A Trip To The Movies: Review – Eli Roth’s “The Green Inferno” 9.27.15

If you had of asked me back in 2013 two years ago what my most anticipated horror film of the year was I would have said “The Green Inferno”. Unfortunately, it got shelved like many projects do back in the year it was supposed to have been released. This was incredibly disappointing for someone like myself who had been awaiting for writer/director Eli Roth’s return to horror. You see, Roth has been off the map for a while now, mostly involving himself in producing credits in projects like the underwhelming Netflix Original Series – “Hemlock Grove” (2013-2015), Ti West’s equally as disappointing “The Sacrament (2013), “The Last Exorcism Parts 1 and 2” (2010 and 2013 – which one could only imagine Roth made a killing off of) which were mostly dismissable efforts. In fact, the last really great project I’ve seen Roth involved in was his performance in Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” (2009). A film in which he landed a pretty considerable role in both starring opposite Brad Pitt as Sgt. Donny Donowitz (referred to as “The Bear” in that film as he always brandished a Louisville slugger baseball bat). What a lot of people don’t know either is that Roth also directed the black and white Nazi propaganda film – “Nation’s Pride” that was shown at the climax of that film. Going back was Roth’s most successful project – the first 2 entries to the “Hostel” trilogy (2005 and 2007). The first film I liked but didn’t love and the second which I liked only slightly less than it. But both of which I extremely admire because love it or hate it, between James Wan’s “Saw” (2004) and Roth’s “Hostel” which came out only a year later in 2005, gave birth to American “torture porn” in American horror. A genre that admittedly I admire but don’t gravitate to unless we’re talking about the films that have come out of the French New Extremity movement of the 2000’s. Films like “High Tension”, “Frontiers”, “Martyrs”, “Inside”, etc, to name a few. Had torture porn elements in them but reached for something much deeper in either making social commentaries on something, or spinning philosophical undertones in them. I consider these pictures to be smart, intellectual, psychological horror. Which is how I more or less felt about Roth’s two “Hostel” films. Going even further back was Roth’s writing/directing debut – “Cabin Fever (2002) – still my favorite of all of Roth’s films and the main reason why I keep chasing his projects from year to year, in hopes of him delivering something that’s even half as good as “Cabin Fever” was. Now come 2015, we see the release of his new (if you want to call it that) film that had been shelved for 2 years. His first writing/directing job since 2007’s “Hostel 2”.

Roth’s new film, which opened in wide release this past weekend and casts no recognizable actors (pretty incredibly considering it came out in wide release and was given very little if not any marketing at all). The plot revolves around a college freshman named Justine (Roth’s real life wife – Lorenza Izzo – an actress new to me but who will hopefully start popping up in more movies to come as her performance is great here) who becomes interested in her campus’ social activism group. As she gets more and more involved with the group she learns that they have been plotting a plan to take a trip down to South America to the Amazon rainforest to stop a company from logging thousands of acres and subsequently killing off ancient Native tribes. The activist group of about a dozen then flies to Peru, and starts their climb into the Amazon jungle, and begin the protest by dressing in logger uniforms and tying themselves to the trees that are set to be cut down. Their protest is somewhat successful as they get the attention of global news media but one of them almost winds up getting killed. After having come down to do what they do, and realizing that their activism could have had deadly consequences, they aboard a plane back to the United States. But their small charter plane gets into an accident and crashes (much like the scene from “Alive” (1993)- a film who one of its many themes is cannibalism) not long after their take off, and they wind up right back in the Amazon and into the territory of the ancient Native people, a group who a big part of their mission involved coming down to protect. It’s at this point, about halfway, and forward in the film where Roth starts bringing us the meat of the story, and things start to go absolutely bat shit crazy.

“The Green Inferno” was a highly rewarding experience for true horror fans like myself, and is the best work Roth has put out as a writer/director since the aforementioned “Cabin Fever” in 2002. Paying equal nods to “Deliverance” (1972), “Cannibal Halocaust” (1980), “Alive” (1993), and “Apocalypto” (2006). Roth here releases both his most terrifying and yet at the same time funniest film to date. It almost felt like it took the horror/torture porn elements of the “Hostel” series and added the comedic element that he combined so perfectly in “Cabin Fever”. When the activist group crashes and finds themselves in unfamiliar territory things go from bad to worse. And anyone that knows Roth’s penchant for going pretty out there with what he does with horror may understand how these subsequent scenes between the naive, upper class, mostly Caucasian college kids and tribes of ancient native peoples play out. I read a couple of blurbs of reviews prior to seeing this where many reviewers called this one of Roth’s more “restrained” films, and boy they couldn’t have been more wrong. The blood and gore factor is congruent with, and maybe goes farther than any of Roth’s earlier work. But what’s even more impressive is his ability to combine his trademark horror elements with comedy, expertly blending the two. It’s also a great social commentary on social activist groups, with Roth seemingly laughing at his own inside joke of what could potentially happen if some of these issues our American people fight for stateside were met firsthand if they were to actually travel to these indigenous countries themselves. Which makes it feel like more like an attack on social activism in general more than anything else. There’s a lot that people might pick out as being some pretty significant shortcomings of the film – it’s somewhat poorly acted, the editing is choppy, the film looks cheaply made, etc. Which is why the film has been met with mostly unfavorable reviews. But that’s not the point of an Eli Roth film. It’s to horrify and terrify you; while balancing it with underlying comedy. And as someone who has a slight hint of what to expect, it worked on several levels, especially in the middle section where the students are held in captivity. It’s a film that caters towards a certain type of audience like someone like myself who revels in full-blown horror. And for others who gravitate to this type of material I can assure you it doesn’t disappoint in what it sets out to do. In a year where the really only good horror film that stands out is “It Follows”. This is the next best piece of filmmaking that I’ve seen outside of it, and is a welcome return to the vision of writer/director Eli Roth’s earlier films. And solely because of that, I would recommend it but mainly only to die-hard horror enthusiasts, as almost anyone else might find this material to be a bit too sick and off-putting in its relishing of its pure unadulterated horror. Mr. Roth, I for one can say I’m thankful to have you back.

[B]

A Trip (Back) To The Movies: Review – “Boogie Nights” (1997) 8.1.15

The Portland Art Museum is showing a career retrospective of a writer-director whose work was single-handedly responsible in my formative years as a young teenager in my quest of developing my own vocabulary of film. THE Paul Thomas Anderson (who I still call by his original name). To others he goes by PT Anderson, or simply PTA. “Boogie Nights” and Anderson’s follow-up “Magnolia” (1999) I consider to be my generation’s “Godfather Parts 1 and 2”. I vividly remember seeing “Boogie Nights” for the first time after taking my first ever film studies class at the age of 16. While I liked it at the time, I could never imagine that over the years, as I got older and grew to understand it more (that and being infatuated with it from a film lover’s standpoint), the impact it would have on me. Like with maybe a dozen or so other movies that I hold in such a high regard as it it’s almost as if, through time and various re-watchings of it, I’ve developed almost a “relationship” with it. One that I mean in the utmost literal sense of the word. As I continue to grow older and time passes it’s become one of those films that when I revisit it from time to time, I get flashbacks from my childhood along with a constant reminder of why I developed such a deep appreciation for film in the first place. This screening of it was one of the most “special” in that it was playing as a retrospective honoring Anderson and his body of work at one of the most state of the art theaters in Portland at an auditorium that sits inside of the art museum. Not only that, but it was my first time seeing it as an adult with a meetup group I started (click on the link below the review for more details). All of whom are big time movie buffs, some even more so than myself, and I was interested to find out if it had the same kind of impact on them as it does and still has on me. Which became apparent with this viewing, my first viewing of it on the big screen since it came out 18 years ago (can you believe its been that long?). After an introduction by the museum’s curator, seated among a half to two-thirds 375-person capacity theater, the house lights went down and a feeling of euphoria rushed over me as I buckled myself in for the next 2 and a half hours. I’m guessing that most of you have seen the picture, whether it was in the nineties when it first came out, or like me, have continued to revisit it over the years.

So I will keep the synopsis brief. The story revolves around the adult film industry covering from the mid seventies through the mid eighties. Through the film’s incredible opening tracking shot through a nightclub we meet the film’s many colorful cast of characters (still in my opinion the best ensemble cast ever assembled on-screen). There’s the film’s patriarchal porn director Jack Horner (played by Burt Reynolds who won a deserving Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor for his performance), the matriarchal mother figure and porn actress (Oscar nominee for Best Supporting Actress Julianne Moore), porn stars Rollergirl (Heather Graham) and Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly), as well as a number of others involved in Horner’s production company of X-rated films. Buck (Don Cheadle), Scotty (Philip Seymour Hoffman), among a slew of other notable character actor’s who are interwoven into the story like Thomas Jane, Paul Thomas Anderson regular Philip Baker Hall, Melora Walters, Luis Guzman, Macy’s wife – real life porn star Nina Hartley (who scenes produce some of the films more funny moments). But at the epicenter of the film is Eddie Adams (aka “Dirk Diggler”) played by the relatively new at the time (at least in the film industry) Mark Wahlberg (still his best performance to date imo). Reynolds’ Jack Horner “discovers” Eddie one day and realizes he possesses “a gift” that could elevate both of their careers in terms of what he could potentially offer the adult film industry. That’s basically the setup. And the film goes on to explore Eddie’s subsequent rise and fall to fame.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s film is still just as relevant and influential as it was at the time of its release 18 years ago. And I’ll tell you why – first and foremost – it was the film to launch the careers of almost every actor involved in it (with the exception of Burt Reynolds of course). Mark Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Don Cheadle, John C. Reilly, Heather Graham, etc. It launched all of their careers and made many of them household names in the years that followed. It’s also the strongest debut from a writer-director (Anderson was only 27 at the time he made it) who would go on to be one of the most revered and beloved filmmakers in the independent film movement (second to maybe Quentin Tarantino). It’s one of the few films that has the PTA’s signature stamp on almost every shot of the film. The second thing I want to point out is that the film’s soundtrack composed of some of the best and most recognizable songs from the eras in which it portrays, really adds a nice component as it makes you literally almost feel like you’re living in the period in which the film depicts. It’s also one of the few films, at least to me, that perfectly represents the “rise and fall” genre of films, even taking into account films that preceded it almost in the decade before it like Martin Scorsese’s “Raging Bull” (1980) or Brian DePalma’s version of “Scarface” (1983). As well as it being a critique on the nature of celebrity with Eddie Adams’/Dirk Diggler’s rise in the seventies as a young up-and-comer (no pun intended) to his fall in the early eighties when his celebrity leads up to become a narcissistic bigot. A man so in love with himself that he doesn’t see the world crumbling out from underneath him. It’s a great character study with a spectacular performance by Wahlberg that’s only matched by Anderson’s pitch perfect recreation of the time in which he depicts. “Boogie Nights” has been embedded and etched into my memory forever, and from time to time will continue to pop up as it has over the years as a constant reminder of why I fell in love with film as an art form in the first place. In a film considered by many, including myself, to still be Paul Thomas Anderson’s greatest masterpiece.

[A+]

Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights @ Portland Art Museum’s Whitsell Auditorium

Saturday, Aug 1, 2015, 4:00 PM

Whitsell Auditorium
1219 SW Park Avenue Portland, OR

5 Portland Film Enthusiasts Went

The Portland Art Museum is doing a career retrospective of who is arguably one of the greatest directors in contemporary cinema – THE Paul Thomas Anderson. Starting this weekend with “Hard Eight” and ending in September with last year’s “Inherent Vice” along with a number of other different films from some of his biggest influences. Of all of them …

Check out this Meetup →

A Trip To The Movies – Review: “Slow West” 5.24.15

The American Western has taken on many different shapes since the days of old. The “spaghetti Western” that was made infamous by director’s like Sergio Leone in his “Dollars Trilogy” – “A Fistful of Dollars” (1964), “For A Few More Dollars” (1965), and “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly” (1966) starring the “man with no name” played by Clint Eastwood. Simply don’t seem to exist anymore. Sure Quentin Tarantino did his best Leone “impression” a few years back with “Django Unchained” (2012). But that was more or less (like many of Tarantino’s films – a throwback or homage piece that paid a nod to the Westerns of old. It was somewhat of a dying genre throughout the latter half of the 20th century. One of the rare exceptions to the case being the Clint Eastwood directed “Unforgiven” (1992). Which is arguably one of the best Westerns of all time. But sprinkled throughout the nineties we saw dud after dud like Jim Jarmusch’s “Dead Man” (1995 – a film that did and still gets more credit than it deserves as the only good thing about it was the Neil Young score), then another film that same year by another prominent director Sam Raimi’s redo of “The Quick and The Dead” (1995 – also somewhat of a disaster) and only a year later came Walter Hill’s “Last Man Standing” (1996). All three films, at least in my opinion, that were disposable and shouldn’t have ever been made to begin with. Then, about 10 years later, came somewhat of a resurgence within the genre, in John Hillcoat’s “The Proposition” (2005) that combined classic Western elements while also seeming inspired by and incorporating elements of the independent film movement of the nineties, and breathed new life into the genre. Two years later another film came out the genre, which again like “The Proposition” combined elements of 1990’s indie film but one that contained more “art house” components. A film that still stands as not only my favorite Western, but maybe my favorite film of the 2000’s, Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” (2007). Which in the opinion of this writer, is almost a “prefect” film, and an incredibly strong contribution to what we know as Western. Since then, there really hasn’t been much but a few slightly above average films (2007’s “3:10 to Yuma” remake, 2008’s “Appaloosa”). But other than those two, the Coen’s remake of “True Grit” (2010) and “Django Unchained” (2012), I can’t really think of anything else that really stands out.

“Slow West” is another post-modern take on the classic Western genre. Boasting a rather impressive cast of Michael Fassbender (pretty much anything this guy’s in you can guarantee is going to be worthwhile –  2013’s “The Counselor” excluding), young and up coming Australian actor Kodi Smit-McPhee (best known for his breakthrough roles as the young boy in John Hillcoat’s “The Road” (2009) as well as the central character in Matt Reeves’ remake of the Swedish vampire classic “Let Me In” (2010)), and lastly, an actor I’ve been hyping quite a fair amount of on this site as of late that anybody whose been paying attention would know, Australian actor Ben Mendelsohn, who I recently labeled “the best character actor currently working in the film business”.

The set up is a rather simple one. In 1870’s America, a young man by the name of Jay (Kodi Smit-McPhee) has traveled overseas far and wide to find the love of his life, Rose, who he was once acquainted with many years back and has made it his mission to find her and get her to marry him. However, this is the rough, late 1800’s middle America, where Natives run amok as do bounty hunters. Not necessarily a place for a young man traveling alone. He soon comes across and befriends a freelance bounty hunter named Silas (Michael Fassbender) who takes the young man under his wing and for hundred dollars, agrees to bring Jay to be reunited with his once love Rose. Silas has his own motivations and agenda for doing so, and even though he is one of the best at what he does, he also just separated himself from a ruthless gang of bounty hunters led by the notorious Payne (Ben Mendelsohn). As their journey continues the two men and the rival gang meet, mostly of the same reasons which I won’t divulge, but that ends in a climax that will have you taken aback in your seat by how everything before it winds up building to the film’s grand finale.

This was a strong addition to the Western genre that was unique enough on its own to recommend. I thought the film’s marketing campaign of comparing it to Jarmusch, the Coens, and even Wes Anderson was way off the mark. In fact I would say it shared some with Hillcoat’s “The Proposition” but that was about it. It’s a slow-moving story even at a running time just under 90 minutes. But it’s stylishly shot and well acted (by all 3 of its main leads, though with Mendelsohn in a minor part who doesn’t really enter the film until about its 2/3 of the way through). First time writer/director John Maclean seems like a natural for this type of genre and films the rugged sand dune territory of the midwest with a deft hand. I found myself marveling more at the film’s excellent use of location and framing during the first half, which admittedly I found a bit slow content-wise. As both Jay and Silas’ journey is somewhat of a slow-moving one (hence the title). But like another film that was released last year, Jim Mickle’s “Cold in July”, once the story picks up and the violence starts erupting it really starts to reel in the viewer. Many, and I mean many lives are lost along the two’s journey to find Rose. Culminating in one of the most exciting climax’s in contemporary Western film since the end shoot out scene in “Young Guns” (1988). This is a film, like “The Proposition” and “The Assassination of Jesse James” that presents us with something new and original and a nicely welcomed addition to the genre. That being said, the film felt a bit slight, and is really solely powered by its rather incredible ending. So while the build up and ending climax was highly worth the wait, I thought the wait didn’t necessarily need to be stretched out as long as it was.

[B]

A Trip To The Movies: Review – “Black Souls” 5.2.15

It’s becoming more and more apparent to me that there seems to be somewhat of a paradigm shift going on in the crime genre that’s been happening over this past decade. I referred to it recently as a “subversion” to somebody in which we’re experiencing a point in time in crime films where filmmakers themselves seem less interested in telling stories that are loud, overstated, excessively violent crime pictures made not to entertain by the stories in which they choose to depict but are more focused on the psychology component of them instead. The distinction can be made by looking at Martin Scorsese’s “Goodfellas” (1990) or Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” (1995). Both were monumental achievements that undeniably made their mark on cinematic history and often times are the two most recognized films of the crime genre outside of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Godfather” trilogy (1972, 1974, 1990), the first two who many consider to be the greatest crime films of all time. All films that ultimately were immensely successful and instrumental in terms of their influence on just about every movie to come out of the genre since. But within the past 10 years or so, there seems to be a stark contrast to those films within a new crop of international filmmakers coming out of the genre looking to explore new territory within it, without the typical glamour and style of the “post-Goodfellas” era crime film. Films like Paolo Sorrentino’s “Il Divo” (2008), Matteo Garrone’s “Gomorrah” (2008), Jacques Audiard’s “A Prophet” (2009 – still in my opinion, the best crime film made post-2000), and David Michod’s “Animal Kingdom” (2010). All seemed to be exploring new ideas of the genre by focusing on varied components and themes around different types of crime circles. From political ones, to ones that deal with crime as a way of life, to being educated on becoming a crime lord, to the decimation of the crime family, and how crime exists from a business perspective while living in a Capitalist society. These are just some of the themes contained within what I call the “new wave” of crime film. In where the characters and their depicted lifestyles are meant to be more cerebral and looked at as being flawed than the crime films of the days of old (once again excluding “The Godfather” trilogy of course). These characters and the way in which they live aren’t even remotely appealing or alluring, but rather sad and devastating. All of the latter films I mention exemplify this distinction quite well, and when I saw this film advertised and it being quoted as “the best Italian crime film since “Gomorrah””, plus my overall love for the genre, made it an instant “must see” upon its release here in theaters this weekend.

“Black Souls” is the based on a true story account of the real-life mafia clan (known as the “Ndrangehta”) out of Southern Italy, the Carbone family (nope not the Corleone family), who consisted of three brothers – Luigi and Rocco, who are involved in the business of international drug trade, and Luciano, who has escaped the lifestyle in favor of living in a remote mountain town herding goats while trying to raise an honest, hard-working family. Though Luciano has a son, Leo, who is a high school drop out and seems to want to follow in the footsteps of his two crime affiliated uncles, particularly that of Rocco, who the boy clearly seems to idolize. Upon hearing that his family has been defamed by one of their rival families, takes matters into his own hands seeking payback and in doing so sets off a blood feud and a series of tragic events that forces all of the family members to become involved.

This was a riveting, compelling, and brilliant entry into the crime genre by Italian director Francesco Munzi. Who seems to know his influences well but sets out to make something deeper with more of a focus on the tragic-like nature of the crime world and how it affects a family from generation to generation. It really does a great job probing into the minds of the three Carbone brothers, two of whom are totally immersed in the lifestyle and the other who took a much different path and seems to know the real truth and is willing do whatever it takes to save his son from growing up to be a criminal. The relationship between the young boy Leo and his uncle Rocco as is the sibling rivalry that takes place between Rocco’s brother and Leo’s father Luciano is expertly drawn out and feels believable and authentic, and presents the family’s quarrels both within their own and outside of as realistic and utterly devastating. Only three major acts of violence occur throughout the entire film, but similar to how I mentioned in my review of “A Most Violent Year”, when the violence erupts, packed both one hell of a punch and was unpredictable, as well as hitting me on such a deep emotional and guttural level, that at times I was borderline shedding tears. As I was really that invested in the story and so moved by the tragic events that unfold. Which I thought was the film’s greatest strength and a true testament to Munzi’s adapted screenplay and deft hand at directing in how it enabled me to be so invested in the story. From a technical point of view it’s very well done, especially in terms of its cinematography, lighting, and dark contrast between the urban city of Milan and the brighter Italian countryside. But what really did it for me was how the character of the farmer brother Luciano, a man who lives by a strict moral code and value system in trying to make an honest living, and in by knowing of the truth, winds up confronting himself in an ending that left me practically speechless. As far as current, modern day crime films go, this a very solid entry that will most likely will be overlooked but demands to be seen.

[strong B+]

DVD Review – “Big Eyes” 4.13.15

If you had of asked me a year ago whether or not I’d ever watch a Tim Burton film again my answer would probably have been no. In charting the director’s career trajectory, in the past decade or so, he’s made one “dud” after another. Becoming somewhat of a sell out. The type of commercial director that I usually try to stay as far away from as possible. Sure he’s single-handedly responsible for making some of film’s most iconic films ranging from “Beetlejuice” (1988), to what I call the Keaton/Nicholson “Batman” (1989), “Edward Scissorhands” (1990), to what’s still my favorite of Burton’s films – 1994’s “Ed Wood”. Since then, almost a full twenty years ago, he hasn’t made a single good film other than 2003’s “Big Fish” which I thoroughly enjoyed but mostly because it had that “classic” early Burton feel. He’s the master of the fairy tale and one could easily argue he created his own style and niche within the filmmaking industry. But following that film, he managed to somehow lose his touch, for lack of a better expression. Especially in more recent years with film’s like his atrocious “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” remake (1995) and “Alice in Wonderland”(2010). Amidst a slew of other “family friendly” films which has pretty much become his trademark at this point in his career. But even despite of my admitted disliking of where his career path has gone over these past several years. His new film, “Big Eyes”, looked like something entirely different outside of the current Burton universe that at this point we’ve almost come to expect from the director. What interested me about this film, and which was essentially my sole reason for seeing it, was the casting of its two central leads in both Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz. Both actors of whom I deeply admire. Then when I saw that both actors were nominated for Golden Globes in the Best Actress and Actor categories respectively, I decided with some apprehension to give the film a shot.

“Big Eyes” first introduces us to Margaret (played by Adams), a 1950’s Northern California housewife who for reasons that aren’t entirely spelled out, the implication is that she is unhappy in her current marriage, so she moves her and her daughter to San Francisco to start a new life for themselves. Margaret is a painter, and has a certain style in both form and self-expression that is both unique and singular to her. She paints young children that are sad and wide-eyed, eyes that look like over-sized jelly beans that like many artists, she seems to do for the love of the art form itself with no real particular desire for any sort of notoriety. It is by a chance encounter that she meets a fellow artist, a man named Walter (played by Waltz) one day while trying to sell her work. Walter comes across as charming, handsome, and very charismatic. She sees him as being somewhat well established within the art community. And before long the two wind up getting married. Walter takes on the role as art dealer, and encourages Margaret to focus solely on her paintings, and explains that he would like to team up as any husband and wife should on the path to what he sees as major success. Along the way we meet a rival art dealer (played by the always welcomed but underused Jason Schwartzmann), a San Francisco news writer (Danny Huston), as well as a critic for the New York Times (Terence Stamp). The couple’s career really starts to soar and take off. But there’s just one problem. Margaret finds out that Walter is taking credit for her work. And even despite her unhappiness with this idea of him accepting all of the credit from the art world, she continues to paint her singular style portraits, because she sees it, in benefits them both. Financially speaking of course. But as the popularity grows with her work, along does a sense of shame and fear that their “cover up” is not only illegal but a secret that as the film progresses, only becomes deeper and deeper in terms of its deceit and manipulation. Until Margaret decides to take action. Which is where the major plot device and elevation in story begins to take place.

The film contains more strengths than weaknesses but really doesn’t come across as equaling the sum of its parts. I’ll start by saying both Adams and Waltz put in two very fine performances. Both of which I see as totally deserving of their Golden Globe nominations (and earning Adams an eventual win). Though many critics see her win as a sort of “token gesture” in the year of Julianne Moore knowing that her performance couldn’t possibly be topped. To me though, who really shined here was Waltz, who has catapulted himself as being one of Hollywood’s finest, still somewhat new discovery (the guy’s won 2 Oscars since his breakout performance in Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds” (2009) ). He shows a certain range and depth here within his performance that is a perfect example of their being two sides to every person’s character. As more and more of his true character is revealed, the story itself becomes more and more interesting. A feat only an actor of Waltz’s stature could only pull off. The second thing I’d like to say about the film is like the early Burton films of old, he does an expert job in terms of the look of the film, transporting us right into 1950’s suburbia as he did with films like “Edward Scissorhands”. His use of framing and film composition makes sure that not one shot goes unwasted. Which for me personally was nice to see that he can still make a film that feels “Burton-esque”, utilizing his biggest strengths from a technical standpoint as a director. Which I haven’t seen in a long long time. The story itself is engaging enough and moves along at a steady pace, mainly because of its “can do no wrong” two leads. It had me hooked and genuinely interested in what was going to happen next. That is until the ending, where in my opinion the film loses almost everything that was built up before it, becoming both trite and predictable in its court room scenes of the exposition of the truth. I took into account that it’s based on a true story, but given if this is exactly how the events wound up transpiring, I just didn’t find myself buying in to the way in which the film was resolved. It felt too-textbook and lost steam in its last act. However, that being said, this is somewhat of a return to form for Burton, which reminded me of the days of old in that if given the right material and actors (both Adams and Waltz are dynamite) he can make a picture that still retains the strongest components of his earlier work. This is a movie I’m recommending simply for its standout performances. And if you can look past its mostly predictable and calculated ending , which I couldn’t, you might find somewhat of a hidden gem of a film that hits the mark mainly because of its two strong leads. That even given the the strong work on display, had my eyes rolling as the end credits finally came.

[B-]

A Trip To The Movies – “A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night” 2.28.15

I’ll just flat-out start by saying this was probably the most highly original, inventive, and exciting film I’ve seen to have come along in a while. In fact, had it of come out last year, it wouldn’t most likely have, it would have, landed a coveted spot on my “best films of the year-end” list. What’s so interesting about this film is that it kind of came out of nowhere. In fact, I don’t even remember how I heard about it. Since I really don’t read any film news/review anymore that’s not where I took notice of it. I do however somewhat regularly look at cumulative scores and saw that this one was graded rather highly. Then I saw the name of the title and it piqued my interest. And merely based on that and that alone, plus seeing a tagline that it was “the first Iranian Vampire Western”, I thought to myself well at the very least this sounds interesting. What I “didn’t” know while watching it is that it’s an American film. Even though all of the characters in the film are Iranian actors who speak in the Persian language and it’s written and directed by an Iranian-American filmmaker Ana Lily Amirpour who has lived in America for practically her whole life. Which is ironic because the film feels totally foreign, and different from just about any other American film I’ve seen, bringing us into a poor desolate land known as “Bad City” which feels like a world far, far, away when in actuality it was shot right here in the States in Bakersfield, California.

The film opens with an old man, Hossein, a heroin addict who seems to be at the end of his rope in terms of his addiction. The only saving grace in his life is the assistance of his son, Arash, who is at his father’s beckoning call because like most sons (at least that I know) does just about anything to save his father. Anyways, Hossein owes quite a bit of money to the local town drug dealer, Saeed (whose look seems to be taken straight from Ninja of the rave/rap African group Die Antwoord). Saeed takes one of Hossein’s prize possessions much to the chagrin of Arash. Saeed seems to be the focus of the story, at least for about the first quarter of the film, along with his hooker, junkie, drug partner Atti. But one night Saeed happens to stumble across a young woman, called simply “The Girl”, that follows him to his apartment, which in that point in the story it shifts gears completely and this “girl” or young woman of whom I speak of becomes the central focus of the story. What’s even more notable is that said woman is a vampire, who goes around town wreaking havoc but does so with a conscience. She seems to only prey on the weak, sick, and degenerate members of society. It is by this chance encounter between the town drug dealer Saeed and the girl whom Arash crosses paths with, which involves the major subplot of the story, one that mirrors the one from “Let The Right One In” (2008) and the American version “Let Me In” (2010). But don’t be fooled, besides the reference, it’s undeniably unique enough (not to mention they’re adults and not children) to separate itself from those films. It is through their relationship that the rest of the story unfolds, and all of the characters previously mentioned are reintroduced back into (or out of, depending on how you want to look at it) the story.

As you can probably already tell by my comments at the beginning of my review I absolutely loved just about every aspect of this film. There is just so much I want to talk about that I feel like I would be doing it a great injustice to leave any of them out. But for the sake of not writing a novel, I will try to keep it to just the key elements of the film in which I really liked. First off was its stunning black-and-white cinematography. I’ve always thought a film is better when shot in black-and-white. As it takes the viewer away from the color palette and allows the images to speak for themselves. In this film this approach works brilliantly as it’s maybe the best looking black-and-white film since as far back as I can remember. This format also gives this chilling, noirish tale a look of authenticity that works perfectly given the content of the story. It’s also about as stylishly shot from a design angle and has a look and sometimes feel of an old Jim Jarmusch film (especially in the hipster department). The cool, sleek, and cold feel and tone matches the images on-screen magnificently. Another thing I think is important to point out, is that for a movie with this much style (Quentin Tarantino came to mind for me at times) it’s also loaded with substance. The central story and the many shifts in character arcs make it completely and utterly compelling from start to finish. There’s also a great “meta-ness” to the whole affair. While it certainly is a horror film at heart it also combines elements of film noir, westerns, comedy, drama, and romance. All genres that are balanced quite well considering how dense of a film it winds up being. The last thing I think that’s important to point out is that there is scene after scene of sheer beauty that seem like they have the potential to be iconic movie history (an example would be the dancing scene between John Travolta and Uma Thurman in “Pulp Fiction” (1995) – but imagine not just one but several scenes like that). Which had me looking up the screen with a shit eating grin for practically the entire film, so engaged by the style, story, and characters that I had to pass up a bathroom break in fear that I was going to miss whatever was next. This is hands down the most unique, stylish, and fresh take that breathes new life into what is otherwise a tired genre, that being the vampire film. It’s only two months into the year and this one has already secured a spot on my top 10 list of 2015.

[A-]

A Trip To The Movies – Review: ‘Birdman’ or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance) 11.15.16

Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu is perhaps maybe the single most influential filmmaker on my becoming a film student and how I view film. More than any other filmmaker I’ve written about on this blog up to this point. I didn’t really get into looking at film as an art form until I was around 18 years old, in 1999, when I took a film class my senior year in high school that was being offered for the first time. I remember vividly the teacher telling us that first day that we needed to be prepared to “never look at film the same way again”. It was that same year I really starting delving into films by directors who would go on to become some of my favorites – people like Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, and Paul Thomas Anderson. To name just a few. Then, a year after, just when I was really starting to formulate a film vocabulary and started developing a taste in what I liked or didn’t like, a film came out by a young director hailing from Mexico City, Mexico named Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu called “Amores Perros” (2000). It completely took me by storm and seemed to encapsulate everything I loved about the medium that I had learned about up to that point. It had an multi-thread, interwoven script about 3 well developed central characters, all of whom were interconnected as if by a mere act of chance. It brimmed with energy and was explosively violent shot with an assured sense of immediacy at times (just re-watch the opening 10 minutes and prepare to have your jaw gape) while switching gears and becoming incredibly patient at others. But most importantly, and what Innaritu went on to continue to explore in a lot of his work to come following, it focused on people facing life’s ultimate challenges (2003’s “21 Grams” and 2010’s “Biutiful”) from all walks of life all over the world (2006’s “Babel”). And in by watching and re watching those films it’s almost as if I started to develop my own sense of “cultural language” in film. Because Innaritu was and is one of the first international/foreign filmmakers to explore universal themes that affect almost everybody on a global scale. So it didn’t matter if his stories were set in Mexico, the US, Morocco, Japan, or Spain. Each film had an undeniably human element to them which I really connected to and identified with. Though many Innaritu detractors complained about his films being too depressing, too dark, too grim, and feeling all a bit too similar, which I guess I always felt like I could see but personally looked at his films as something deeper and uniquely different from one another. Then enter 2012-2013, and reports started to come in from film circles that Innaritu’s next project was going to be something that fell more into the comedic realm. A total 180 from his trademark stark and bleak dramas. One that would be set in New York City and star Michael Keaton, an actor who I had almost practically forgotten about since his heyday in the 1980’s where he played Batman in the Tim Burton version (1988) and who I couldn’t recall having seen in anything since Quentin Tarantino’s “Jackie Brown” (1997). Though as was with any Innaritu film the level of excitement and anticipation for his next release was unprecedented.

The film opens to us taking a look at a levitating man (played by Michael Keaton), who seems to be preoccupied in some form of meditation. He sits in front of a mirror in a dressing room and has one of those internal dialogue monologues that give us some back story about who he is. A sort of has been once famous movie actor in a trilogy of films called “Birdman”. Soon after he is interrupted by his lawyer/agent (Zach Galifianakis) that his scene in his writing, directing, and acting in play is about to start, and we’re then introduced to a few of his actors (one of whom is played by Naomi Watts) as well as his freshly out of a stint in rehab daughter played by Emma Stone. An unexpected accident occurs, and with only 3 nights left until opening night of the play, he is forced to find a stand in. Enter Edward Norton’s character, who acts as said stand in, and who Galifianakis’ agent promises will double the size of his audience. Which his fledging play seemingly needs. We also meet his current lover (played by the ravishing Andrea Riseborough) and ex-wife (Amy Ryan). Can this be the comeback play his career so desperately needs? Or has his time come and gone and his resurgence as an actor be a complete and total failure?

“Birdman” winds up being a cinematic and theatre lover’s wet dream (as I so eloquently put it as the house lights in the theater and credits started rolling). It has more energy, more snap, crackle, pop, bang, and more ingenious elements encompassing it cinematically than any other film I’ve seen this year. It’s director Innaritu’s masterpiece and has some of the most confidently assured and inspiring camera work that I’ve seen from any filmmaker in years. The way in which he zooms, zips, and swirls around every corridor and crevice of the theatre in which 95% of the film takes place in, is nothing short of a revolutionary feat. He captures it with the utmost authenticity depicting what the theatre scene is like through filming it with a mightily and very impressively minimal amount of takes and edits which makes the entire film feel like one long tracking shot. Which is a true testament to the art and craft of theatre. As anybody who is versed in the both the theatre and feature film medium knows that the major difference between the two forms understands that in the theatre there is no room for mistakes. Which comes across in the film and gives it a sense of urgency like the theatre which is executed perfectly on screen. Augmented by the dazzling cinematography by Emmanuel Luzbecki, fresh off his Oscar win from last year’s stunning “Gravity”. The whole affair is also brought to life by the incredible jazzy sounding and bopping score by Antonio Sanchez. Never mind the acting and performances, all of which are exemplary, but particularly that of Michael Keaton, which is sure to garner him an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, and possibly put him in the frontrunner position to win. His borderline real life self-referential bravura performance proves to us all once again that actors don’t ever necessarily lose their gift, they just become older and are replaced by younger talent making it harder and harder to find a great script that suits them. And this character fits Keaton perfectly like a glove. Edward Norton is almost equally as impressive as a narcissistic, vain, and completely full of himself actor, also who’s aging, and who also seems to know underlying that his time is running out. Expect some awards buzz and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his work here as well as he is nothing short of dynamite. I also have a newfound deep respect and admiration for Emma Stone, perfectly cast here as Keaton’s post-rehab daughter/assistant, who really shines and proves why she’s considered to be such a talented and sought after young actress. Everybody in this rich ensemble piece really seems to bring the razor sharp screenplay by Innaritu and his writing team come to life. I could go on…and on…and on to talk about it’s satirical comment on the nature of celebrity and mental illness, dark comedic undertones, rich underlying symbolism, and ambiguous ending. But I’m afraid this would turn into something that looked more like a thesis than a film review. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu – you have finally made your masterpiece at 51 years old and 14 years into your career. With a film that should garner Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Director (Innaritu), Actor (Keaton), Supporting Actor (Norton), Cinematography (Luzbecki), Original Score/Screenplay, and Editing. This is hands down one of if not the best film of 2014. And a landmark achievement for both director Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu and star Michael Keaton. In a film that’s sure to explode over the next few months and catapult both of their careers into exciting new territory.

[A]

A Trip To The Movies – Review: ‘Interstellar’ 11.8.14

In what I considered to be the second biggest movie release of the Oscar season behind the already released David Fincher’s “Gone Girl”, the just released “Birdman” by director Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, Bennett Miller’s “Foxcatcher” (released next week), and Paul Thomas Anderson’s upcoming “Inherent Vice”. Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” was, well, just like any other Christopher Nolan film in terms of my anticipation for it which was very high. I remember when thinking back to the build up and buzz of his 2010 mind bender “Inception” and seeing a preview for it during the 2009 Oscar season; a full 7 months before its release date, and from that point forward I tracked its every move. From filming, to post-production, to the months that Nolan’s films get marketed (due probably because he is the most successful director post-2000 and one of the only directors (truth) that doesn’t need to pitch a project to a studio. His films are so profitable they will just write him a blank check right then and there on the spot). But what’s even more important to point out, is that not only is Nolan the most bankable director currently working in the business, but he’s also the most artistically inclined commercial director in the business (think early to mid era Steven Spielberg). His films, even in being big budget studio films, are always something much more. Films that are always challenging comes to mind if describing a Christopher Nolan film. He basically reinvented the indie landscape with his 2000 game changer “Memento”. A film that was just as influential on the independent film movement of the nineties than was say Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” (1995). His follow up, the surprisingly mostly under seen and overlooked 2002 film “Insomnia”, which was a bona fide crime thriller that was equal parts mystery and suspense. Then came his widely successful Batman/Dark Knight trilogy which were and still are solely responsible for changing the superhero/comic book landscape. What’s so amazing about those films is they set the bar so unbelievably high for every superhero movie to follow. There’s a reason why the sheer quality of the genre became better after the Nolan Batman films. It’s because everyone who took a stab at the genre following it used it as a template in trying to hopefully make a film like it. That and he made the trilogy dark and challenging. Something that had been missing from the genre in the past. Enter 2010 and Nolan is back with a film that he somehow managed to squeeze in-between the second and third Dark Knight installments, “Inception”, which as mentioned above, was a mind bender that proved that Nolan could make genre films that were just as successful outside of the superhero/comic book box, and once again, make something for the audience that was both thought provoking and challenging. A trademark of all of Nolan’s work. Skip 2 years after his last Batman installment, in which he chose to hang the towel after, and we have a new Nolan film. One that promises to bring us to mankind’s next step in the universe, while also hinting that it could be our last.

“Interstellar” first introduces us to Matthew McConaughey’s (in yet another great performance) character, Cooper, a former engineer and test pilot who now is a widowed family man with two young children and who lives on a plot of land in rural America as a farmer who tends to his crops as a means of survival. A wind/sand storm hits, and within it there’s a revelation to both Cooper and his family that the dust that remains on the floor in its aftermath presents them with some sort of gravitational irregularity because of the pattern of its arrangement. This leads them to a NASA compound run by Michael Caine’s character. He talks of some kind of wormhole that is circling around Saturn, and states that the only way mankind is going to be saved by the growing weather and agricultural nightmare that has befallen on them is to travel through this wormhole to set up new worlds in other galaxies. As life on earth as we currently know it won’t survive much longer. Cooper meets Caine’s daughter (played by the not always consistent but serviceable Anne Hathaway). Cooper is in charge to lead this new mission, while being employed to carry out another mission to find out what happened to another spacecraft who made an attempt at their same mission to travel through the wormhole many years earlier and merely vanished in space. Cooper takes on the mission, much to the chagrin of his daughter, knowing that it might be the single most important thing to help save mankind. Both he, Hathaway’s character, a geographer played by the under appreciated and underused Wes Bentley, a physicist, and 2 robots who’s names I can’t remember at the moment, but who both play an integral role, as they embark on their space adventure.

The film is a bit of an over-stuffed hodgepodge of different ideas and existential themes that are packed within its almost 3-hour run time. Now I don’t mean this to necessarily be a bad thing. It’s just of all of Nolan’s films to date this one feels the most substantial and headiest. Certainly his most challenging. For me personally, I always value substance over style. Which this movie has both of. However, I found it difficult to follow at times and dare I say almost found it too challenging. There was so much going on within the narrative that I often times was wondering if my mind wasn’t working hard enough that the movie demanded of me. Or if it was just something that was over my head. Whichever really was the case, I let that thought go about a third of the way through, around the 2nd act, which is when the space travel truly begins. And like the great Science Fiction films that have explored space and beyond. Films like Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), Philip Kaufmann’s “The Right Stuff” (1983), Ron Howard’s “Apollo 13” (1995), Danny Boyle’s 2007 “Sunshine” (which I found myself drawing a lot of comparisons to), and Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” (2013), it brings its own unique approach to how we look at space travel. Once Cooper and crew reach space, they go through a series of events that contain some of the most dazzlingly stunning images I have seen put onto film since Terrence Malick’s “creationism” sequence from “The Tree of Life” (2011). The first descreption of it that came to mind as I walked out of the sold out theater afterwards was a “visual splendor”. Nolan and his crew of special effects experts do a fantastic job at presenting us with some of the most spellbinding visual effects I’ve seen since James Cameron’s “Avatar” (2009). Besides the visual grandeur of the whole thing, it also contains a pretty authentic feeling and emotional subplot involving unforeseen time passing and Cooper’s 2 children, played by Casey Affleck and Jessica Chastain, both of whom are always superb as they are here. In what at points almost falls into over-dramatic territory, Nolan and his writing partner brother John seem to think to know their audience is much too intelligent to allow that to happen. So besides the gorgeousness of the whole proceeding, this subplot was what I found to be the second standout. It tugs at the audience’s heartstrings without feeling contrived or trite. Lastly, which was my one biggest criticism of the piece, and one in which I think I hinted at above, was that it felt a bit overwrought in the ideas and themes in which it presents. Like it could have maybe been dumbed down a bit (and I almost never say that about a film) as I can imagine a lot of people who see this film, like me, are going to be slightly confused at times by the sheer amount of material and shifts in story that go on within it. I can imagine a lot of people will preach knowing what they thought the film was about but having a hard time articulating what exactly that is. But like I also hinted above, if you can leave out that element of trying to follow every little shift in the story or scientific jargon that is spoken (which there is quite a bit of), you should find yourself sitting back and marveling at the eye candy and incredibly innovative space thrill ride that only someone of Nolan’s caliber of filmmaker can take you on.

[B]

*Also, as an added disclaimer – I can’t stress enough the importance of seeing this on the big screen. To not do so would be doing yourself a big disservice.

A Trip To The Movies – Review: ‘Fury’ 10.25.14

I’ve grown quite find of Brad Pitt as an actor in the last almost decade or so. So much so that I consider him to be one of the top 3 best working actors in the business. If you think about the list of directors and performances he’s put in over the past 8-10 years or so there’s really nothing you can do but just admire the guy.  Since 2006 he’s worked with Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu in “Babel” (a film he would go onto pick up a Best Supporting Actor nomination for), Andrew Dominik in 2007’s “The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” (still one of my favorite Pitt performances), both the Coen Brothers and David Fincher in “Burn After Reading” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” in 2008, to Quentin Taratino’s “Inglourious Basterds” (2009), to 2011’s 1-2 punch of both Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” and Bennett Miller’s “Moneyball” (the latter of which would see him garnering his first Best Actor nomination), to working with Dominik again in 2012’s “Killing Them Softly”, to Marc Forster in last year’s highly entertaining and surprisingly very good “World War Z”. And finally topping it off the same year with a small but memorable role in Steve McQueen’s Best Picture Oscar winner “12 Years a Slave” (which he would also win his first ever Oscar for Producing). Pitt has gone on to reach such a status in my eyes that at this point in his career I will simply see a film solely based on the fact that he’s in it. And I can only say that about a very few actors.

David Ayer’s “Fury” follows a lot of the same movie tropes as a lot of American made War films. It involves a group of ragtag soldiers who are part of a tank unit led by Pitt. The group is deep in German territory at the height of the Second World War. Where at the point depicted in the film, the Germans are taking the upper hand. Pitt and this ragtag group of soldiers (including an always reliable Michael Pena and Shia LeBeouf, an actor who at least in my eyes, is gaining quite of credibility since his “Transformers” days). Their tank comes under fire and it’s on the brink of breaking down, only for Pitt and his company to escape and then meet up with whatever little reserves that are left where they wind up geographically in the heart of Nazi Germany. One of their men faces an untimely death, and they’re forced to take on a young, inexperienced, and afraid soldier named Norman (Logan Lerman), with little to no combat experience as his replacement. Essentially the rest of the film is shown through the eyes of him as Pitt, his company, and “Fury” (the name of their tank) as they try and take over one town to the next in a series of truly visceral and epic battle scenes. In fact, this movie contains some of the best scenes of war, particularly that of tank warfare, that I’ve seen since the all too often overlooked and underappreciated 2007 film “Lebanon”. A film about another group of soldiers confined to a tank with no way out other than to fight for their lives.

I found myself totally captivated by this film and thought the war scenes and depictions of battle to me were not only thrilling but top notch. It’s essentially a series of one battle after the next depicted in the utmost intense and and sense of realism. It really nails the horrors of war and while I’ve heard one of the criticisms of the piece is that it’s simply too violent, I didn’t find myself necessarily finding that to be the case. It’s violent because this was a violent period in history where the lives of many men were lost. My second accolade has to do with Pitt’s performance itself. It’s reminiscent of old classic Hollywood actors like a John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart. So much so that at times I thought of Bogart’s 1943 War film “Sahara”. Where even though you know he is being depicted as this pro-American, patriotic, and mentally and physically strong leader. If like with that film you are able to overlook the stereotypes of the characters (which were intentional then and intention here) behind it you’ll see yet another bravura Brad Pitt performance. He totally envelops himself in the character which I found to be not only completely convincing but effective as well. Sure some of the men in his unit, specifically that of Pena and the other Hispanic man feel like blatient stereotypes. However I was able to overlook this because of the incredibly captivating scenes of tank warfare that had both me and the entire almost sold out audience I saw it with highly entertained, challenged, and brought on a visceral action packed thrill ride. Complete with what I found to be a brilliant closing shot “Fury” is one of those big budget, at first seemingly run-of-the-mill crop of American War films that turns out to be something much greater than it should have been.

[B+]

 

 

 

 

 

Review: ‘The Rover’ 9.7.14

Writer/Director David Michod’s sophomore follow up to his electrifying debut – 2010’s “Animal Kingdom”, which burst on the scene with the type of energy that Quentin Tarantino did with 1992’s “Reservoir Dogs”. Except whereas Tarantino was sensationalizing the gangster lifestyle, Michod takes an opposite approach, showing them as beaten down souls riddled with paranoia who have backed themselves up into a corner where there’s no way out. There was nothing attractive or alluring about the lifestyle of the gangsters depicted in “Animal Kingdom”. But much like Tarantino did, Michod essentially came out of nowhere, and made one of the better (if not the best) modern day films about crime families. Which he in turn caught the eye of many on the film making landscape as one of the most promising new talents to watch (hence why he got a coveted slot at this year’s prestigious Cannes Film Festival lineup of 18).

Michod once again finds himself continuing to explore themes that he did in “Animal Kingdom”. Themes such as the nature of violence, where it derives from, and the moral complexities that lay behind it. The loose synopsis is that we are shown the aftermath of what appears to be a crime committed that went awry, and we follow the 3 men who get away. During a shoot out they crash, and hot wire a car owned by Guy Pearce’s troubled, elusive, and undeniably ruthless character.   They just messed with the wrong guy. Pearce follows them for no reason simply other than to get his car back. While in the process, he discovers one of the men who didn’t get away and was left behind for dead, played magnificently here by Robert Pattinson (anybody who still think’s this guy is just a pretty face has to look no further than here to prove themselves wrong). The Pearce character then takes the Pattinson character under his wing, and goes to seek revenge against those that left him behind.

This an incredibly dark, gritty film where the violence is unrestrained and very explosive. One of the film’s greatest strengths, and a nod to Michod as a film maker, is in its ability to show such levels of extreme violence but only at very intermittent times throughout the film. And unlike Tarantino, who’s violence can across as sensationalized and somewhat exciting, Michod is on the opposite plane. It’s what I’d call restrained yet very serious violence. When a gun shot or a round goes off you can almost feel it. I also thoroughly enjoyed the film’s score, which had an almost off-kilter sound, similar to recent scores from Radiohead’s Johnny Greenwood that he’s done with Paul Thomas Anderson’s films since 2007’s “There Will Be Blood”. I thought its obtuse use of sounds lended itself well to the story of characters who are on the brink of insanity. It’s also incredibly well shot, using the Australian outback as almost a second character, as all of this violence abrupts amongst a quiet rural topography. Again, another effective tool use by Michod. This turned out to be much like “Animal Kingdom” another brilliant film. And proved to us once again why writer/director David Michod is a force to be reckoned with. I’ve already cleared a spot for it on my list of honorable mentions (#’s 10-20) which depending on its resonant staying power, could even stand a chance at cracking my top 10 at year’s end.

Grade: B+