Trumbo (2015)

Frank King: Wanna keep me from hiring union? I'll go downtown, hire a bunch of winos and hookers. It doesn't matter. I make garbage! You wanna call me a pinko in the papers? Do it! None of the people that go to my fucking movies can read!

Dalton Trumbo: [Presenting his new script to the producers] Oh, one problem though.
Hymie King: Expensive?
Dalton Trumbo: Worse. It's good.

Dalton Trumbo: He's threatening to put my name on it.

Dalton Trumbo: Many questions can be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only by a moron or a slave.

I'm going to push aside that the actual plot of Trumbo is substandard. Bio-pics often lack narrative structure, it can be part of their charm. If we fall in love with the performance, the character, the writing, and their overarching struggles, holes in structure, time continuity, and dramatic tension can be forgiven. And in the case of Trumbo, I forgive most of them.

Trumbo is really about underappreciated genius getting its due.. and both Dalton Trumbo and Bryan Cranston deserve serious consideration amongst the greats. My first introduction to Bryan Cranston was as the zany goofy dad with incredible back hair on Malcom in the Middle. Comedy is one of the highest forms of genius and Bryan Cranston has chops. I actually didn't know too much about Dalton Trumbo before seeing the film.  I knew he looked a little like Dr. Seuss in old age, smoked constantly, was related to communism, and wrote Roman Holiday. Thanks to this bio pic, now and I and hopefully many others know a lot more. To repecting true giants.

I'll take a moment to to go over the little things that I thought made Bryan Cranston's Trumbo magic.

• The voice
• consistent husckieness from tar build up is hard to replicate
• The effortless whiticisms
•  Writing a witty line is easy. Delivering a witty line and not making the audience hate you as a snob is hard. 
• The way one drinks and smokes
• In the film, Trumbo has a beverage in his hand most of the time and tobacco all of the times (like The Dude), and it is impressive to watch him subconsciously use these vices as an extension of his character. 
• The controlled look he projects when dealing with morons
• I've been told I do a poor job of masking my emotions when necessary. Bryan Cranston is a master of it. 
• Sheer genius
• The smartest man in the room, and he knows it. 

On a scale of a cracked facade to foundation mold, I give Trumbo 3.6 stars out of 5 stars.  

Dean O'Gorman please be in more things. 

The Danish Girl (2015)

"I've only liked a handful of people in my life and you've been two of them." -Hans Axgil

A beautiful and movingly melancholic masterpiece. The Danish Girl does not blur the lines of traditional gender roles and sexuality, it obliterates them. I would defy anyone to not empathize (at least a little) with the struggles of those outside of gender norms and those that love them after watching this film.  I also consider it a triumph of sorrowful film making.  Lots of films aim and succeed at productive happiness. Few films succeed at productive sadness. The Danish Girl is film that will not be forgotten.

I think the genius of The Danish Girl, beyond remarkable performances from Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander, is the use of color, texture, and landscape to create a palpable connection between the audience and the physical changes on screen. The velvets are rich and soft, the brocades are delicate and intricate, the oil paintings have depth, and the stockings are smooth and silky. This attention to detail sets The Danish Girl apart. In particular, the paintings of Lili and the Danish landscape set the film's sad tone.

I recommend everyone see The Danish Girl.

On a scale of Hot New Thing to Venerable Master, I give The Danish Girl 4.185 out of 5 stars.

Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

Crane: Wings of surveillance!
Mantis: Why do you do that?
Crane: Do what?
Mantis: Just 'cause you say "wings of" before something, it doesn't mean that you're doing a special move. It's like me saying "antenna of power!" or "thorax of... making sandwiches!"
Crane: Wings of disagreement.

Kung Fu Panda 3 does not live up to the lofty expectations of its forebears. It lacks good story structure, brings in too many characters, and all together presents a sloppy visual spectacle. This is to say that KFP3 is ok, but now the series is just another mindless trilogy.

On more grown-up topic, after watching KFP3 I expressed my dismay to a friend who rounded on me for not only bashing a kids movie, but for holding the first two films in such high regard. Perhaps,  he's right? I am too hard on KFP3. My review stands, but it turns out that 2-and-a-half decades of experience with children's movies and reviewing on this blog has left my soul juvenile, but with decidedly un-childlike tastes. I am no more fit to pass final judgement than to teach a high schooler how to use ''the Snapchat".

The most interesting comparison I can make is that of KFP3 to Return of the Jedi. In my comparison, Oogway is Obi-wan, Kai is Darth Vader, and the new panda villagers are Ewoks. The similarities are striking. With the final battle utilizing the inner skills of each panda to take down an overwhelming force. Couple this with the semi-confusing, but beautiful, battle between positive and negative chi forces in the spirit world and we have ourselves a reasonably solid reading between the two films.

I generally, don't delve into the morals that a particular film may try to impress on the audience, but in this case I will. I thought the moral take away for children was that each of you has the power to be great at anything by staying true to yourself and working hard. -pretty standard message. With practice, teamwork, and the application of selfless love, anything is possible.  However, upon deeper reflection, the entire KFP series has some pretty serious connections to Nietzsche's theories of the uber-man. Obey your master! There is but one Dragon Warrior who will lead us all to fulfillment. Should kid's movies really be touting a story where one flawed hero has innate skills and talents that make him a cut above the rest? The more I think about it, lots of films use this same structure.  Is it just easy storytelling or a conscious decision on the part the writers?

On a scale of mortal realm to the mortal coil, I give Kung Fu Panda 3 2.58 out of 5 stars.

The Big Short (2015)

Mark Baum: I don't get it. Why are they confessing?
Danny Moses: They aren't confessing.
Porter Collins: They're bragging.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. -Mark Twain

In a very strange equal parted mix of self (loathing, pity, and assuredness) a brash movie was made with no discernible plot, catharsis, or entertainment value; ostensibly released in the name of education. I give you The Big Short.

I have a background in education. I consider myself well versed in the power and limits of edutainment. Convince people they are not learning, and magically they do. So, I am baffled by The Big Short. The goal of edutainment is the same as a great con. The student is the mark. The mark has to think the idea is theirs. If the mark senses that an outside force manipulated and originated the idea, they resist. They learn nothing (mostly on purpose) and feel great about putting one over on The Man.

The Big Short takes the opposite approach. It brazenly attempts to forcefully educate its marks with glitzy stars and bubble covered women that speak at them. There is no discovery. New thoughts all originate from the source material. Thus, in a reactionary stupor, I defiantly learned very little and felt great about it.

But, I don't think that was the point. I think I was supposed to go home having taken in new information and critically look at the systems in place around us.  If that was the goal, EPIC FAIL. If it wasn't the goal, why make The Big Short?

In conclusion, should you wish to wallow in post-modern self-glorifying decay, The Big Short is for you.

I await the 3 part Ken Burns special on the 2007-8 financial crisis that will come out in 2040.

On a scale of introductory rate to balloon payment, I give The Big Short 2.43 out of 5 stars.

*The acting across the board in the film is first rate.

The Hateful Eight (2015)

"You only need to hang mean bastards, but mean bastards you need to hang." -John Ruth the Hangman

"Well, cut my legs off and call me shorty." -Chris Mannix

"It's the stew that got me thinking." -Major Marquis Warren

*I went to the Roadshow version of the Hateful Eight. My experience was, I believe, enhanced by an opening overture, an intermission, and a high quality color program.

I am an old man with old tendencies, old references, and an appreciation for classic storytelling forms.  In this sense, I loved The Hateful Eight. It was a jaunt into truly theatrical Agatha Christy-esque storytelling. "We're snowed in so..nobody be going no where. We'll have to find the killer(s) ourselves." What clues were left? Did I catch them? What do I think is happening? The personal effort is the rewarding part. Knowing the answer ruins the fun.

I feel that enthusiasts of these particulars are few and our numbers are falling. So the decision by Tarantino to film in 70mm and host roadshows makes sense. I enjoyed the intermission and the color program. They give audiences a chance to discuss, use the facilities, buy more snacks, and speculate, much like stopping in between chapters while reading a good book.

As to the movie, it hit all my expectations, no more, definitely not less. I have high expectations for a Tarantino film and was not disappointed. (I doubt you will be either.) As I see more Tarantino films, I understand that he makes his own films with no apologies. I like that. It also means that if his style is rather static...that's the way he wants it to be. If he wanted to make a wholesome 50's screwball comedy without coarse language or violence, he would, and it would be great. He does not.

With that in mind, the violence and emotional malevolence displayed by each character of the Hateful Eight in turn is astounding, and that we (me included) laughed at horrifying things is the ultimate trick of a movie master. "mwhahahaha -dance to my moral decay, puppets." And for his prestige, it turns out that the audience is a exactly the same or worse as the characters.

Finally, I couldn't help but make comparisons to the films of Yasujiro Ouzu. I know Tarantino to be a fan of Japanese cinema, and it seems that he used the Hateful Eight's setting to make pillow and snow landscape shots in keeping with Ouzu Sensei. They are beautiful.

On a scale of stew made with chicken to stew made with pork, I give The Hateful Eight, 3.87 out of 5 stars.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

"You're Han Solo." -Rey
"I used to be." -Han Solo

"We'll have to figure it out. We'll use the force." -Finn
"That's not how the force works!" -Han Solo

SPOILERS!

There are two sides to this review. (In keeping with the theme of Star Wars.) The Light and the Dark. Together the two sides of form a review in balance.

The Light Side

Up against incredible pressure and Everest level expectations, J.J. Abrams succeeds on basically all levels of film: dialogue, effects, story, acting, character development, information security, symbolism, circular referencing, heroic narrative, and on and on. It is a new Star Wars for a new age, and I loved it. Very seldom do franchise films succeed on such a massive scale both financially and artistically. These rare films should be enjoyed by all. I particularly see the Force Awakens as the inverse of A New Hope with some circular references to Empire Strikes Back. I cannot help but draw parallels between the death of Obi-wan Kenobi and the death of Han Solo. Their mutual struggles to turn their sons back from the dark side, and to reclaim their former glory form an elegant comparison. *They both USED to be called General, too. The lightsaber battles in The Force Awakens were more inline with classic samurai or original trilogy fight choreography than the lightsaber acrobatics on display in the prequels. They were emotionally satisfying as well as technically sufficient. Bring all this together with solid acting performances by the ensemble and a quirky script that added well timed laughter and you have the recipe for a great movie.

The Dark Side

The Force Awakens is not Art. It is not new. It is not exciting and it most certainly should not be mentioned in the same breath as the original trilogy or even the prequels. It is the ultimate pander delivered in its purest form. I understand the choices of JJ Abrams and respect him, but it is disingenuous to state that he was bold or visionary in his approach or concept for The Force Awakens. He laid up and delivered an incredibly crowd pleasing PAR, winning the tournament. (polite golf clap). This is a sure fire way to give the fans and Disney exactly what they want. Disney listened to what the fans wanted. They asked JJ to creatively execute to meet their needs. He delivered. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. This is stale and should not be praised as anything other than a well executed marketing plan.(One that albeit, I like. -It was made for me to like.) I now have greater respect for George Lucas. He's the Tin Cup of film making. Epic failures on all technical levels listed above (and those prequels are bad) are more worthy of praise than The Force Awakens. They risked all and are unique, uncompromising, and ugly. And in that they are beautiful. The Force Awakens risked nothing and is inherently compromised. And with that it is ugly.  We can no longer look to Star Wars for greatness, just old pleasing stories that offer no challenge and no reward. (Nice, Par.)

On a scale of 12 to 14 parsecs, I give Star Wars: The Force Awakens 3.75 out of 5 stars. 

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

"I'm a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. So, hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon, madam."- Harry Hart

It's interesting to see classic actors try to broaden their market value and abilities by taking on action/violence. In this case, Colin Firth. I like Colin Firth. (That man really knows how to wear a sweater.) For this opportunity, I credit him with being completely capable of kicking-ass with the best of them. However, for my part, I would ask him to consider carefully his ability and brand. I like that Colin Firth hadn't played a violent part until now. It made him stand out. Every other leading man held a gun; not Firth. Do one movie with a gun and violence. We can understand.  Do two or three, and Colin Firth becomes just another leading male with a gun. I, for one, would say let Colin Firth be Colin Firth. Take on true drama. Stutter cutely with a British accent. Wear more sweater. Take on action roles as suits you, but make them good ones. 

Kingsman: The Secret Service is bad. It is a rehash of a rehash of a used up idea. It comes complete with a silly billionaire super-villain portrayed by a white clad Samuel L. Jackson. It also is strangely and kinda inappropriately blase with sexual content. I am all for sexual clarity and openness. More sex less violence is my vote.  In contrast, Kingsman: Secret Service is crass and demeaning with its use of sex as humor.

On a final point, I will point out the long incredible career of Mark Strong.  His voice and acting talents are undeniable. My preference is for him to be cast as the villain, but that is a small distinction. His role of Merlin in Kingsman is not a good one. I consider him miscast.

On a scale of single breasted to double breasted suits, I give Kingsman: The Secret Service 2.7 stars.