Oscar nominee review - Beasts of the Southern Wild

There’s pressure to like the indie drama Beasts of the Southern Wild. After all, it has won most of the awards available at the highest-profile film fests… and now an Oscar nomination. I can feel the weight bearing down on me. I’m being patient though, attentive… watching through the film’s imagery, its mythology, its eccentric environment and people, waiting for it to take hold and move me somewhere. All these things swirl around poetically and in interesting paths and patterns, but never seem to coalesce into anything more than a choppy and slow wave of thoughts passing through. What’s wrong with you Pat – didn’t you feel it… sense the magic? Uh, not really… not this time.

Beasts is text-book “art cinema”, including a core social-realism style, and emphasis on the development of ideas through the imaginations of its characters rather than presenting a clear, plot-driven story. The film does set up an interesting gallery in which to display its paintings and poetry. Beasts’ “southern wild” is contained in a fictional Louisiana Bayou (inspired by the real Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana), known to its harshly defiant and hygiene-challenged inhabitants as “The Bathtub”. At the center of the gallery is Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis), a wild-haired, six-year old girl, living (sort of) with her hard-drinking and erratic father and the rest of the small rag-tag Bathtub band committed to protecting their way of life, detached from the toils of the dry-landers modern world. But The Tub, and their life, is endangered… sinking into the water with the sliver of land they reside on. Hushpuppy imagines the universe and the Bathtub as made up of natural puzzle pieces that must stay in place and functioning or the universe breaks. When the Bath Tub's universe begins to falter, she sets out to fix its pieces. 

Wallis shines bright as Hushpuppy and is the best reason to see this film. She is captivating as her strong-willed Hushpuppy wanders among squalor, taking in her father’s, and other's, lessons on resilience and pushing back against his neglect and ruthlessness, finally striking out on her own to try and solve her world’s puzzle. Rookie Director Benh Zeitlin surrounds her with aberrant imagery and philosophizing characters. But these seem to pass by like curious and discrete snapshots without major impact. Some of the pictures of Hushpuppy’s journey are memorable, but the void space between is too great to tie the whole thing into meaning. But, of course, being an “art film”, maybe Zeitlin isn’t shooting for meaning, but only for the cerebral experience… and thus the pressure. I feel ignorant, of course; somehow defective for not praising Beasts, for not gushing over about its originality and boldness. After all, the film has garnered public acceptance beyond its critical acclaim – Beasts shows an 80 %-liked audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I suspect (or maybe hope), however, that many of those 28,000-plus that voted on RT caved to that same pressure I felt. So, if you are left nonplussed by this supposed oracle film of truth and art, know that you are not alone – be strong, hold your ground, and stand up and say to your viewing companions… "So what’s all the big deal about?” 5 out of 10. – Pat L. 

Oscar-nominee review: Lincoln

Lincoln comes out of its blocks like an elite but aging runner… maybe a bit stiff at first. But it limbers quickly and the film soon establishes a winning pace. Although the early scenes are a little clunky, they are effective in introducing the turning-point piece of history to be reviewed and the topics that will be assessed; high principle and required sacrifice, Lincoln’s gauging of the balance of the two, and his tenacious pursuit to solidify emancipation.

Lincoln is not a big movie; it’s a movie about a big thing and a big man. It does not shoot for epic; at least not in the visual sense. Although the Civil War is central, of course, to the film’s subject, we are shown only one battle scene and even that one scene is focused on the small scale; pairs of men warring hand to hand, killing and dying. Instead, screenwriter Tony Kushner and director Steven Spielberg let the history (sourced, in part, from the Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln) role out and let the weight of it set in without massive vistas or din. They also avoid trying to rehash the whole of Lincoln history, limiting their focus to the struggle to pass the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery, and covering only the last four months of Lincoln’s life.

The film’s ability to present the historical account and yet to still engage dramatically and emotionally is due, in large part, to Daniel Day-Lewis’ superb performance. Day Lewis is mesmerizing as Lincoln and leads one (or at least me) easily to believe that this is who and what Lincoln must have been. Lewis is given a lot of room to work as we see under Lincoln’s political life to the more common-man struggles with his erratic wife Mary (played terrifically by Sally Fields), the memories of a lost son, and the protection of another. Most intriguing, however, is the portrayal of Honest Abe as not always completely honest; applying a Clintonian definition of truth at times (along with payoffs and threats) to reach a higher goal.

Lincoln is complete and captivating. Its depiction of the range of opinion, politics, and pain that surrounded this first great step toward equality and the ideals framed by Lincoln is Mount-Rushmore solid. Lincoln may not win best motion picture (Day-Lewis will certainly walk away with a trophy though) but it is must see for all - 8 out of 10.

Jack Reacher is common, shallow… but entertaining

Jack Reacher will win no awards. Nor will any of its spawn from which Cruise hopes, I’m sure, to make additional millions. The movie is based on one of Lee Child’s seventeen crime novels featuring the Jack Reacher character and plays out, in form, like a good but throwaway piece of pulp fiction. Now I have not read any of the 17 Reacher books. Can’t tell you if they’re any good or not. But Jack Reacher the movie is, well… pretty run of the mill as crime thrillers go. I’m not saying that’s all bad. A good hot dog is pretty common. There’s usually a good ball game on cable when you want…not too special. But I like those things. Seeing Reacher is like biting into a cheap deli’s piece of apple pie… I enjoy it, but it won’t end up in a diary entry.

People get shot in Jack Reacher right off the bat.  Five people murdered, at random, via a sniper’s rifle. Former military sniper James Barr (Joseph Sikora) is picked up for the deed on the basis of some slick, insightful detective work by lead detective Emerson (David Oyelowo). The evidence is substantial and Barr is pressured to write his confession in light of the air tight case built against him. His response is to scribble a single instruction: "Get Jack Reacher."

But who is Jack Reacher? No one has a clue at first. A little research by the DA’s office uncovers that Reacher is an ex-Army cop (military detective): a very, very good, and highly decorated one at that (of course). Their problem is that he unceremoniously walked away from his impressive military career several years ago never to be heard of again. Dropped out, disappeared… no drivers license, no bank account, no known place of residence, and no way to be found. To their surprise, however, Reacher shows up on his own. Seems Jack knows Barr. Back in Iraq, in their Army days, Reacher tried unsuccessfully to put him away for shooting four military contractors… just because he wanted to. Jack has appeared now, as he describes, to make sure that the shooter gets his due this time. But if Barr were guilty, why would he ask his cop-nemesis for help? Reacher soon finds things are not what they seem.

The setup to this point is interesting enough. But the movie eventually sacrifices plot and character depth for the lower common denominator of its ilk - crime action mayhem. The best of this genre will give you both, but here the motivation for why people are doing what they’re doing is flimsy at best, hastily contrived and presented to keep the hero snarling and shooting. That said, the movie is well-dressed and fun to watch; lifted a bit above average by a top-notch cast and excellent delivery.

Like him or not, Cruise usually delivers and does again here as the mysterious loner, reluctantly returning to the hypocrisy of the “free” world to right a wrong. Of course, he has more skills than any human being is allowed to have and is nigh impervious to danger and its consequences, but what the heck. A feel-good casting award is in order for reuniting Cruise with Robert Duvall, who plays an ex-marine and owner of a shooting range frequented by the alleged killer Barr. Their eventual partnership is ludicrous but the silliness is successfully overshadowed by Duvall’s mastery to play crusty and the fun the two seem to be having together. Reacher also features one of the best car chase scenes I’ve seen in years, incorporating some fine vintage muscle cars. Jack Reacher is bit ordinary; yes. But I don’t think you’ll be asking for your money back. Just don’t hold the bar to high when you go see this one and you’ll be fine. Reacher gets a 6 out of 10. - Pat L.

DVD Review: Philosophical “Another Earth” wraps hard questions in soft science

Science fiction movies are sometimes not what you’d expect. And sometimes they are just what they should be. Science fiction is often about what-ifs. The genre becomes an out-of-the-normal vehicle to viewpoints that could not be easily had in a “real world” setting. There are two worlds in Another Earth. One looks like the other. They have the same morphology, same cities, same streets. Maybe they are one another. What if?

Pretty deep stuff huh? There are no space wars in Earth - no odd aliens. The two-world setting is not pretext for an invasion tale or a set up for a special-effects driven colliding-world film. The preposterous new skyline is just a frame work for a tale of tragedy and second chance. 

In the beginning Rhoda, the films protagonist, can see only a blue dot in the dark sky. The new planet has just been discovered, moving through our solar system to within range of our attention. There is no attempt to explain the unlikeliness of such a thing or what surely would be the substantial physical ramifications of such a change. The other Earth is just there and the stage is set. 

Coincident with the other Earth’s arrival is the derailing of Rhoda’s young life and promising academic future in a tragic accident.  The event, caused by Rhoda, costs lives. Rhoda, the guilty, and the surviving victim, John, are alive but broken. Years after, Rhoda, whose identity is unknown to her victim. visits him to claim responsibility and apologize. But she is weak, and instead masquerades as a maid and offers cleaning services.  The relationship that evolves between Rhoda and John and the scenario that has caused it are as unlikely as the new earth looming on the horizon. It is tragic in its impossibility - but what if? The mirrored world somehow synced to our own, now close enough to reach through available space travel. What would the other us be like? Could any difference be an opportunity for sacrifice and healing?

Earth has a stripped down indie feel - atypical for Hollywood sci-fi's. But it is not unique in its philosophical ambitions. Films like Solaris and Gatica, although more heavily produced and with more attention paid to the science side, have succeeded in telling great stories in other- or future-world contexts. Indeed, I can’t think of any good science-fiction literature that does not have a very human story or a non-human allegory of those stories. In the case of Another Earth, the metaphysics is a metaphor about living with choices and paths to redemption, heavy on human wounds and light on the science. But the movie has the signature power ending of a good Sci-fi short story or novella - leaving the audience with several options for the answer to - what if? Refreshing, peculiar, occasionally discomfiting - Earth gets an 8.