ALIEN: COVENANT

Michael Fassbender     Katherine Waterston     Billy Crudup     Danny McBride

       This version of Ridley Scott’s Alien series is to serve as an origin story, explaining how the alien came to be, and following up on his Prometheus production (2012), in which the origins of humankind were considered.  Alien:  Covenant elaborates on that theme and lets us know what happened to two of the characters that were in Prometheus and are now missing.

     It helps to have seen the previous renditions of Scott’s Alien films before viewing Covenant because it explains the origin of the alien in the first Alien movie and some of the characters are referenced here, although it’s not entirely necessary.  This could stand alone as a sci-fi thriller in its own right, showing the dynamics of a group of people on a space ship for long periods of time, their encounters with another planet and the beings inhabiting it, and the fascinating subject of human-like robots in human society.  

     Captain Oram, taking over from the previous captain’s sudden death is an unsympathetic character who appears far too weak to lead such an important mission.  This character takes the prize for being the most annoying.  He has significant disagreements with Daniels (Waterston), the wife of the former captain and someone who is much more forceful in personality.  That she seems more artificial has less to do with her acting than with the script and direction.  The most effective and intriguing are the two robots both played by Michael Fassbender, on whom the whole story turns.  Fassbender is incredibly good at playing both, who are similar, but with subtle differences and very discrepant aims.

     Exploring new worlds—especially in space—takes courage, and in Ridley Scott films moral grounding as well, because ethical choices crop up repeatedly.  One instance of that occurs when newly installed Captain Oram (Crudup) finds that the spaceship Covenant is near a planet showing life and the possibility of its being closer than the one they’re headed to, to start a settlement, prompts him to want to explore it.  Disagreeing, Daniels reasons that that would put too many of their crew and settlers at risk.  The dilemma is one of exploration with possibilities versus caution.  Another instance of critical choices occurs when Mother, the space ship’s computer, warns of dangers in getting too close to a planet where some of Covenant’s crew is already exploring, the pilots disagree about whether to go ahead or not.  But the spouse of one of the pilots is down there, and he insists on forging on down to save her.  Director Scott regards these dilemmas partly as a means to excite the viewer, but to elicit a certain amount of agony of conscience as well.

     Fans of the previous Alien movies, will relish the appearance of the alien creatures in this film, their appearances heralded by an ominous bug entering the human’s ear or nose, then bursting forth in a bloody birth.  This takes place on the planet Oram insisted on exploring, and they are accounted for by the appearance of a familiar figure.  These encounters are the most exciting and frightening scenes in the film, culminating in a furious battle on the return ship toward home.

A very interesting account of the origin of the aliens in earlier pictures.

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE LOVERS

Tracy Letts     Debra Winger     Aiden Gillen     Melora Walters

     Breaking up is hard to do, and it’s shown to be so in spades for the couple in The Lovers.  Michael and Mary’s marriage is clearly on the rocks—and according to their son has been so for years.  They’ve reached a state of dispassionate regard for one another, neither seeming to realize that their partner is also having an affair.  But even under these circumstances, there is a lot of dithering about whether to go through with a separation or not.  And thanks to good writing and directing by Azazel Jacobs, suspense is sustained until the very end. Azazel’s story is an accurate reflection of reality for many couples today, so the viewer has no trouble getting into it and empathizing with all four actors.  On top of this, the film is also funny; you chuckle sometimes even when watching their misery along with their foibles.

     Michael (Letts) appears to be a very unhappy man, hating his job, and not showing much of an interest in his college-age son, all of which shows up as lethargy, forgetfulness, and misspeaks.  Mary (Winger) always seems preoccupied, worried, and tense.  Each one, however, brightens up when they’re with their lovers, Michael with Lucy (Walters) and Mary with Robert (Gillen).  Both lovers are putting a lot of pressure on the spouses to talk to each other, but so much has been unspoken in their lives and there is enough of their initial attraction to one another, that this becomes a real stumbling block.

     Tracy Letts shows the range of his acting skills in the character of Michael.  I don’t remember his playing someone quite as bumbling and inarticulate in his other roles, which are usually very authoritative (e.g., The Big Short and Indignation).  Here, he is able to look completely at sea.  Debra Winger captures her role as well, showing all the nuances of her emotions on her face.  Their chemistry as actors in all kinds of emotional states is readily apparent.  In their supporting roles, Gillen and Walters help enhance the whole production.

     I was puzzled about the costume designs of Diaz, which seem downright ugly at times.  For instance, some of Mary’s work outfits clash and don’t appear to reflect her position at all.  Even the young couple visiting Michael and Mary are really toned down.

     This film will likely be of interest primarily to those who have experienced divorce and/or a troubling marriage.  It illustrates so well the importance of communication among people who live together in a family, including the children.

An honest (including humorous) portrait of contemporary marriage.

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland

SNATCHED

Amy Schumer     Goldie Hawn   Wanda Sykes     Joan Cusack     Ike Barinholtz     Christopher Meloni

     The general audience is likely to get a big kick out of Amy Schumer’s new movie, although it is already being criticized for being racist, just based on the previews, and its damaging the travel business in South America by implying that it’s dangerous to go there.  I’m not a big fan of Schumer’s movies or TV shows, except for Trainwreck, but the same themes pretty much carry through all her work: Playing up sexy and trying for laughs from drunkenness, being cheeky, and shocking pronouncements.  Many people enjoy that kind of humor, but it leaves me neutral or even cold (as in the case of alcohol).  There were only about four incidents in Snatched that made me laugh.  One was a shot of Linda’s (Hawn) sculpture of a cat.  Another was when Ruth (Sykes, a gifted comedienne) is warning Emily (Schumer) about traveling in South America with her mother.  Ruth doesn’t believe it’s safe to walk anywhere outside the resort, and cites a statistic that one in four tourists is kidnapped, saying, “See, one, two, three (Ruth, Emily, Linda); someone’s missing!”  Still another was Amy doing a somersault to knock down a really bad guy who deserved it.  This slapstick kind of humor can make me laugh, but like many jokes on TV and in movies, they’re repeated not just once, not twice, but three times. 

     The fourth good-comedy moment was when watching the Meloni character, Roger, a “tour guide”, leading the two kidnapped women out of the Amazon Jungle.  These scenes are some of the best written in Snatched by Katie Dippold.  He is a three-dimensional character created by Dippold, and Meloni makes him come to life with subtlety and comedic timing.  I can also say that Cusack’s character of an ex-special ops agent who never speaks a word, is stunning in her actions—some acrobatic.

     As you could see from the preview of this movie, Emily is dumped by her musician boyfriend after booking a vacation in Ecuador with him.  None of her friends can go with her, and since she has a nonrefundable ticket, she’s so desperate she insists that her phobic mother (Hawn as Linda) go with her, arguing that it will do Linda good.  Emily throws caution to the winds when a handsome man (Bateman) flirts with her in a bar and she spends a drunken (of course!) evening with him, heedless of any cautionary information she’s been given. 

     Soon after, Emily and Linda get kidnapped while touring outside the resort.  Even worse, Colombian cartel men become involved, making it even more dangerous.  Schumer and Hawn put their dramatic and comedic skills into these scenes, and they are good; it’s just that the material they’re working from is formulaic for this genre.  It’s often over the top and just plain silly. 

     Music by Chris Bacon and Theodore Shapiro and cinematography by Florian Ballhaus enhance the beauty and cultural richness of the production, directed well by Jonathan Levine.

A movie that, despite its humor, alarms the South American tour industry.

Grade:  D+                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE WALL

Aaron Taylor-Johnson     John Cena     Laith Nakl

     There are some movies that make you wonder why they’re made at all.  For example, what is the reasoning behind The Wall?  Even though it’s about war, there is very little action, no heroics, and instead has a bizarre situation where an American soldier talks to an armed Iraqi citizen who has hacked into his radio system, is watching his every move, and has plans to sabotage a rescue.  The Iraqi is a schoolteacher who has good reasons to hate Americans and deeply resents their invasion of his country.  The odd part is his sadistic streak, where he keeps trying to engage Isaac (Taylor-Johnson) in a conversation about himself, his family, and the references made by Isaac and the other soldier, Sergeant Matthews (Cena) when they were standing watch to see if anyone was around a bombed out school, unaware that they were being observed.  In the contrived plot, the attempts at conversation seem solely for the purpose of taunting Isaac later with things about himself he feels bad about.  It’s a weird kind of psychological warfare resembling an interrogation that encourages the subject to reveal things about himself that may be compromising, and in this case, it is alternated with predictions of what the Iraqi is going to do to Isaac (e.g., peel the skin of his face and pluck his eyes out).  He constantly reminds Isaac of the power he has over him.

     Unlike the film Locke, where Tom Hardy talks on the phone the entire time while he drives a BMW, riveting the viewer’s attention, The Wall is tedious, nerve-wracking in a bad way, and shows experienced American soldiers behaving unwisely and hysterically.  Not that that doesn’t happen, but to show it without apparent purpose in a film with essentially only three characters…?  The dialog—when you can understand it, what with the sound of the howling wind, radio static, and actors speaking inarticulately—is sorely lacking in building up intrigue and interest.  Maybe it’s common for soldiers to use the f-word multiple times in every sentence just like gangsters, but I find that hard to believe.  Most of all, in a movie it is a waste of words that gives us very little information.

     My final beef with this film is the absence of background information about a mysterious man named Juba, an ominous figure with the appellation of “Angel of Death.”  Is this the sadistic figure who taunted Isaac for the entire film?  Revealing more about him early on might have made the film more interesting. 

     Whereas Aaron Taylor-Johnson was given high praise for his performance in Nocturnal Animals, I think the script has let him down in this production.  He did as well as he could with what he was given, but this is not a scene-stealing part like Ray Marcus, a real baddie on an isolated Texas highway.  John Cena is essentially wasted as the other main character in that he is taken out of the action early on and given very little to do. 

     This is a movie with potential that, unfortunately, misses the mark.  Director Doug Liman and writer Dwain Worrell will need to go a long way in creating a story that will engage audiences and have more meaningful content.

This war picture has lots of tension without excitement.

Grade:  D                                    By Donna R. Copeland

KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD

Charlie Hunman     Jude Law     Djimon Hounsou     Eric Bana     Astrid Berges-Frisbey     Aiden Gillen

      Do we need another movie about the Arthurian Legend?  Apparently, Guy Ritchie thinks so, because he has helped write and has directed this movie about the origins of King Arthur.  After opening scenes of intrigue and murder (which are only clear much later in the film), we see Arthur as a street kid brought up in a brothel, unaware of his lineage.  When his father, King Uther (Bana) realizes that he is in mortal danger from Uther’s brother, Vortigan (Law), who covets the crown, he secrets the child away in a boat, covered with furs.  When the boat arrives to its destination, the women in the brothel scurrying for furs find him underneath, and adopt him as their own.

     Arthur is a scrappy street kid, bullied but never bowed, and eventually gets in enough trouble that he is confronted by a sword in a stone near the palace of King Vortigan.  Unbeknownst to him, Vortigan, knowing he has a nephew who is heir to the crown, has done two things.  He conscripts all young boys to serve in his army so he can gain their ultimate loyalty.  He also knows that the Excalibur sword, lodged between two large stones, can only be withdrawn by the heir to the British throne, e.g., his nephew.  All young men visiting his castle are required try to pull out the sword so Vortigan can identify his potential challenger.

     Mixed into the story is a mage (Berges-Frisbey) who guides the reluctant Arthur to his rightful place.  She has special powers that can bring on a host of crows to attack the enemy, snakes that can prove the worthiness of Arthur for royalty, and so on.  But Arthur is probably the most reluctant hero in the history of literature.  Even after he successfully pulls Excalibur out of the stone he eschews being lauded for it and must be reminded continually by the mage that he has a calling that cannot be denied.  She has considerable powers, but in the end, she has to say that only until Arthur sees its importance to him on his own, will the sword be viable.

     Ritchie has produced an extravaganza that is redolent with medieval history and lore, and the special effects used to enhance the mythological experience are achieved by John Mathieson, cinematographer, production designer Gemma Jackson, and other technological specialists.  Some aspects of the film are not apparent in their value/meaning, such as the firings into the air that produce black clouds, and the mage not being able to save herself when a knife is on her throat, yet is able to overcome huge attacking armies.  She doesn’t have the power simply to fly away?

    If you’re comfortable with the Arthur character looking and sounding like a regular American good guy, you are likely going to praise Hunman’s performance as Arthur.  And I certainly laud his acting ability, but I think the role called for a more British kind of hero who does not look/sound so American.  That kept taking me out of the medieval mood of the film.  I also thought Jude Law was miscast as the villain Vortigan; he doesn’t convey sufficient evil for that character.  He is much more effective in the recent TV production, “The Young Pope”, where he is a bit devilish and unconventional.  Astrid Berges-Frisbey is spot-on as the mage, an occult seer to guide the naïve Arthur toward his destiny.  Aiden Gillen, Eric Bana, and Djimon Hounsou are first-rate actors who add considerably to the vision of this film. 

Of interest to those who do not tire of Arthurian tales.

Grade:  C                                    By Donna R. Copeland

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2

Chris Pratt     Zoe Saldana     Dave Bautista     Vin Diesel     Bradley Cooper     Kurt Russell

Michael Rooker     Karen Gillan     Pom Klementieff     Elizabeth Debicki     Sylvester Stallone

     The complex action, visually capturing special effects, dry humor, and honest human emotions that were in the first GOTG are just as present here.  Director James Gunn co-wrote the screenplay with Dan Abnett, based on Marvel’s Comics, with credit given to the creators of certain characters.  Tender or heated dramatics with Quill’s curious circumstances around his history help balance the story with ferocious, fast-action battles and the, sometimes, hilarious arguments between protagonists.

     To open, we see a snippet of Quill’s parents during their courting days 34 years earlier in Missouri, his dad showing his mother a special plant that has great promise for him.  Jump to 2014, and Captain Quill (Pratt) and his team [Gamora (Saldana), Drax (Bautista), Baby Groot (Diesel), and Rocket (Cooper)] are being congratulated by Ayesha (Debicki) for doing good work.  Unfortunately, there is a kink in the good will when she discovers that some of her special batteries were stolen.  Feeling betrayed, she and her army are on their tail before long, and when that is a failure, she hires another group led by Yondu (Rooker), Quill’s father figure, to join the posse.  Adding complexity to the plot include mutiny, the resurfacing of Gamora’s evil sister Nebula (Gillan), and the appearance of Stakar Ogord (Stallone) to remind Yondu of his going against the code and the reason for his exile.

     Of course, the pièce de résistance is the arrival of a weird-looking spaceship that no one recognizes.  Out comes Ego (Russell), claiming to be Quill’s biological father who takes him and his crew to his very own planet.  As expected, there will be explanations, exclamations, and struggles as Quill tries to cope with this information and his father’s plans.

     The combination of entertaining characters and their interactions with one another made this film for me, although I did enjoy the special effects, especially the stunning weapons greeting a group of predators who thought they had Quill and his team captured.  The flirtatious teasing between Quill and Gamora and Drax and Mantis, along with Rocket and Groot becoming friends with everyone makes this a fun view.  But it’s more than that; it comments on the human condition in a most entertaining way.

     Chris Pratt shows his talent in combining the traits of a hunk with a genuine, caring regular guy (as he does here and recently in Passengers).  Kurt Russell is on a roll with this, The Fate of the Furious, Deepwater Horizon, and The Hateful Eight; but this role seems more substantive, and should win him more deserved recognition.  As well, the rest of the cast adds color and depth to their characters, contributing to a remarkable film.  And I would like to underscore the artistic merit of the music by Tyler Bates and cinematography by Henry Braham. 

Delightful entertainment balancing emotional valence with impressive special effects.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

NORMAN

Richard Gere     Lior Ashkenazi     Michael Sheen     Charlotte Gainsbourg

Dan Stevens     Steve Buscemi     Josh Charles     Hank Azaria

     A fast-talking con artist, Norman Oppenheimer (Gere) never takes “No” for an answer and always seems to manage to get his foot in the door one way or another.  He dreams up more ruses for getting his way than any normal person could, always working on the premise that he can be of help to the other person—usually by introducing them to someone else.  He calls himself a businessman, but the exact nature of this business is never clear.  He whips out his ambiguous business cards continuously, urging the other to call on him anytime. 

     Through a fateful encounter that Norman exploits at just the right time in the life of one of his marks, Israeli Eshel (Ashkenazi), a strange friendship is formed, and Eshel remains grateful to Norman for an act of kindness even after he is elected Prime Minister of Israel.

    Norman continues to work his machinations on his nephew Philip (Sheen), a wealthy man’s aide Bill (Stevens), his rabbi (Buscemi), and Alex (Gainsbourg), an attorney in American-Israeli affairs.  He lies continuously, but manages to keep everyone on the hook, and occasionally is successful in his strategies to get people together.  But most of the time, he gets kicked out of homes, offices, and even the synagogue. 

     Much of the movie is uncomfortable to watch, as Norman spins his tales and we see him lying without compunction; but then, the story takes a turn when Eshel and Alex come to the forefront and the movie becomes a thriller, at the heart of which (surprise!) are ethical questions and dilemmas. 

   Which is more honorable?  To betray a friend in the interest of peace for millions of people, or to refuse to betray a friend, no matter the cost?  This rewards us for sitting through the extended set-up that appears at first to be a typical story of a con game, but turns out to be a study in character with ethical/moral considerations. 

    Writer/director Joseph Cedar (Campfire, Beaufort, Footnote), is not well known in the U.S., although he was born here, then moved with his family to Israel when he was young, returning at some time later to attend film school at New York University.  His Norman screenplay contains the elements one hopes for in this genre—three-dimensional characters, complexity and thoughtfulness in plot, intrigue, suspense, and just enough ambiguity in the ending.  His direction is sound in pacing, focus on story elements, and achievement of a unified whole.

   This may well be one of Richard Gere’s best performances, where he is almost continuously onscreen and must show subtleties in his character, convincing us of his conflicted goals and aspirations and, above all, revealing the poignant loneliness underneath.  In apposition to Gere, Lior Ashkenazi plays the experienced yet naïve politician whose goals are honorable, but needs forces of discipline close to him to keep him on track.  His compromise is worthy of discussion after the film.  I always love Charlotte Gainsbourg’s acting skills, and here she provides the mysteriousness and real threat needed.

     Norman is a bit slow in the beginning, but that may be necessary to adequately set up the intrigue and drama to come.

The art of the con and its sometimes strange and surprising consequences.

Grade:  A-                                    By Donna R. Copeland