Cold War Review

Cold War

Dir:Pawel Pawlikowski

Starring:Joann Kulig, Tomasz Kot, Borys Szyc, and Agata Kulesza

Portrayals of love and longing in film, especially good examples, always come with a hefty dose of suffering. From recent examples like Wong Kar-wai’s exemplary “In the Mood for Love” and Spike Jonze’s new age “Her” to classics like Michael Curtiz’s iconic “Casablanca” and George Cukor’s brilliant “Holiday”; love and longing and suffering can be fascinating characteristics of human nature and intoxicating insights into the complexities of romance. 

Director Pawel Pawlikowski, who directed the sublime “My Summer of Love” and the solemn “Ida”, tackles a romance made complicated by politics and art. “Cold War” unfolds over the course of time, with two people who are deeply in love with each other but are forced to separate numerous times because of the world they live in. 

The film begins in 1949 with a musician named Wiktor (Tomasz Kot) who is exploring the Polish countryside in search of folk music to record and recruit. The purpose of Wiktor’s efforts is to create an ensemble of artists meant to serve the purpose of the political structure instead of the culture and storytelling these folk songs infuse. This brings Wiktor into company with Zula, a singer desperate to escape her circumstances. Wiktor and Zula become instantly attracted to one another, it turns to a complicated love story that will define many years to come for the couple. 

 “Cold War” is composed with beautiful black and white photography, the monochrome palette pulls the rich details of the environment and adds striking contrast to many of the scenes where the long-in-love couple is separated by a world that views everything with simplistic ideals. What this photographic choice also organizes is treating the story like an old scrapbook being flipped through years after the events take place; distressed pictures of faded memories that show the smiles amongst the blurry backgrounds of a world that never stops changing, never stops threatening the happiness of people who love one another.

The fantastic character development, which amazingly takes place over the relatively short 89-minute running time, is assisted by the ferocious performances from Joann Kulig and Tomasz Kot. The actors are perfectly cast for the roles here; their chemistry is incendiary, specifically the non-verbal communication that composes the course of their changing relationship. Zula’s fading smile and Wiktor’s deep gazes are telling a completely emotional story by themselves, without any dialog or storyline to drive the messaging.  

“Cold War” does so much while doing so little; it explores the consequences of a changing political structure and how it knowingly, and unknowingly, ripples transformations throughout the lives of people trying simply to survive. Director Pawel Pawlikowski crafts a romantic story that is filled with passion and pain, optimism and melancholy; however, through the journey over time, over love and loss, “Cold War” will seduce you with performance and technique.  It’s suffering at its finest but also a sweeping and richly detailed vision of love.

Monte’s Rating

4.25 out of 5.00

Polar Review

By Emery Snyder @leeroy711
Director: Jonas Åkerlund

Starring: Mads Mikkelsen, Vanessa Hudgens, Matt Lucas

Netflix Original – January 15, 2019

POLAR is the latest Netflix Original based on the Dark Horse comic, “Polar: Came From The Cold” by Victor Santos. Duncan Vizia (Mikkelsen), an aging assassin is preparing for retirement when his employer, Blut (Lucas) begins a new policy to kill off all retiring killers to save on pension overhead. He goes into hiding in a small town where he meets Camille (Hudgens). His former coworkers track him down, kidnap Camille and otherwise generally piss him off. Hilarity ensues… but not really.

I’ll start off by saying that I have no familiarity with this film’s source material. I don’t read a lot of comics/graphic novels and this one in particular would have never even been on my radar. I’m saying this in order to clarify that my comparison between the motion picture and the material it was adapted from is speculative in that respect. In short, all of the disparaging things I’m about to say about the film, should in no way be misconstrued as criticisms of what I can only imagine is a very successful comic.

But before I get to that, let’s pick out what I liked about the film. This won’t take long. I was actually struck by how well the costumes and set dressings mimic and inform the contrasting themes of our two sets of characters. Our two main characters, Duncan and Camille are in hiding out in a snow filled rural area of Montana. Everything about their lives seems to be muted in unending Earth-tones to support this. Their clothes match the trees and the wildlife and their unpainted log cabins add to the notion that these are two people that found the perfect place to blend in. In contrast, their pursuers are shown as a loud and boisterous group of assassins traveling around the country on a blood-splattered murder spree. When the two worlds first collide, it is clear that Duncan enjoys the home court advantage. Later, when he is forced out of his comfort zone, the hue of the underworld immediately begins to come down to his level, symbolizing his unyielding power. It was shot by Pär M. Ekberg, a frequent collaborator of director, Åkerlund. They have worked on a lot of music videos prior to this; most notably, they did one of the segments of “Beyonce: Lemonade”. Their history of work in this medium shows.

This film reminds me of what a thirteen-year-old looks like smoking a cigarette. He probably

looks really badass to other thirteen-year-olds. But the rest of us are left to wonder: “Who’s in charge here?” This is the unfortunate trap that a lot of live action films fall into when they are based on comics. The same things that come across as “edgy” on the panels of this medium translate very differently when adapted to the screen. This applies to the editing style specifically. An action sequence in the comic will find it necessary for multiple angles bouncing back and forth between perspectives in order to inform the audience properly. The most literal translation of this to a motion picture is the quick motif of jump cuts. This is both unnecessary and visually assaultive. It serves to disorient rather than inform and it’s one of my pet peeves. Interestingly though, this technique is usually utilized to mask the fact that the stunts and the action set pieces were not very well choreographed. This doesn’t appear to be the case here. It just seems to be a stylistic choice that I don’t particularly appreciate.

The characters themselves are also quite awkward. My first thought when we are introduced to the film’s main antagonist, Blut was: “Good for Star-Wars Kid, glad he finally made it.”

The other way in which these types of “adaptations” always rub me the wrong way is in the dialogue. It is much more acceptable to have this brand of corniness read in a speech bubble hovering over the head of a heightened cartoon character. But when actual people read these lines, it’s clunky and distracting. I am constantly taken out of the story.

But alas, being taken out of the story of this film may not have been the worst thing conceivable. There are some very obvious plot holes here. Many of which stem from the organization’s financial plan. It just doesn’t make much sense to me. And even if it did, I’m pretty sure that by the forty-minute mark of the film, Duncan has killed enough of his coworkers to have sufficiently made up for his own pension plan. Then later, a couple of Deus Ex Machina type characters are introduced to move the story forward. One of which is played by Richard Dreyfuss. He plays a previously retired assassin who apparently was grandfathered in to the company’s older “don’t murder retirees” policy?... I guess. Plot holes are the first thing to be forgiven in an otherwise good movie. This is sadly not the case here.

To be clear, my thirteen-year-old self would have loved this movie.

Emery’s Rating

1.5 out of 5 Stars

Glass Review

Glass

Dir: M. Night Shyamalan 

Starring: Bruce Willis, James McAvoy, Sarah Paulson, Anya Taylor-Joy, Spencer Treat Clark, Charlayne Woodard, and Samuel L. Jackson

It doesn’t take long in M. Night Shyamalan’s new film “Glass” for the term “comic book” to morph from the physical literary pages, to a description for characters, and finally into a multifaceted medical diagnosis. Exploring the term “comic book” in today’s pop culture and cinematic world which is inundated with comic book movies almost every other month. The exploration of the mythos and responsibility involved in the creation of a person with super human abilities was a fresh topic when Shyamalan handled it in 2000 with “Unbreakable”. 17 years later, with numerous comic book cinematic universes in tow, and “Glass” feels like a film that doesn’t understand the world it’s trying to exist in. 

David Dunn (Bruce Willis), the lone survivor of a train crash 17 years ago, discovered the supernatural ability to sense the evil deeds of people he touches while also possessing tremendous strength that helps him bring justice to bad people. David, now a vigilante known as the Overseer, is hunting a man named Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) who suffers from multiple personality disorder, one of which is a personality known as The Beast. The two come face-to-face but are abruptly captured by a psychiatrist (Sarah Paulson) and sent to a mental hospital where an old nemesis (Samuel L. Jackson) has been patiently waiting for David.

“Split”, Mr. Shyamalan’s horror-thriller from 2016 that introduced the multiple personality villain Kevin Wendell Crumb, surprised audiences with a post-credit scene where the character David Dunn was reintroduced sitting in a coffee shop watching the news of Crumb’s carnage. It was a peculiar scene for an otherwise enjoyable excursion for the director who had seen an uneven succession of films after an impressive slate of movies in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. 

“Glass” starts with a wealth of interesting ideas, exploring the line that separates heroes and villains and the responsibility and madness associated with each. There is also an intriguing side note concerning the victims associated with these super human people that provides a different approach not typically found in the mainstream comic book film. We get to see how David has progressed the heroics with his son Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark) into a family business but also a few other characters from the other associated films. And for the first half hour of the film Mr. Shyamalan does a nice job of tying everything together. 

Unfortunately, things take a turn and the momentum and intrigue of these characters is squandered by over explanation and unnecessary narrative twists. It leads to a finale that completely undermines everything developed early in the story but also needlessly manipulates comic book culture in an attempt to justify why these characters function the way they do. It’s such a letdown considering the potential of the actors and the stories that have laid the foundation before this film.

“Glass” has so many ideas, some of them thought-provoking and captivating and others lofty and ludicrous. Still, with more time and attention to the script those lofty ideas could have become ludicrously appealing in the same way that some Marvel and DC Comics films have succeeded. Instead we have a film that completely misses the heart of why comic book characters have come as far as they have.

Monte’s Rating

2.00 out of 5.00

IO Review

By Emery Snyder @leeroy711
Director: Jonathan Helpert

Starring: Margaret Qualley, Anthony Mackie & Danny Huston

Netflix Original – January 18, 2019

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” – Micah 5:2

IO is one of five “Netflix Originals” released this weekend. The title references one of Jupiter’s moons that is being colonized by humans in the near future due to the environmental contamination of Earth. Margaret Qualley plays Sam, a scientist attempting to stay behind to find a solution to the impending doom as the last launch is scheduled to the new colony. As she works, she comes into contact with Micah (Mackie), one of the last survivors, making his pilgrimage to the launch site. Together, they make a connection that calls into question their previous goals and the value of their work.

I was immediately struck by how well the scenes were shot and composed. Most of the exteriors were shot at the Observatoire de la Cote d’Azur Calern in Thiey, France. The Observatoire de Nice served as the character’s home base for the interiors. Both were picturesque locations that added an organic feel to further the plot. Part of the film’s premise is that the higher elevations still have breathable air. The oxygen gets worse, the closer you get to sea level. The scenes of the contaminated area were shot at Nu Boyana Film Studios, in Sofia, Bulgaria. The set dressing was done very well. I don’t know if I can overstate how important it is for a post-apocalyptic sci-fi story to get this part right. The set must feel both lived in as well as destitute. I was pleasantly surprised to see how much was done with this set.

The performances here were adequate, maybe a bit better than that in the case of Qualley. Hers was the most demanding of the film and you only feel the emotional weight of the situation through her. Mackie has had much better performances recently. Danny Huston, who is probably the best actor of the three, is barely in this.

Unfortunately, it’s this film’s screenplay that falls flat. The plot moves along rather

predictably. There is at least one instance in which an early plot point regarding one of the three on-screen characters is treated as though it is supposed to be a surprising twist, but you can smell it a mile away. At least you can if you’ve ever seen a movie before. Most of its revelation had been easily telegraphed by some bits of poorly written dialogue.

The themes here are expressed heavily through metaphors that I found to exist somewhere in between pedantic and pretentious. Said metaphors come from a mixed bag of religious mythology. Mackie’s character is named Micah, the Biblical prophet that predicted the destruction and subsequent rise of Jerusalem, as well as the birth of a savior. If this wasn’t ‘on-the-nose’ enough, it seems that later in the film, his representation changes to the Greek God, Zeus. Both symbols end up serving the same purpose, which is to show the audience how well read the three credited screenwriters are. But neither of these bothered me nearly as much as the decision to refer to the contaminated area of the planet as “The Zone.” Fans of Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1979 masterpiece, STALKER will instantly associate the two. This comparison is unavoidable and well…. This film certainly doesn’t benefit from any attempt to stack up against past science fiction masterpieces.

I ended up finding parts of this story to be problematic in other ways as well, in spite of obvious attempts to the contrary. The film, like many similar sci-fi works, appears to be making a statement about how important human connections are. This is a beautiful and true sentiment. However, we very quickly learn that the message was not meant to be applied to plutonic relationships. Sam’s long-distance, pen-pal romance has to end abruptly as soon as Micah shows up. Because, how can we as an audience assign any real value to Sam and Micah’s connection unless they’re sleeping together? This may just be me getting a bit too easily triggered but in recent years, it’s something that particularly annoys me. Cinema’s refusal to acknowledge the value or even possibility of plutonic relationships between men and women that has contributed to ridiculous male fantasies like “the friend zone” and Incel/MRA concepts like the “redistribution of sex.” But I digress… I may very well be reading too much into this. But their hook-up instantly reminded me of the incredibly stupid ending of Christopher Nolan’s INTERSTELLAR.

I’d like to mention a bit more about other issues that I found to be problematic, but it would be almost impossible for me to express this properly without spoiling most of the film. And I will admit, once a film like this loses me, I tend to nitpick it. The same issues that I found in the third act may very well have been far more forgivable in a different film. So, I’ll leave it alone. Ultimately, this was a disappointment. I am typically very precious about science fiction. The potential for philosophic or moral exploration and expression is too great to be squandered by lazy, clunky and pretentious screenwriting.

Emery’s Rating

2 out of 5 Stars

Fyre Fraud Review

By Emery Snyder @leeroy711
Director: Jenner Furst & Julia Willoughby Nelson

Starring: Billy McFarland, Ja Rule & Seth Crossino

Hulu Original January 14, 2019

“You lost a box of keys to $2M worth of houses???”

The first shots of the year have been officially “fyred” by Hulu in the war of streaming superiority. And although I’m sure the giant, Netflix will survive, this particular shot hit its mark with perfect accuracy and force. In case you missed it, Netflix has been airing a trailer for their latest original documentary, FYRE: THE GREATEST PARTY THAT NEVER HAPPENED, set for release on Friday, the 18^th. The film is about 2017’s failed exotic luxury music festival that eventually landed its founder, Billy McFarland a 6-year prison sentence for fraud. But yesterday, only 4 days before Netflix and without any fanfare or warning, in an act of beautiful disrespect to the streaming behemoth, Hulu dropped their own doc on the same subject matter. It’s very good.

The biggest thing that separates the Hulu doc from the Netflix film is the exclusive Billy McFarland interview. To be clear, this interview is not just a one-off tangential. It serves as the framing device for the entire story. He is a fascinating character and by the end of the film, you will likely be questioning your own judgement. He has a very specific charm. Early in the film, someone characterizes him as a “used car salesman”. I don’t find this to be a fair description at all. Used car salesmen don’t even come close to emoting the brand of apparent sincerity that McFarland seems to have mastered. 

The film seeks to marry today’s culture of social media “FOMO”, fake news and memes with the millennial generation’s susceptibility of con-artistry. The first 20 minutes or so are more or less dedicated to exploring the parallel journeys of Billy McFarland’s rising business ventures with the explosion of communication types and media. This new media age that we find ourselves in has created an entire new and lucrative industry out of little more than hype. Hype for hype’s sake that is created on the back of hype for the expressed purpose of

creating more hype…. And somehow, money falls out. The old man in me is screaming that this is not a sustainable business model. But then again, trendsetters, fashion icons and influencers like Kylie Jenner, Huda Kattan and Grumpy Cat don’t seem to be as concerned as I am with things like whether I have enough gas in my tank. Maybe I’m the one doing it wrong. And that’s it, this film seeks to explore how that insecurity can be exploited for grotesque monetary gains.

I’m marking down the film’s editing as a positive as well. Full of jump cuts to various memes and social media snapshots that do a great job capturing what was in reality, such a brief moment in time. It’s also full of pictures and video clips of McFarland and Ja Rule as they were planning the fated festival. Ja Rule decided not to be contribute to the documentary but unfortunately for him, that didn’t even come close to keeping him out of the film. He would have likely served himself much more by agreeing to be interviewed. At least he could have told his side of the story. In the age of instant, real-time documentation of a celebrity’s every move, it’s hard to claim any sort of plausible deniability after the dumpster “fyre” has already begun. It’s a bit of ironic poetic justice that the same mechanism that these people rely on for the majority of their wealth creation can so quickly be turned around to build an uncontrollable narrative about them.  

To be fair to Netflix, I don’t get screeners, so I have no idea how good their film is. It’s a great story and it’s in the hands of AMERICAN MOVIE and JIM & ANDY director, Chris Smith. I’m still a little interested in it but I think Hulu has sufficiently taken the wind out of its sails…. Don’t worry, they’ll be fine. It is one of 5 original films they are releasing on the same weekend.

Emery's Rating

4 out of 5 Stars

Stan & Ollie

Stan & Ollie

Dir: Jon S. Baird

Starring: John C. Reilly, Steve Coogan, Shirley Henderson, Nina Arianda, and Danny Huston

“The Dance of the Cuckoos” was the signature tune that played before all the films of the classic Hollywood comedic duo Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Their visual slapstick style has become the iconic calling card for the duo, but the team’s ability at crafting ingenious narrative setups is often overlooked. Stan Laurel, an Englishman, and Oliver Hardy, an American, worked on more than 100 collaborations, creating memorable and influential routines but also developing a lifelong dedication to their craft and ultimately a friendship that would last a lifetime.

The story begins in the summer of 1937, Laurel and Hardy are walking the backlots of the Hal Roach (Danny Huston) production “Way Out West”. They are Hollywood superstars at the peak of their career but their relationship with the studios, the dawn of a new era in filmmaking, and their complicated personal lives signal the beginning of the end for their companionship. 16 years progress and Laurel and Hardy are pushing through a tour in Newcastle and Glasgow looking for one final standing ovation for their comedy stylings. 

“Stan & Ollie”, directed by Jon S. Baird, takes a charming look at the later career of the two comedians. For fans of the comedy legends, the portrayal of Laurel and Hardy is impeccable. Steve Coogan gives a wonderful performance as Stan Laurel while John C. Reilly completely disappears, physically and emotionally, into the role of Oliver Hardy. It’s impressive how much detail was paid towards the routines and mannerisms of the duo, Mr. Coogan and Mr. Reilly absolutely nail the stage reenactments. 

The narrative composes an interesting character study that is greatly accommodated by the performances of Coogan and Reilly. Instead of focusing on the tedious nature of a traditional biopic structure, the film wisely takes the focus towards the latter days of the duo’s career. We get to see the years of resentment boil over, we see Hardy’s health decline with a heart condition that makes his performance on stage difficult, and we see Laurel’s frustration with letting go of the past and having to adapt to the inevitable future. This helps bring a melancholy sensibility to the typically joyous routines they performed. 

There are a few moments in the film that unnecessarily slow the pacing down, specifically when the film tries too hard to explain the complicated relationship of these two artists instead of trusting the performances which work so much better in showing the mix of emotions the pair are feeling as they realize that things will never be the same. Still, director Jon S. Baird does a fine job of turning a modest script into something much more genuine.

“Stan & Ollie” showcase the talent of a kind of comedy that has all but disappeared from the mainstream culture. While there are occasions when comedians will emulate a small piece of what these two iconic characters did so effortlessly, the style and grace of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are truly one of a kind. “Stan & Ollie”, with its impressive performances, honors the legacy of a unique craft founded by two comedy craftsmen.  

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00

And Breathe Normally Review

By Emery Snyder @leeroy711
Director: Ísold Uggadóttir

Starring: Kristín Þóra Haraldsdóttir, Babetida Sadjo & Patrik Nökkvi Pétursson

Released: Netflix January 4, 2019

AND BREATHE NORMALLY (Andið Eðlilega) is the Icelandic debut feature from Ísold Uggadóttir. But this isn’t the Iceland that most Americans imagine when we think of the picturesque island. It takes place in the industrial districts, shopping malls and shipping yards. The screen’s 2:35 ratio is filled by muted hues of the grayish blues and greens of the windswept landscapes and dilapidated structures.

We are introduced to Lára (Haraldsdóttir) a recovering addict and mother clinging to the edge of poverty by the string of government assistance when she is hired as a border security agent. The airport we see her working in is one of the few splashes of modernism as a set that we see. But her ends refuse to meet each other and very quickly, she and her young son (Pétursson) find themselves homeless and hungry, anxiously awaiting her first paycheck.

It’s in her first day of the job that we are introduced to Adja (Sadjo), a young woman seeking asylum from Guinea-Bissau. She is arrested at the checkpoint after attempting to use a fake passport on her way to Canada. It is in her story that we see more glimpses of an Iceland with a strong economy. The immigration courts and the offices of her case workers are looked at as a different world. She is quickly brought back down to Earth when she arrives at the temporary housing as she awaits her asylum case.

Both leads give powerful and convincing performances and together the contrast of the two personalities do well to balance the overall tone of the film. Lára’s frantic and manic paced movements and expressions are rudderless and at times, reckless. While Adja manages to face her fate with dignity and calm. And the way they eventually connect with each other over their similarities gives the relationship an equilibrium rather than a dichotomy.

The first half of this film is a rather interesting comparison of the two women’s somewhat parallel situations. Adja is risking her freedom in order to seek refuge from a country that persecutes those of her sexuality. Similarly, Lára is living as a refugee of her own economic situation. Both are holding their breaths, their destinies unknown and largely out of their control. I’m not completely sure what this contrast was supposed to be expressing or if it was fleshed out as well as it could have been. But, at least in the film’s first half, the trials and tribulations of our characters felt heavy and real.

It’s unfortunate however, that the halfway point is about when this film’s story begins to fall apart. The plot seems to heavily rely on outlandish coincidences in order to move forward. This happens in movies. A lot of films are just reasons to tell improbable and outlandish stories. But when this is done in a film that is clearly established in a gritty and realistic world, it tends to undercut its weight.

I’m going to end up a little more positive than negative for this film. For all of its flaws, it

was composed with the sure-hand that is not expected to be found in a first film. Its problems exist solely in its screenplay, and it likely could have been resolved with a few extra drafts. Its overall message is one of empathy and that’s something that we should be championing.

Emery's Rating

3 out of 5 Stars