MOVIE REVIEW: Mud and The Way Way Back because nothing says summer like a coming of age film.

Coming of age films have always been a genre near and dear to my heart, partially because I am sucker for nostalgia. However a good deal of it has to do with the fact that I was 13 years old the summer of 1986 when Stand By Me first hit movie theaters. I vividly remember how it spoke to me and the parallels I saw in my own life growing up in a small town, with a close knit group of friends where I was different and yearned to explore a world beyond our town limits. The film is based on the Stephen King novella about four boys in search of a dead body, who instead find a path away from innocence. Perfectly cast and thoughtfully written, Rob Reiner gets the moments right balancing reflective voice over with truth, humor and drama. The bittersweet joy embodied in the film has stood the test of time to become the benchmark for the genre as a whole.

I was pleasantly surprised to find this summer that Mud and The Way Way Back both offer up coming of age stories centered around strong young male actors with a distinct point of view as they are shown an opening into how the adult world actually functions. What’s truly interesting is they are dramatically different films built within the same story structure. Both films focus on a 14 year old over the course of a summer searching for something to call their own within the confines of a series of events that are less than ideal.  Both find a mentor in men who are at first strangers and quickly become confidants. The structure is so true to form that both movies contain the obligatory scene that offers up a ‘first kiss’ attempt with an ‘older girl/first crush’ that is met with knee jerk rejection. This is where the similarities and formula ceases. What happens next are two divergent films.

"Mud" stars Matthew McConaughey as the title character and event though the film isn’t about him per se, it is the strongest performance Matthew McConaughey has given in a decade, raw and lacking any sense of irony. The story centers on the young boys who befriend him, marvelously played by Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland. It is a film that possesses a wonderfully honest script with very little in the way of grandiose philosophy. Instead the wisdom (and ignorance) is discovered by the experiences these boys gain through their friendship and involvement with Mud, a wanted man hiding out on an island where he is discovered by these young boys. Director Jeff Nichols creates a tone and pace for the film that mirrors the rural Southern backdrop perfectly. I appreciated that the movie doesn’t attempt to redeem the flawed adults. Instead it focuses in on the emotional reconciliation that the two young leads must make as a key part of leaving childhood behind. 

The Way Way Back lacks the emotional depth of Mud, but does possess a great deal of heart. It is also the personification of summers past. In this film the story centers on Duncan, effectively played by Liam James. Duncan is the reluctant part of a summer vacation with his mother (Toni Collette playing against type) and her boyfriend (a relentlessly despicable Steve Carell). James acting gives the viewer real insight to the misery that is evident from the opening frame of the film until he encounters and befriends Owen, played by the under-appreciated and ridiculously funny Sam Rockwell. Owen offers not only a much needed mentor for Duncan, but the serves as the centerpiece for the bulk of the movie’s broad comedy. The script drips with nostalgia and spends a good deal of time laughing at it. Back at the summer house, Duncan’s isolation plays out as he observes the desperation of his mother, the belligerence of her boyfriend and the utter chaos that is their oft drunk neighbor, embodied by Allison Janney who once again reveals the depth of her talents and range of emotions she can portray with the turn of a phrase. The Way Way Back is an uneven film and its heavier moments sometimes feel labored or completely out of left field, but terrific dialogue and really wonderful performances from the cast make this film worth the price of admission. What it lacks in balance it more than makes up for in sincere laughs. 

Both films deserve credit for creating the atmosphere and emotions of that important childhood rite of passage. In a time where summers are driven by blockbusters, it is nice to have the chance to revisit imagery of summers that held innocence and discovery. It is even more fascinating to watch them now as the adult on the other side of that discovery.

MOVIE REVIEW: Zombies vs. Superhero and the Summer Blockbuster

 

 VS

Summer is a time for large budget movies and larger than life characters. As we escape the heat we look for our movie escapism to entertain first, ponder the fate of humanity later. In that spirit I took to two of the big budget films last week - Man of Steel and World War Z. As a disclaimer, I am the average movie goer. Not a comic book fan nor well versed on Superman lore. At the same time I take pride in the fact that I live in a zombie and vampire free zone, especially given the recent rash of TV shows dedicated to the undead. All things being equal - Zombies win the June blockbuster battle and it wasn't even close.

World War Z

Premise: Zombie apocalypse descends on Brad Pitt and his family during morning rush hour. What ensues is a quest to understand where the origin of this onslaught is in the hopes of finding a way to stop them and their destruction of the human race.

Why it works: The secret to World War Z is that it is a suspense thriller disguised as a blockbuster monster film. Broken into three distinct acts the movie has a relentless opening pace as Brad Pitt's Retired UN investigator Gerry Lane his wife and children get caught as the zombie 'flu' takes hold of Philadelphia. The second act follows Lane as he searches for patient zero, a journey that takes him to South Korea and Jerusalem depicting two vastly different approaches to staving off the zombie onslaught. This second act also provides the movies underlying core premise.

The film is lightening paced and frantically shot in the hands of a director who takes very few pauses before hitting the accelerator full throttle. What I appreciate about World War Z is when we do take those pauses they are well utilized to expand and explain the plot unfolding as well as offering philosophical implications of why this outbreak has seized hold worldwide -“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.” observes a key character when questioning the rapid takeover the zombies have achieved. These moments in the script are smart, pragmatic and written with a sense of urgency. The movie is removed from recent blood/gorefests like 28 Days Later. On the contrary it relies heavily on quiet anticipation of what the next scene holds for the viewer offering more than a fair share of jump from your seat moments. The last third of the film actually slows the pace down to a dull pulse while ramping up the suspense to the point of the film feeling claustrophobic, in a good way.

Not everything works, there are a few frustrating lapses of common sense at key moments in Lane's journey. Overall they are minor quibbles in what stands as terrific two hour roller coaster ride. Pitt's action anti-hero works across the board and he provides a deft hand in drawing sincere emotion at key points along the way. You need not be a fan of the undead to take on World War Z, thrill seekers will find this blockbuster a satisfying combination of large scale summer action with a healthy serving of philosophical consideration of how we look at pandemic outbreaks that threaten society as a whole.

Man of Steel

Premise: Superman's origin story gets a modern technology update with a heavy emphasis on Krypton and big departure from comic hero lore.

Why it Misses: From practically the first frame of the film Man of Steel is fighting against itself. By the end of the 2 1/2 hours I came to the conclusion that this is a tale of two movies edited into one that never quite works. Superman's earth story is told in flashback (with surprisingly strong performances by both Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Those flashbacks are laid over a narration by the hologram formally know as Jor El (a weirdly cast Russell Crowe) providing the viewer with a broader understanding of Krypton and why their planet was destroyed. Somewhere in this exposition is a story about isolation, humanity and where heroism is born. Unfortunately that story is muddled by an action movie that is more keen on showing us what special effects can do in 2013 to the point we are numb from sensory overload by the close of the first hour. Given the fact that two extended fight sequences are still to come makes this movie a laborious exercise of patience without payoff. The absurd over the top performance of Michael Shannon as General Zod is less menacing than it is irritating which causes a major problem in the final battle sequence because the character is so banal I no longer cared what came next or what it was setting up for future sequels. Man of Steel also plays into one of my leading movie pet peeves, the stereotypical neanderthal military who ride against our hero shooting first and asking questions later. It's lazy, pedestrian and cheap.

However the capital offense that Man of Steel is guilty of is the crime of a movie taking itself too seriously. What makes most superhero movies accessible and fun is the film's ability to be self effacing and witty (see Iron Man). Even Christopher Reeve's earnest portrayal of Superman possessed a sense of being 'in on the joke'. Here the movie is devoid of that much needed relief and self awareness. As a result we are left with a film fighting to decide what it wants to be when it grows up and having absolutely no fun doing it.

MOVIE REVIEW: Much Ado about Whedon

Prior to reviewing the latest version of the Bard to screen I must make a few concessions.

1) Much Ado About Nothing ranks among my favorite Shakespearean plays and is the one comedy I truly enjoy. I love it’s sarcasm, undertones of cynicism and rapid dialogue. It is timeless because of its themes, particularly as they are embodied by Beatrice.

2) I unabashedly love and adore the 1993 Kenneth Branagh film. In fact I saw it over 15 times in the theater the summer it was released. It is big, bawdy and bright. As a result Emma Thompson's Beatrice has been the voice in my head for the last 20 years. When I read it and think of Beatrice’s passages Thompson's cadence and lithe is what I hear.

3) I have eagerly anticipated Whedon's version for over a year, ever since it became public knowledge that they filmed it at his house over a 12 day period. I was also more than a little skeptical about the film’s casting.

That said with the giddiness of a child on the cusp of summer break I held my breath as the lights went down in the movie theater this weekend. Immediately, I entered Whedon's universe and quickly became enchanted by this modern take that leans into the dark undertones of the play.

Let's begin with atmosphere. Yes this Much Ado is set in Whedon's house and famously shot over a 12 day break between shooting and editing The Avengers. This much talked about point undermines the wonderfully precise backdrop Whedon's Messina provides to the emotional upheavals of our quartet of lovers. Shooting the film in black and white ironically provides a lush softening of the environment rather than a creating a stark contrast. The use of windows, doorways and staircases enhances the sense of ease dropping and lurking that drives much of the play’s manipulations and misunderstandings. After two viewings this weekend, there is not a frame of this film that I didn’t enjoy. From the opening shot to what I can only describe as a perfect closing sequence the tone of this movie works because it is so straight forward in its delivery. Branagh’s Much Ado is very optimistic, almost in spite of the text. While the sarcasm is dialed up in the 1993 version, the cynical aspects are almost entirely absent. Here Whedon presents a very adult telling of this story.  His use of flashback to establish Beatrice and Benedick’s relationship is well crafted and believable. It absolutely enriches their more serious moments together, especially when Beatrice compels him to act on behalf of Hero’s virtue. The somber notes play against the lighter sequences with seamless transition. Whedon’s use of the kitchen and exteriors of his house serve as an extension of the storytelling. However it is his unconventional choices, like Benedick and Claudio staying in a little girl’s bedroom, which offer a hilarious setting that illuminates the absurdity and disdain in some of Benedick’s dialogue about love giving the film a layer whimsical agility that I really appreciated.

Not surprisingly the casting reflects a hodgepodge of Whedon’s television history. I did not watch Buffy or Angel with any consistency so I was most unfamiliar with Alexis Denisoff. As Benedick, I felt like his performance was a mixed bag. He had moments of wonderful physical comedy and deadpan delivery. When he is sitting outside after Beatrice departs assessing what she said he provides what I believe is a perfect line reading of “There’s a double meaning in that”. Unfortunately he didn’t captivate me in most of his exchanges with Beatrice. I felt as though in playing to the darker tones of the play the witty dialogue fell flat. On the contrary, Amy Acker’s Beatrice was interesting to me. It was a much more jaded take on the character that I think worked extremely well in Beatrice’s more serious moments, particularly in her “Oh that I were a man” sequence. Acker’s strongest scene is when Beatrice overhears Hero and Ursula tell of Benedick’s love for her. For the entire scene we are with Acker and with deft body language she takes us from extreme hilarity to a wonderful sincerity that is probably the most poignant moment in the film. When I first read Clark Gregg had been cast, I actually thought he would play Benedick. His Leonato is delightfully dead pan and Gregg plays into the tone of the film probably the best of all the players. Sean Maher creates a deviance in Don John that embodies the cruelty that exists in the play and does so with creepy accuracy that he commands the scene whenever he’s in the frame.

Nathan Fillion may not like Shakespeare, but for me he managed to finally create a Dogberry that I didn’t dread seeing on screen. More often than not Dogberry is played as a loud, obnoxious buffoon. Fillion’s reading of the character is much funnier because it plays into the obtuse vanity of Dogberry and allows the dialogue to show the audience that the man is an idiot. His physical play with Tom Lenk’s Verges offered great Abbott and Costello moments while allowing the discovery of Don John’s deeds to not feel like an exercise of necessary plot device.

Finally, for me the revelation of casting comes from a surprising place. Reed Diamond’s wonderfully relaxed and commanding performance as Don Pedro was enchanting. I was taken with him from his opening line to his melancholy state at the end of the play. When he stands in the kitchen devising his plan to play cupid for Beatrice and Benedick I found myself smiling from ear to ear. His delivery was both accessible and simply a joy to watch. Truth be told, there were moments in my second outing to the movie that I thought he would have made a wonderful Benedick.

This Much Ado has much to offer. The film noir setting embodies this play in a way that makes the dialogue feel extremely modern without ever sacrificing the nuance and layers of meaning in what Shakespeare put on the page. I included the trailer they did for UK release of the film because it captures the emotions and tone of the movie more accurately than the US trailer, which while fun doesn’t give you what really makes this play and by extension Whedon’s interpretation so interesting. This is not your high school reading of Shakespeare. It’s an adult take, with adult beverages and dark sinister tones that drip in sarcasm and in key moment’s great humor. It’s a film I was certainly predetermined to love, but what makes it a film people should see is the fact that it surprised me at nearly every turn. Not bad for a play that’s over 500 years old.

MOVIE REVIEW: Even in 2013 Optics Matter: Why 42 is an important film to be seen

Earlier this week I went to see Brian Helgeland's "42" less a biopic of Jackie Robinson than a chronicling of his historic rise in 1946 to become the first African American player in major league baseball in the modern era. The film focuses on the two year period that Robinson entered the professional league first with the Dodgers minor league Montreal Royals and then in 1947 with the Brooklyn Dodgers. At the center of the story is the relationship he shared with Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey. Harrison Ford plays Rickey with great reserve that doesn't sacrifice the spunk of the legendary owner, leaning into the quiet moments rather than sucking the air out of the grander, idealistic dialogue. I appreciated that Rickey is portrayed as a businessman who sees the financial value that integration will mean but is not obtuse about the real hurdle he is seeking to overcome by leading the breakdown of this barrier. Ford is just one piece of a well casted film especially selecting the unknown, talented Chadwick Boseman to play Jackie Robinson. Boseman portrays Robinson with a balance of emotions that felt honest, noble and viscerally pained. His take on this iconic hero was that of a man placed in extraordinary circumstances that he did not deliberately seek out.

I enjoyed this film from opening monologue to closing credits. It is very easy to slide into the world the movie creates and has a pacing very similar to The Natural. Yes, it plays every movie manipulation trick in the book from soaring music to triumphant long angle shots. Yes there are canned moments in the script that fall flat but most are covered up by the warmth generated in the cinematography and color palette and the strength of the actors delivering those lines. The flaws or predictability of the film don't matter because the movie isn't trying to hide the fact that it is manipulative. It is a simplistic look at the goodness that comes when we listen to our better angels. Early on when Dickey recruits Robinson he tells him 'not to fight back'. He lets Robinson know that while he is on his side, the reality is the world is stacked against them. In smaller ways throughout the film Rickey influences all of his players to understand that change comes through action. By letting people see what you do, they will soon learn who you are. Had Robinson and his fellow teammates on the Dodgers tried to justify Robinson's role on the team, it would have fallen on deaf ears. This was one of many ways this film gets to the heart of a trusim that still stands 65 years after he broke the racial barrier in baseball.

The optics matter.

One thing I wish they had spent more time on in the film was how Rickey came to chose Robinson. It wasn't an accident that Robinson was selected to be the first. I think this piece of information is critical especially because I don't believe the average audience member is going to know that Robinson wasn't the best player at the time in the Negro leagues, he was the right player to cross the threshold of history and that meant several factors beyond his athletic abilities weighed in on Dickey's decision-making.

The optics matter.

There are several moments built into the film that were meant to get to me and did.  However the most effective device that Helgeland used was the recurrence of seeing the movie through young boys' eyes at three pivotal moments. These moments in the movie truly tells the power of how Robinson's dignity and ability to remain professional in the face of horrific mistreatment had a ripple effect beyond the dugout and into the lives of people he never met. We see the excited young boy in the colored section at Spring training witness history when Jackie Robinson steps on the field for the first time. It's not lost on the viewer that this young man's life changed when Jackie Robinson changed history. From that moment forward, being black was no longer a barrier to playing in the major leagues. In a later scene we witness a young white boy in the stands eager to see his favorite player sitting beside his equally enthusiastic father. It is an American snapshot, father and son at the ballpark. Only moments later is this slice of Americana shattered by the father joining in shouting racial slurs as Robinson takes the field, we watch as the young boy attempts to process the actions of his father with the sight of his favorite player embracing Robinson on the field in an attempt to quell the crowd. And finally in one of their final scenes Dickey shares a story with Robinson at a particularly difficult moment for him about passing a young boy on a ball field on his way to Ebbets Field. He explains the young boy was up at the plate imitating Jackie Robinson's batting routine. Dickey reveals that the young boy was white going onto to say, "A white child trying to be a black man".

The optics matter. 

Growing up I saw very few images of Hispanics. When they did appear they were often only shown as thugs, drug addicts or pimps. Maria from Sesame Street was the lone beacon on television as someone who looked like me as a young child. That's the reason I think the inner beauty and strength of this movie so loudly resonates in that repeating point of view of the children seen in the movie.

By letting them see what you do they will learn who you are. This has been a truism in my life when I wasn't white enough, Puerto Rican enough, tough enough, whatever - enough. The optics have always mattered and as I look into the innocent face of my 7 year old I realize as much as life has changed, the optics will always somehow matter. It is why I took her to the Mall on that cold January day in 2009 to see Barack Obama inaugurated. It is why I talk to her about Sonia Sotomayor. Seeing the possibilities in life requires optimism and tenacity but no one can deny that fuel is added to the fire when the reflection of your aspirations looks like the person you see in the mirror everyday.

The optics matter.

Memorial Day:The Best Years of Our Lives

Many films, some epic depict the ravages, sacrifice and history of war. You would be hard pressed to find a Memorial Day weekend that doesn't include airings of Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon and a host of other war movies. The best among them is William Wyler's The Best Years of Our Lives. This 1946 film tells the tale of three soldiers returning home from World War II to small town America chronicling their reentry into society. It is a story about the reconciliation of how war impacts individuals and the families who love them. At a time when propaganda and glorifying war were the standard bearer this film takes an honest look at the very real struggles that resulted in towns across America for the men coming home from war. Not just the injuries they suffered in battle, but the insults they endured returning to a society that was ill prepared to embrace them.

The film follows Fred Derry (Dana Andrews), Al Stevenson (Fredric March) and Homer Parrish (Harold Russell). Three men who become friends after sharing a plane and cab ride home at the end of the war. Each apprehensive about returning to the families and lives they left behind share an instant bond and immediate loyalty to each other. That loyalty becomes the unbreakable bond that serves as the backbone of this film. We watch Fred who rises to become a decorated Captain is summarily relegated back to the unskilled worker he was prior to going overseas. He returns home to a life that has moved on without him. Al on the other hand left the comforts of an upper middle class life and returns to find little has changed around him except the growth of his children, yet he is far removed from the person who left for war. The juxtaposition of these two men creates bookends for the film played out in unexpected friendship and envy. Fred found purpose in the war he never had only to see it erased by coming home while Al suddenly sees the frivolity of his life and seeks to bury that shame in self destruction. Both men search for the bridge that connects their past to their present in a meaningful way. Where they find it is one of the most humbling aspects of this film.

Perhaps the most poignant of the three men's stories is that of Homer, portrayed by real life WWII vet Harold Russell. When Homer's ship was sunk, his arms were burned off below the elbow and he is given metal hook prostheses in place of his hands. Interestingly, Homer does not take on the dark ravages of war. On the contrary Homer represents the innocence of so many of the young men sent overseas and the ignorant bliss small town life held. Once the star quarterback engaged to his childhood sweetheart his physical war wounds question his core identity. Homer remains noble but is haunted, not just by the physical loss he's endured but the belief that this loss translates to the life he had once hoped and assumed he would live.

We watch as all three men navigate their assimilation back into their families and town, often in fits and starts. Their self-redemptions are hard earned as they recalibrate their perspective on the world post war and rebuild their lives. Wyler's film portrays this struggle realistically and without pretense. He offers a voyeuristic view into the coping and survival mechanisms that are often self-destructive, unlikeable and at moments cringe worthy. The only safe harbor for these men is each other.

This film is a triumph due in no small part to its excellent cast, thoughtful script and innovative cinematography. Complimenting all of this is the film's moving musical score. Lesser known than many of his contemporaries Hugo Friedhofer's music perfectly establishes the mood and melancholy that our lead characters embody. Listening to the sequence when Homer returns home and into the eager arms of his younger sister and fiancé perfectly conveys the innocence and optimism they carry in the relief he is alive. It is a sharp contrast to the pained distance portrayed on Harold Russell's face. There are a dozen or so of these scored moments when you can appreciate the power of music in storytelling. When done right you are able to close your eyes and envision the director's scene. Few scores do this better than Friedhofer's in this movie. It is a movie I could literally love with my eyes closed and never feel I had missed an emotional cue.

The late Roger Ebert once said no good movie is long enough just as no bad movie is short enough. With a running time of nearly 3 hours this film languishes in moments that are unrushed and paced in a manner that reflects the fits and starts of onboarding back into lives that didn't stop while these men were off at war. All of which feels necessary for advancing the story. This film takes great care to tell a story that was often untold, that even in victory there is no glory in war. War changes the very fiber of one's soul and those scars remain long after the flags are retired and the memorials are built. This film makes visible both the external and internal wounds of Fred Derry, Al Stevenson and Homer Parrish and through them lays tribute to the many men and women who have given their lives over for the fabric and ideals of our freedom. It is one of the great films ever made and a resonating tribute to all that Memorial Day symbolizes. This is three hours worthy of any movie fan's time.