THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER Review

On the surface it would seem this latest incarnation of a familiar property was made both only for financial gain (or so they thought) and with the old-fashioned mindset that sequels must be bigger in order to be better. What is more frightening than one possessed girl? Two, right? Fortunately, this isn't exactly the line of thought eclectic (to say the least) writer/director David Gordon Green was following when making this decision. Rather, this decision is all about choice as choice is what informs the whole of this first in an intended trilogy of new Exorcist films.

Opening with an earthquake in Haiti that forces Leslie Odom Jr.'s character to choose between the survival of his wife and the life of his daughter, the film is keen to emphasize the role of our moral agency in this life and how seriously we take responsibility for our choices is just as important as the choices themselves. The way Green and co-writers Danny McBride, Scott Teems, and largely Peter Sattler weave this weight of responsibility and the constant questioning Odom's Victor Fielding has regarding the choices he's made and is confronted with making throughout the course of the film lend the otherwise familiar template of the exorcism movie some necessary weight, especially considering the lineage of William Friedkin's original.

While that original film saw both Jason Miller's Father Karras and Ellen Burstyn's Chris MacNeil grappling with their faith in the face of this possession, Green and co. have smartly updated not only the location of the film from Washington, D.C. to Georgia, but also the role of church and faith in what I feel I can safely assume is presently a more secular America than in 1973. In doing so, we have Fielding who is or has become an absolute non-believer in the wake of his wife dying. Fielding's daughter, Angela (Lidya Jewett), who is now thirteen and friends with Katherine (Olivia O'Neill) has a mother and father (Jennifer Nettles and Norbert Leo Butz) who are very much ingrained in a community church and seem genuinely convicted in their beliefs (I lowkey kind of loved Nettles' performance in this as she lends a certain credibility to the southern protestant persona that is often easy to dismiss). When the girls disappear after school one day to secretly attempt to contact Angela's dead mother, they naturally conjure the unwanted spirits/demons that then begin to possess their bodies.

REBECCA Review

First, some context: I haven't exactly been a big fan of director Ben Wheatley's films thus far. On the other side of this coin is the fact I've only seen two of the man's films in High-Rise and Free Fire. So, not a wealth of evidence on which to base my presumption that the filmmaker's take on Daphne du Maurier’s beloved 1938 gothic novel and the second major film adaptation after Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 version wouldn't live up to its acclaimed predecessors. Some further context: I haven't seen Hitchcock's film nor have I read du Maurier’s novel, so at the very least Wheatley's iteration of this story would not be viewed under the shadow of those former works. In turn, this works well for a viewer and viewers with the same circumstances given the mystery of the piece undoubtedly works better for those previously unaware of the specifics of the narrative. That said, the two films I have seen from Wheatley both very much fit into a small, very specific kind of niche genre in that both seemed to have been heavily influenced by the style and color palette of the seventies while carrying an equally sardonic tone if not admittedly varied when it came to themes and ideas. If nothing else, Rebecca would offer an opportunity for the director to branch out stylistically and tackle a different genre altogether in this very British, very romance-infused thriller as adapted by the likes of by Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass) and screenwriting duo Joe Shrapnel and Anna Waterhouse (Seberg). The idea is certainly ripe given Rebecca purports to be something vastly different than that of anything Wheatley has made before, but would seem to take a turn into terrain that the director is not necessarily accustomed to, but is likely more comfortable in. It is in this hope that Wheatley's mentality and strong penchant for bringing an attitude and point of view out of his images and into the tone of his films might make Rebecca more than a by-the-numbers account of jealousy incarnate, but it is in this hope that this latest endeavor ultimately fails as it more often than not feels like this new adaptation of du Maurier’s work could have been made by anyone. Despite having not read the novel and not having seen any other versions of the work Wheatley's film moves along at a pace that fails to ever make viewers fully invest in either the characters, the drama, or the character's drama. This is an adaptation that is just enticing enough to pique interest in the source material yet couldn't feel more like a condensed version of the literature; the depths of Wheatley's film only reaching so far as Mrs. Danvers' compassion rather than that of Rebecca's grave.

HEREDITARY Review

It's not difficult to appreciate the craft and attention to detail in first time feature director Ari Aster's Hereditary. What is difficult to appreciate is the narrative path Hereditary follows and how much it ultimately feels patched together in order to execute horror tropes that, in all honesty, it is too good for. There is one aspect of Hereditary that feels right at home exploring the continued ramifications and deep-seated issues that are passed from one generation to the next while being more than willing to take on and explore how family can really mess you up given the most extreme of circumstances, but there is another side to the film that wants to utilize this most extreme of family dramas to paint itself definitively into the horror genre and this is where the movie kind of falls apart. The upside to this is that Hereditary only begins to really become or at least fully embrace this unnecessary narrative evolution in the last fifteen to twenty minutes or so. Prior to this, Aster shrouds so much of what is actually going on in this questionable state of what might be happening and what is actually happening by building Toni Collette and her Annie's mental state to a point where her actions are in total question of reality. We're made aware of her family history and their bouts with depression and mental health issues very early while throughout the course of the film Annie experiences incredible and unthinkable traumas that would undoubtedly bring such issues to the forefront, but while the devolving security of Annie's mental state is what ultimately brings about the true, genuine horror in Hereditary it is also this avenue, this idea of how bad parents can mess up their children that is placed on the backburner in favor of the more genre-specific plot elements. It is something of a shame it's with this familiar bang that Hereditary decides to go out as it leaves something of the wrong impression on the audience given the majority of what comes before the final revelation is an unsettling more than it is scary exercise in pacing that boils each individual party to an intentionally uneven place of uncertainty, exhaustion, and just...pure misery. Hereditary is one of those movies that is easier to admire than it is to necessarily enjoy, but it seems Aster only ever meant to paint a portrait rather than entertain a mass. It's not difficult to appreciate the camera, sound design, and especially each of the very committed performances in Hereditary, but that this twisted dysfunctional family drama ends up being more dysfunctional than it does pure family drama leaves a simplicity to be desired.

COLLATERAL BEAUTY Review

Will Smith is the people's actor. He is a presence that radiates the kind of everyman persona that the actual everyman would like to envision themselves as. It's nearly impossible not to find the presence of Smith in any film he chooses to participate anything other than a force of genuine charisma, but not here. In director David Frankel's (The Devil Wears Prada, Marley & Me) Collateral Beauty Smith is relegated to looking as depressed as possible for the limited amount of time he actually appears on screen despite being touted as the lead of this ensemble piece. It's true-the films wackadaisical plot hinges on the actions of Smith's Howard Inlet, but it doesn't ultimately pay that much attention to him. Still, given it is Smith we care about this human being who is clearly and rightfully dealing with a tragedy on his own terms. Reeling from this great tragedy of losing a child we come to sympathize with Howard mostly thanks to the pain Smith conveys in his eyes that are constantly attempting to fight back both pain and tears. Still, we never become as invested in the character as it seems Frankel or screenwriter Allan Loeb (The Switch, Here Comes the Boom) imagined we might. Moreover, we are too shocked by what actually plays out in Loeb's screenplay as opposed to what type of movie the trailers sold this one to be. Going into Collateral Beauty there was a line of thinking that, being it was the holiday season, Loeb and the studio had intentionally written the story to take place at Christmas and released it around Christmas due to the similarities it seemingly shared with Charles Dickens' classic A Christmas Carol. While Smith's Howard is certainly no Scrooge it seemed Loeb had more or less reverse engineered the situation and played things out as if Bob Cratchit were the boss of his own ad agency and whom he moves forward enough that Tiny Tim does in fact pass away only to have the three ghosts that are this time incarnated as Love, Death, and Time rather than Past, Present, and Future come visit our protagonist revealing the secrets to happiness long thought to be lost. Loeb certainly could have played with a few different ideas and themes coming at the story from this new perspective, but ultimately Collateral Beauty was never brave enough to try and update and/or re-engineer that Christmas classic, but would rather be as deceptive about what it actually is the same way many of its characters are.

CAPTAIN FANTASTIC Review

Captain Fantastic director Matt Ross sure seems to have a grudge against Christianity. Or organized religion in general (which doesn't include Buddhism despite the fact there is a degree of organization that ensures rituals take place and dates are observed) as his directorial debut takes large aim at the followers of Jesus Christ and more or less insults them to a degree that doesn't offer enlightening or insightful reasons as to why these characters think a certain way nor does it provide a compelling alternative, but rather sticks to calling out an entire group of people without stepping back to recognize its own shortcomings. It is understandable given there are plenty of Christians who give what is intended to be a religion based on love above everything else a bad name with hateful words and actions just as I assume there are atheists or followers of other faiths that aren't exactly representative of the best of those organizations or groups core values. Still, as the largest religion in the world by a large margin it is understandable why Christianity takes most of the heat. It has the most variations thus numerous perspectives from which it can be criticized. As a practicing Christian I don't tend to get offended by those who hurl insults for if I'm wrong then so be it, but if I'm right then even better. Why wouldn't we want there to be something more to this life, though? Don't we all need something to look forward to? Isn't that how we continue to thrive and push on in our current lives? Looking forward to what's next? It's a question I find myself considering often when it seems those opposed to the existence of God seem to want to be right more than they want to actually consider the alternative. There is a difference in insulting a religion or system of beliefs in and of itself and insulting the people who decide to base their lives on those beliefs. Often, films with an agenda to oppose organized religion will call out the many available flaws and lack of proof such beliefs are based on rather than the intelligence of those who believe, but Captain Fantastic clearly has a vendetta against those who find comfort in their faith-even if that ends up being all it is. As human beings we need a little assurance, we need something to sometimes make our existence bearable and if religion or faith does that for someone, why should it bother those who don't need it? I don't have the answer to that question and the problem with Captain Fantastic is that it doesn't either.

OUR BRAND IS CRISIS Review

Note: This is a reprint of my review for Our Brand Is Crisis, which originally ran on September 13, 2015 after seeing it at the Toronto Film Festival. I am publishing it again today as it hits theaters this weekend.

Our Brand Is Crisis is a Grant Heslov/George Clooney production, but it's not Argo in the sense that it's not a political thriller and it's not Monuments Men in the sense it's not a heroic story parading around as a nostalgia trip. As this is a David Gordon Green picture though, this is a film that ends up being something of a mashup between a political drama and slapstick comedy. Green is an eclectic director who has dipped his hand in heavy drama (George Washington, Snow Angels) as well as broad comedy (Pineapple Express, The Sitter) and his latest somewhat blends these two styles to create something uniquely edgy if not completely conventional in the beats it hits. From the outset, Our Brand Is Crisis feels like a straightforward documentation of the carousel of politics this world and it's countries become wrapped up in every four years. Given this is Green we're talking about it also means the characters involved in such circumstances have a unique set of sensibilities that give the otherwise unsurprising narrative a twist. Early on in the film Sandra Bullock's 'Calamity' Jane Bodine tells a room of campaign volunteers they need to help make the narrative fit their candidate rather than the other way around. Green seems to have heeded his films own advice as he clearly caters his story to the character of Jane and her off the wall methods that have made her one of the most well-regarded campaign strategists in the game. Were Green to have not done this we would have little more than a standard political drama, but given the characters are fun and engaging it's impossible to not see it as at least a little more than that.

TIFF 2015: OUR BRAND IS CRISIS Review

Our Brand Is Crisis is a Grant Heslov/George Clooney production, but it's not Argo in the sense that it's not a political thriller and it's not Monuments Men in the sense it's no heroic story parading around as a nostalgia trip of the 1960's. As this is a David Gordon Green picture though, this is a film that ends up being something of a mashup between a political drama and slapstick comedy. Green is an eclectic director who has dipped his hand in heavy drama (George Washington, Snow Angels) as well as broad comedy (Pineapple Express, The Sitter) and his latest somewhat blends these two styles to create something uniquely edgy if not completely conventional in the beats it hits. From the outset, Our Brand Is Crisis feels like a straightforward documentation of the carousel of politics this world and it's countries become wrapped up in, but given this is Green we'r talking about it also means the characters involved in such circumstances have a unique set of sensibilities that give the otherwise unsurprising narrative a twist. Early on in the film Sandra Bullock's 'Calamity' Jane Bodine tells a room of campaign volunteers they need to help make the narrative fit their candidate rather than the other way around. Green seems to have heeded his films own advice as he clearly caters his story to the character of Jane and her off the wall methods that have made her one of the most well-regarded campaign strategists in the game. Were Green to have not done this we would have little more than a standard political drama, but given the characters are fun and engaging it's impossible to not see it as more than that.

First Trailer for OUR BRAND IS CRISIS Starring Sandra Bullock

I'll be seeing Our Brand Is Crisis on my third day in Toronto (which is this Saturday!) so it's nice to be getting a little more info on one of the bigger films that will be premiering at TIFF this year. The film comes to us courtesy of director David Gordon Green (All the Real Girls, Pineapple Express) is written by Peter Straughn (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Debt) and is an adaptation of the 2005 documentary of the same name. The film follows a group of American consultants who accept the challenge of getting an unpopular Bolivian president re-elected. Sandra Bullock will make her Oscar bid as maverick political consultant, "Calamity" Jane Bodine, who comes out of retirement to lead the team while Billy Bob Thornton portrays her nemesis, Pat Candy. The trailer offers a strong political satire vibe with the material in line to perfectly blend the more broad comedic strokes of Green's mainstream work with the low-key, dramatic material he seems to call home. In being able to find a balance in these two styles I can only hope to expect great things from the film and with Warner Bros. positioning this in a Oscar-friendly release date just before it was announced the film would premiere at TIFF I can only assume those expectations will be satisfied. Our Brand is Crisis also stars Zoe Kazan, Anthony Mackie, Scoot McNairy, Ann Dowd, Joaquim de Almeida and opens October 30th.

ST. VINCENT Review

St. Vincent is formula, but it's damn affecting formula. As soon as we meet the titular curmudgeon followed by the set-up that requires him to watch over the new neighbor kid we know where things are going. This is a film though that epitomizes the saying, "it's not about where you're going, it's about how you get there." There is nothing new to find in the intentions of the story or even in the way it is executed. Everything you will take away from St. Vincent is because of the characters, their individual arcs and how it comes together to not necessarily paint a pretty picture, but a humbling one. We are in a day and age where this, in many ways, feels like the culmination of Bill Murray's master plan. He has so effortlessly (or it at least seems that way) become more of a figure, a myth than that of an actual being that we find real value in seeing him let loose as much as he does here. There have only been a few occasions over the last decade or so where the legendary actor and comic has allowed himself this much visibility and unlike 2012's odd Hyde Park on Hudson this sees him in a role that is able to be more widely appreciated. You will recognize the schtick Murray is playing because he's done it before, but that doesn't make it any less fun to watch or when his stage of life and career are taken into consideration, any less affecting. I say affecting again because despite the fact we know where the film is going and we know what it wants us to feel it is still able to achieve a genuine emotional reaction from the audience and for that alone, the film deserves credit. It is also to the films credit that it doesn't overstay its welcome and allows the actors to flourish in their roles bringing the intended ideas to the surface and moving the audience in just the right way to where we are fine with the manipulation it is pulling over on us. St. Vincent is a crowd-pleaser in the biggest and best sense of the word in that it is a film I realize could be taken as overly-sentimental or even hokey, but that I could watch over and over again and still find reasons to smile every time. Sometimes, you need a film like that and St. Vincent would make a wonderful default to turn to for, if nothing else, the showcase it allows Murray.

THE DROP Review

When one approaches a film with a certain set of expectations based on the individual components and what it could potentially add up to as a whole it gives way to a certain direction we think the film will go. From the outside looking in The Drop starring Tom Hardy and James Gandolfini in his final screen role sold itself as a Brooklyn-based crime drama that centers around a robbery gone wrong and the investigation around the robbery that brings a certain drop-point system to its knees. While all of this is still very much a part of the film, it isn't the centerpiece, as an audience we aren't drawn into the plot as in the series of events that make up the story, but instead become more interested in how these specific characters will decide the course of the story rather than the tropes typically employed in this genre. To be fair, it is a deliberately slow-paced affair that sets the tone of not only the critical environment in which the movie takes place, but the attitude of our main character and how it lines up with the aforementioned plot elements that combine to bring home more than we bargained for in the third act. As the film goes on and we wonder why the tension never reaches breaking points with the police involvement or why more things, shocking things aren't happening we are getting a portrait painted for us and we don't even realize it until director Michaël R. Roskam wants us to. There are core questions people have to ask themselves when put in a predicament such as Bob Saginowski (Hardy) is here. What is his overall goal in life? What is standing in his way? What might he lose if he doesn't achieve his goal? They are questions that Dennis Lehane no doubt asked himself as well when he penned both the screenplay and his short story the film is based on. These questions though, ones that typically provide a kind of structure for where a story needs to go, while still in place, are allowed to become side-tracked and thus result in a film where it doesn't feel we are dipping in on a very specific moment in time in the life of the characters, but that this is simply another set of struggles, another set of detractors and minor set-backs in a neighborhood where everyone is fighting to make a living and maybe one day, achieve their ideal goals.

GIMME SHELTER Review

I have fortunately never been in the position to have to struggle or understand what it was like to have no one to turn to or to lean on. It is undoubtedly a scary feeling and something that seems brought on most of the time by nothing more than an unlucky set of circumstances. What I have never understood though, and movies have brought us countless characters with the same nature as our protagonist here, is why those who seem to struggle so much find it so hard to accept help. I understand it is easy to look at a situation as a person who’s never dealt with such harsh realities and not be able to understand the complexities of what is going through someone’s mind, to not understand how they see their life going nowhere and how the inability to trust anyone will forever hinder them in some way. These seem to be the points of tremendous stress and challenge in the life of Agnes Bailey or Apple as she prefers to be called as played by Vanessa Hudgens. Now, if you’ve heard about this movie it has probably not been for the fact it is based on a true story or that it is the first in many Christian-themed films this year that re-enforce a value system easily frowned upon if you don’t reside in the Bible belt. No, if you’ve heard anything about Gimme Shelter it is probably due to the transformation with which Hudgens has put herself through for this role. It is a film that at one point seems to have the smallest of aspirations to really be a kind of awards bait movie, while genuinely wanting to incite change in the heart of those who witness it. I was torn between what statement was really trying to be made here, what the agenda of the makers actually was as throughout the film I couldn’t read the true intentions of what the film was trying to accomplish. Is Hudgens almost trying too hard to be taken seriously? Is the tone a little overbearing and in many cases getting in the way of the already depressing story? Yea, in many ways it is and though there are redeeming moments that bring to light the type of solid drama this could have been Gimme Shelter ultimately suffers from poor craftsmanship more than anything else.

SIDE EFFECTS Review

Scott Z. Burns has written two of my favorite Steven Soderbergh films since 2009 and up through his recent rush of films from late 2011 into what is being called his last major feature that is the subject of this review, Side Effects. Burns penned the lovably goofy 2009 farce The Informant! as well as the first and very well crafted of Soderbergh's final run, Contagion. Each of these films have a very distinct tone and a very good sense of what they are while not relying on the conventions of their genre to restrain or define them. The same could be said for this latest Burns and Soderbergh collaboration as it is hard to even tell what category it might fall into. As soon as you'd like to think you know where it is going Side Effects begins to venture down a different path. I love it, walking into the film with only a vague knowledge of what the film is about (thank you deliberately fuzzy marketing campaign) and being able to relish in the execution of the film as it slowly unfolds to reveal itself as something much more than I ever expected it to be. There are hints of the cautionary tale, of the talespin into madness, even the courtroom drama with an element of mystery, but what makes the movie such an enjoyable and rather brisk experience despite the slow start, is the fact it melds each of these elements together seamlessly creating a mixed bag of drama and emotions, dynamics and expectations that are still able to form a cohesive and satisfying story while throwing twist after twist at the audience and keeping us on the edge of our seats as we anxiously await which character will pull back the next layer. With a more than firm hand on the wheel from Soderbergh and a fantastic ensemble cast Side Effects is easily the first great film of 2013.

COMPLIANCE Review

Compliance brings up an interesting question: can the quality of a film still be great despite the fact one might be repulsed by the story it tells. Does the story have a real purpose? Does it mean more than to simply entertain? Is it teaching a lesson or giving a warning? What are the intentions of the film if we are engrossed by it yet doubtful it could ever truly happen even if the one thing we know and you need to know before seeing a frame of the film, is that this actually happened and happened many times. It is a string of questions that not only challenge you as you watch the film unravel, but it allows Compliance to be a film where you don't say that you "liked" it in the common sense of the word, but that you took something from it, were fascinated by it or that maybe you were in fact disgusted by it, think every character in it is stupid and would never watch the film again. The crazy thing is, I feel I can see justification for any one of these opinions and not feel inclined to inject my interpretation of the film as to why that opinion might differ from my own in one way or another. The overall accomplishment of the film though is to see  how far people will go, how much we will trust in authority, and how obedient we can be when the commands are clearly violating some kind of ethical code. Would we still go against that inherent voice in our heads telling us no because of a slim promise that to do this will make it easier in the end? We don't know what we might have done in these characters situations. It is a complicated scenario to pull off on screen without each of the characters losing credibility and it is easy to say you might have done something different but in that moment, when your back's against the wall and you have someone who, by the pillars of our society, we believe we can trust and in turn are going to do as they ask. We trust them that they are having us do what is best for everyone and to abuse that power is to cause an avalanche of things, worlds falling apart.