarism.

Luckily, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment over the rest of the film. Dunkirk is a film that is above all else about the terror and constant, oppressive violence of war (despite the conspicuously pulled punches of its PG-13 rating), doled out by an omnipresent enemy that is literally never shown, except in the form of bomber planes that whistle by periodically. It eschews character arcs and even dialogue at times (especially in the sequences on the beach, it plays out more like a silent film, which fortunately prevents Harry Styles from screwing anything up) in favor of this all-important, nerve-rattling atmosphere.

And there is absolutely no denying that this is an utterly gorgeous motion picture. Between what are probably some of the best airplane action sequences ever filmed, Nolan provides us bleakly stunning, expansive vistas that blast your corneas with the sheer wideness of devastation and desolation on this beach. The single distracting thing about the visuals is that - at least on the home video release, I can't speak to the theatrical - it has been decided that the aspect ratios switch between the footage shot on 70mm and 65mm. The black bars constantly blotting out the huge screen-filling vistas are hugely distracting and an entirely odd choice.

Much more thoroughly satisfying is the soundscape, which is as harsh and alarming as you would expect any good war picture to be, slashed through with Hans Zimmer's droning, atonal, staccato score that ratchets up the tension to an unbearable degree.

It's a good thing that Dunkirk is so visually and aurally stunning and goes all in on those elements, because most of the dialogue sequences are the worst parts of the movie. Whether its generals dumping piles of exposition on the top of your head or Mark Rylance spouting nothing but affectless patriotic quotes for the better part of an hour, these scenes are generally worth much less of your time than the tense beach sequences - especially a scene where bullets begin to blast through the hull of a ship where stowaway soldiers are waiting for high tide.

I'm not usually a fan of war movies, and I wouldn't say I'd ever want to watch this again, but I'm glad I saw it in the first place. If you've already seen Lady Bird, Get Out, and The Shape of Water, this should certainly be next on your Oscars checklist.

Rating: 7/10
Word Count: 1306

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Through The Fire And Flames

Year: 2016
Director: Ron Howard
Cast: Tom Hanks, Felicity Jones, Irrfan Khan
Run Time: 2 hours 1 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13

I have a love-hate relationship with Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon series, in that they’re terrible but I have an urgent, pathological need to read them and mock them. The art-based puzzle adventures are ludicrous works of revisionist history so transparently indulging in the lusty fantasies of an aging academic that they give pretty unprecedented access to the inner workings of a pulp author’s soul. They’re fascinating, personal stories cobbled together from the gaudiest ingredients of James Bond and Indiana Jones.

The Ron Howard-Tom Hanks film adaptations of said franchise fail to capture this garish self-indulgence (probably because not even the most hard-up individual in the world would consider Tom Hanks as a scholarly but smoldering sex symbol), so they’ve never been of particular interest to me. However, I needed some candidates for my worst of 2016 list, so I went to see Inferno (the third movie, based on the fourth book). You can imagine my surprise when it turned out to be kind of OK.

Even if you can’t, allow me to replicate that feeling now.

Florence, Italy. Real-job-haver, symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) wakes up in a hospital with no recollection of the previous 48 hours or how and why he is not in his apartment at Cambridge. When people begin shooting at him, he and his new sexy sidekick, ER doctor Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones), flee.

Then, for reasons too convoluted to explain in a single paragraph, they must follow yet another path of art-based clues (this time all related to Dante’s Inferno) to discover the location of a world-destroying plague set to be released in 12 hours. This plague was developed by the mad billionaire/TED Talk-giver Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster) who killed himself three days ago. They’re also being chased by pretty much everyone in the known world: the W.H.O., assorted double agents, and a mysterious syndicate led by the amoral Harry Sims (Irrfan Khan). But WHO can they trust?

Geddit?

Let’s get this straight. Inferno is goddamn pulp. Adding a vague, age-appropriate love interest into the mix does not improve the source material, so it’s still a garbled, convoluted mess of a story. But it’s also the best of the bunch, opening with a bang by tossing us into the situation at the same time as the amnesiac Langdon. Although this sequence is frustratingly marred by constant reminders of his mental state in the form of nauseating, blurry Paul Greengrass camerawork, it also produces some of the best imagery of the whole series.

I should mention that this imagery is also balls-out terrifying, depicting – in the form of Langdon’s post-injury hallucinations – the grotesque stages of Dante’s Hell in lurid, live-action glory. It’s almost too disturbing, but the disgusting (sinners with their heads twisted around, etc.) blends with the elegant (a building with glass windows that explode into a geyser of blood like The Shining on amphetamines) to create something truly arresting. It’s been a long time since an image in a Ron Howard movie has actually wowed me, and while it might be too horrific for average audiences, I find its boldness refreshing.

What are YOU lookin’ at?

It might sound like I’m just being an easy lay for horror imagery, but I assume you I’m not. I love when a cookie cutter blockbuster takes off in any unique direction, and horror is one of many fringe genres Hollywood should call upon more often in their tentpole flicks. On the flipside of that coin though, I am always an easy lay for synth-driven soundtracks and the delightfully Carpenterian tangents in Hans Zimmer’s score fascinate me to no end.

There’s a lot of unique and interesting stuff going on in Inferno, which pushes it to the head of the pack. But it’s still a Dan Brown movie, so let’s not get carried away. To be frank, the film assumes that we’re drooling idiots. Langdon reads a four-line email to himself about three times while the camera lingers over every word, just to make sure we get it, and every major clue is repeated ceaselessly like this is a kindergarten math class.

"See those N, Y, and C symbols? Those probably point to New York!"

Because it assumes we know nothing about anything (except, apparently, the finer details of Dante’s Inferno, which it completely fails to elaborate on), the film indulges in two of the hoariest tropes of adventure cinema: the magical doctor and the magical academic. Although Langdon’s area of expertise is symbology (still not a real job), he’s also apparently an expert on art, history, architecture, city planning, and –what the hell – probably rocket science. The sheer amount of pseudo-intellectual babble that spills from Langdon, a character who is actively suffering from a head injury, is Hollywood shortcutting at its worst.

Obviously this is a carryover from the novel, as is the dreadfully wooden dialogue (“I can’t believe you have the temerity to ask that I simply decide to…”), but Hanks drowns in the nitty-gritty of the role, which stifles his own natural charm and considerable dramatic talents to provide a truly boring protagonist. But I don’t blame him. Boring is better than irritating, which his constant outbursts about the thematic importance of doorways threatens to have him become.

So, yeah. Don’t think I’m singing Inferno’s praises to the high heavens (the scene where someone is shocked that a European speaks French because she’s – gasp - a woman, was already enough to knock off a point or two). But its daring horrific elements, a killer final setpiece, and an incoherent but reasonably twisty plot fueled by Irrfan Khan’s deliciously banal evil performance make for a decent enough popcorn thrill ride.

TL;DR: Inferno is a surprisingly decent popcorn thriller, possibly the best of its anemic franchise.
Rating: 6/10
Word Count: 986

Monday, January 6, 2014

Census Bloodbath: Two's A Crowd

Year: 1980
Director: Armand Mastroianni
Cast: Don Scardino, Caitlin O'Heaney, Elizabeth Kemp
Run Time: 1 hour 34 minutes
MPAA Rating: R

Finally, finally my next chronological Census Bloodbath post. Way back when, I decided to go through these films in order but at a certain point I got stuck and spent some time bouncing around and rewatching movies I'd already seen and knew I liked. Call me a creature of habit. And I knew next to nothing about He Knows You're Alone, the next film on the list, so that wasn't helping me get off my butt and commit.

I made a big mistake, because HKYA is actually a pretty great slasher flick in all regards. Well, maybe not everything. It's far from perfect, but it's perfectly delightful. It's just the breath of fresh air I needed from 1980 after a long slog through the mirthless pre-Friday the 13th grindhouse holdovers. 

This is obvious from the very first scene, a movie theater death sequence later cribbed for the opening of Scream 2 (a review of which is pending, appropriately). 

A brief sidebar to discuss how the movie that's playing features Russell Todd aka the studly Scott in 1981's Friday the 13th Part 2.

Two girls are watching a scary movie and one of them is stabbed by a fierce-looking fellow at the same time as the girl in the movie shrieks her last breath. One overexposed freeze frame later, the title (in all red of course) bursts onscreen over the image of the killer's crazed eyes.

Oh 80's, how I missed you.

And stab me, but that's a great title.

So here's as much backstory as we get, and it's all we need. Ray Carlton (Tom Rolfing) was jilted by one of his lovers, whom he stabbed on her wedding night. Her fiancé, Detective Len Gamble (Lewis Arlt) has never recovered and now that a new rash of killings is occurring in town - all engaged women - he gets the sense that he knows the culprit... and can finally enact his revenge.

However, the main focus of the movie is the romantic exploits of three women: Amy Jensen (Caitlin O'Heaney) and her friends Joyce (Patsy Pease) and Nancy (Elizabeth Kemp). Amy is engaged to Phil (James Carroll, also of Girls Nite Out), presumably because he is a philandering dickbag who embarks on a Bachelor's Weekend at the beginning of the film, hardly even attempting to disguise the number of skanks he'll be picking up along the way.

Oh, and did I mention he wants her to quit school and forget about a career? The Patriarchy called, they want their poster child back. To make things even harder on her, her adorable morgue worker ex-boyfriend Marvin (Don Scardino, who has since made a name for himself directing episodes of 30 Rock) is very actively pursuing her affections - and she adores him. She's just not super pleased with the whole "I touch dead bodies every day" thing.

But he has sideburns for days.

And then there's Joyce, the sexed-up biddy who's sleeping with her professor (James Rebhorn) to get an A. And Karen, the shy best friend who has a crush on local jogger Elliot (wait for it... Tom Hanks).

Yeah that just happened.

In the vein of Halloween, the film is largely bloodless so the bulk of the film's entertainment value falls upon these players. And it absolutely works. The characters are of a piece completely likable and charming protagonists. Except Phil. Douchebag.

And despite the obvious presence of sex leading to death, He Knows You're Alone, while not necessarily begetting a reliable feminist reading, has some interesting things to say about the punishments and dangers of the male gaze, as well as the viability of female sexuality. In fact, the scene between Joyce and the Professor in any other movie would be lascivious and depraved but here is quite loving and erotic in a way unmatched by many similar slasher scenes.

But enough with the gender roles (my copy of Men, Women, and Chainsaws has got me going again).  He Knows You're Alone is a film that wears its influences on its sleeve (the death scenes are all lifted from Psycho and the music is an impressively precise mathematical achievement - exactly as close to the Halloween score as a single piece can get without actually being the same thing), but does so in a way that is enhances the unique story it's already telling.

College students in wedding dresses aren't exactly a mainstay of the slasher movement.

The doubt and internal turmoil Amy is facing about her impending wedding is mirrored in her external life as Ray begins stalking her through town and killing off anybody who gets in the way. But forget that, because the love triangle thing honestly has me hooked. I am Team Marvin all the way. That guy's the best.

Perhaps it's not the best slasher film because its best scenes are generally the non-horrific type, but there's enough cheesy 80's signifiers and tawdry horror tropes to keep the genre faithful happy. It's like taking a bath in slasher plots - comforting and relaxing in their predictability, and they'll never let you down.

He Knows You're Alone is a hyperbolically undervalued film that I urge any fan of the slasher genre to check out immediately! It's not the scariest knife in the drawer, but it has the most engaging plotline I've seen so far that wasn't directed by anyone whose name rhymes with Schmess Schmaven. Don't let it die a lonely death!

Killer: Ray Carlton (Tom Rolfing)
Final Girl: Amy Jensen (Caitlin O'Heaney)
Best Kill: Nancy's head is cut off and put in the fish tank!


Sign of the Times: The word "zilch"; Cigarettes are 65 cents; Tom Hanks is a BABY.
Scariest Moment: The killer corners Amy in her home.
Weirdest Moment: When the cute jogger Nancy is talking about turns out to be Tom Freaking Hanks.
Champion Dialogue: "Marry me and I'll bring you a piranha."
Body Count: 8
  1. Gamble's Bride is stabbed in the back.
  2. Movie Theater Bride is stabbed in the stomach.
  3. Ralph the Tailor is stabbed to death with scissors.
  4. Joyce is stabbed to death offscreen.
  5. Carl is stabbed to death.
  6. Nancy is decapitated and has her head put in the fish tank.
  7. Ray is stabbed in the gut.
  8. [Amy is killed as the credits roll.

TL;DR: He Knows You're Alone is a great slasher, but loses points due to a severe lack of gore.
Rating: 7/10
Word Count: 1086