THE GENTLEMEN

Matthew McConaughey    Charlie Hunnam    Michelle Dockery     Hugh Grant

Jeremy Strong     Colin Farrell     Henry Golding     Eddie Marsan

     It takes intelligence and wit to create a drama that successfully mixes satire with extreme violence a la Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Inglorious Bastards, and Pulp Fiction), and Guy Ritchie has done it here in giving us an entertaining spoof on the underworld of crime.  The characters must be colorful, are sometimes admirable, but do outrageous things and--most important—the script is key in smartly pulling it all together.  Ritchie, with co-writers Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies, has woven together a complicated plot that fits together like a jigsaw puzzle.  It requires the viewer to pay attention and keep in mind intricate connections and multiple plots.

     The center of the action is legendary Mickey Pearson (McConaughey), who has established a multi-million dollar business in drugs, with the key element being that his operations are all top secret. His astute second, Ray (Hunnam), is entirely trustworthy and runs interference for him.  Mickey is devoted to his gorgeous wife Rosalind (Dockery), who has her own automobile business on the side.  All is humming along smoothly until word gets around that Mickey is ready to retire and pursue the good life.

     Enter sleazy Fletcher (Grant), a reporter who has been sent by his publisher (Big Dave) to take Mickey down by blackmailing him.  How he is trying to accomplish his assignment constitutes the major action of the story, which involves one of Mickey’s upper-class peers, Matthew (Strong); “Coach” (Farrell), a petty criminal trying to rehabilitate young bad boys; and numerous henchmen with brute strength on all sides.  This is a “guys’” movie in which all the main characters have brawn and lightning-quick reaction times, except for a few of the bad guys, who are shown to be quite puny.

     Casting is a strong asset, with cool McConaughey playing the good bad-guy, Hunnam being the canny one who must figure it all out, Grant being the smarty-pants who thinks he has it all figured out, and Farrell in a gem of a character role in which he is a little like the McConaughey figure—good and bad rolled up into one.  Michelle Dockery goes completely against her Downton Abbey persona to be a smart woman who has come up from the sticks with a Cockney accent.  Maybe I’ve been too swayed by HBO’s “Succession” drama, but Jeremy Strong—for all his good acting skills—just doesn’t seem quite believable as the evil Matthew.  Other supporting actors like Henry Golding and Eddie Marsan are excellent.

     Although the film is meant to be an entertaining spoof about different kinds of bad guys in the crime world, it does make some canny observations. One is that it goes against the common assumptions that upper class implies honesty and uprightness, while crime is more prevalent among the lower classes.  Ritchie mixes them all up in this drama.  Another point illustrated is that all drugs are not the same; some really do destroy lives and families, and other normally benign drugs can be contaminated.  Still another is that honor (and dishonor) can be found among all kinds of humans and their endeavors, and that even hideous violence can sometimes be supremely satisfying.

     BTW, I was especially gratified that there are no car chases in this action movie. Vehicles are used in various ways, and there are car accidents, but the generally obligatory car chase in most action movies is nowhere to be seen (satisfied “sigh!”).

This is an entertaining action movie with plenty of brawn, but one in which different wits are pitted against each other in a cat-and-mouse game.

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland

TRIPLE FRONTIER

Oscar Isaac     Charlie Hunnam     Ben Affleck     Pedro Pascal     Garrett Hedlund     Adria Arjona

     It’s curious how this movie directed by J. D. Chandor (Most Violent Year, Margin Call, All is Lost) and written by Mark Boal (Hurt Locker, Zero Dark 30, Detroit) with Chandor as co-writer could have such a flawed plot.  The story is about retired special-forces operatives who are brought together around a scheme to get their hands on millions of dollars. The actors are top-notch, but the script has the characters making one mistake after another.  They are retired, but that doesn’t cause a person to lose professional judgment and common sense.  

     The set-up has potential.  “Santiago” (Isaac) has been living in a tri-border area in South America and learns of a drug lord whose house serves as a virtual safe to guard his money. Santiago has a strong code of ethics, which is the reason he is where he is, helping the police.  But he is discouraged when he realizes he has had little effect on the local community.  (BTW, The Triple Frontier refers to a tri-border area along the junction of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, where the Iguazú and Paraná rivers converge. Wikipedia)

     He comes up with an idea that would require the help of three of his old colleagues and the brother of one, who is a professional fighter.  He goes to visit each one with his proposal. The previous captain of their team, “Redfly” (Affleck), has split up with his wife and has two daughters who need to go to college, but he is an unsuccessful real estate agent, and wonders how he can swing it.  “Ironhead (Hunnam) and “Catfish” (Pascal) are in similar circumstances—none seem to have managed to make their pensions sufficient for their needs. Ironhead seems satisfied with his job as a military instructor, and he shows fondness for his brother (Ben, played by Hedlund), the fighter, who is asked to come along on the venture as well.

     Santiago has learned from his close friend Yovanna (Arjona) about the drug lord’s habits, because she is his trusted employee.  The retired operatives carefully plan a heist in which no one but the criminal will be killed.  They think they have thought of everything; but they haven’t, of course, taken into account some of their own personality characteristics and unexpected events that could occur.

     Every man except Santiago is reluctant and ambivalent about going, but in every case rationales can be thought of to justify their going ahead with the plan: Pensions aren’t high enough, they served their country selflessly in danger to their lives, and families are depending on them.

     Transportation is arranged, concluding with a boat that will take them out of the country and back toward home.  What could go wrong?

     Much can go wrong and does, with the result that what could have been a dashing, exciting adventure becomes frustrating when the esprit de corps that special forces are known for fades very quickly, especially under the leadership of a weak captain.  His major misjudgment in the house results in a chain of disastrous problems.  

     I always admire Oscar Isaac in a film; when he is on the screen, not only does he have charisma and a certain degree of mystique, but he knows how to convey trust in his moral decisions (e.g., A Most Violent Year), except, of course, when he is a villain (X-Men:  Apocalypse), and he does that well too.  Charlie Hunnam also comes across strong in this film as a numbers guy, but one with a keen sense of ethics and who maintains a close relationship with his brother.  Cinematography by Roman Vasyanov is an artistic aspect of the film to admire; the scenes of the Colombian landscapes and the indigenous families transport you to a faraway land.

     All things considered, I’m not sure who will see Triple Frontier in a positive light.  Neither the character Santiago nor the actor Isaac are enough to compensate for flaws in the plot and inconsistencies in the other characters. 

Triple Frontier is just too implausible to regard as a well crafted film, although the acting and cinematography are noteworthy.

Grade:  C-                                    By Donna R. Copeland

PAPILLON

Rami Malek     Charlie Hunnam

     Papillon the character isn’t like a butterfly at all (the name comes from a tattoo on the real Papillon’s chest); he is strong as an ox and has a stubborn sense of purpose that no amount of torture can break.  Henri Charrière (nicknamed Papillon), a thief, has been framed for murder, and is sent to prison in French Guiana.  He immediately begins planning for his escape, and wisely offers protection from the other inmates to bespectacled Louis Dega (Malek), a refined counterfeiter whom he has rightly guessed is not likely to survive prison, AND he has money.  Papillon makes his offer in exchange for Dega helping plan (and fund) their escape.  

     What will follow are infractions and at least four attempted escapes by the two men with various others.  They are always caught, and swift punishments ensue.  From the beginning, they had been told by the well-fed warden in a white suit that “keeping you is no gain; losing you is no loss.”  This is announced in the courtyard with a guillotine clearly visible for those who commit murder; solitary confinement is for lesser violations like trying to escape.  

     Papillon will undergo severe punishments, including two years of solitary confinement, then total darkness and half rations because he refuses to give up the name of the person who had sneaked into him a coconut every day for a while. Demonstrating his pluck—as he often does—Papillon insolently thwarts every attempt to make him turn. (He would be turning in his new-found comrade, Dega.)

     Papillon is beautifully filmed (Hagen Bogdanski) and scored (David Buckley), which helps offset the repetitious brutality and frustration of repeated escape-capture-punishment sequences.  Another compensation involves following the quirky relationship that develops between Papillon and Dega.  Both actors skillfully pull you in because they are so good, but also because their characters’ connection is nuanced, with Dega being ambivalent in the beginning, Papillon struggling with Dega’s dependency, but then ultimately feeling genuinely responsible for him.  (There is honor among thieves, apparently, and these two seem to develop a deep, long-lasting bond.)  Director Michael Noer has orchestrated well all the components to make this a worthwhile film to see.

     It’s a lesson in fortitude certainly, but with principles as well.  At times, Dega ribs Papillon about being the son of two schoolteachers, but although they weren’t able to keep him totally honest, they did teach him two important principles:  Don’t kill, and don’t leave anyone behind.  As Dega says in the preview of the movie, “That man risked his life for me.”

This film—as well as its 1973 production—is based on the 1969 autobiography by Henri Charrière, some events of which have been questioned.  The general consensus seems to be that 75% of the book is true (according to the author), and that much of the content derives from other prisoners’ accounts.  At any rate, this Papillon is provocative, and although it may be better (partly because of new technology) than its 1973 sister, there is still a question about why/whether a remake was necessary or desirable.

At base, Papillon is a lesson in principled fortitude, showing heroism even among (some of) the incarcerated. It’s a fascinating account that holds you captive.

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE LOST CITY OF Z

Charlie Hunnam   Sienna Miller   Tom Holland   Robert Pattinson   Angus Macfadyen

       A gripping tale about one man’s obsession to make his mark on the world by locating the remains of a city that may have existed in the Amazon Jungle of Bolivia from 200 A.D. to the 1600’s.  Percy Fawcett (Hunnam), a middle-class British man in the early part of the century, is trying to be recognized for his military service, but now, the Royal Geographical Society has contacted him. He had distinguished himself in college with his mapping skills, and the Society wants him to use these skills in the Amazon, where Bolivia and Brazil are quarrelling about their boundaries, by mapping the river that courses between their two countries.  This would be an objective way to settle the dispute and avoid war.

     Fawcett is an earnest young man determined to over-ride his father’s disreputable reputation.  The complication is that he is married and has a young son, Jack.  But his wife Nina (Miller) shares his ambition and is as caught up in the quest for adventure and fame as he is.  So she gives her blessing and even does research in the library to help his cause.

Fawcett will make more than one journey into the Amazon Jungle, have both peaceful and life-threatening encounters with the natives, deal with unpredictable members of his parties, have to put off his wife who wants to accompany him on one expedition, and deal with the criticism of his teenage son.  He is away from home when his last two children are born.  Still, even after serving in WWI, he burns to dream his dream and “to seek the unknown” and find proof of a civilization that existed centuries earlier.

     The story, based on a book by David Grann, which drew upon true events, compels your attention through a relatively long film.  It switches rapidly back and forth between Great Britain, the Amazon, and the war theater—necessary, but sometimes abrupt because of the ground it has to cover.  In the process, the viewer is engaged with the dream of discovery of the unknown, the personal make-up of Fawcett, his attachment to his family, his wife’s heroism and faith in him, the politics involved in scientific expeditions, the mysteriousness of native cultures, and, ultimately, the outcome.

     Director James Gray has taken David Grann’s celebrated book about The Lost City of Z, and produced an intelligent, fascinating account of Percy Fawcett’s adventures.  His work is brilliantly enhanced by the cinematography of Darius Khondji, a master of light and shadow, photographic effects, and storytelling with the camera.  Charlie Hunnam is exactly right for the Percy Fawcett character, and I sing praises for Sienna Miller and her depiction of a woman of strength and purpose who could still be a model for women today.  The performances of Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson, and Angus Macfadyen provide lively support.

     The Lost City of Z is an opportunity to broaden your horizons, appreciate the scientific endeavors of committed explorers, and indulge yourself in exotic cultural experiences.  It says much about commitment and the exhortation to dream.

You may be able to find yourself in The Lost City of Z, and if you do, you’ll be the better for it.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland