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

HOW TO BE A LATIN LOVER

Eugenio Derbez   Salma Hayek   Rob Lowe   Kristen Bell   Raphael Alejandro

Michael Cera   Rob Corddry   McKenna Grace   Raquel Welch   Linda Lavin

       There are not many films with lovers 25 years apart in age—that is, with the man being younger.  But How to be a Latin Lover has not just one but two such couples.  Maximo (Derbez) walks and talks like he is God’s gift to the world, comfortably ensconced in his wealthy partner’s mansion, with maids running after him serving his every whim and constantly cleaning up his clutter.  He’s been a bit thoughtless in marking his anniversary, so impulsively buys her a sporty car, charging it to her account.  It doesn’t dawn on him that her knees wouldn’t allow her to sit in it, so it turns out to be a car for him.  But…to his shocking amazement, since he thinks she doesn’t notice his lapses, she quickly falls in love with the car salesman (Cera), and he is kicked out of her life.

     Maximo is in his late 40’s and has never worked a day in his life, so what to do?  Suddenly, he’s back in his modest childhood days when he calls on his sister Sara (Hayek), who doesn’t want to see him (they are estranged because he hasn’t bothered to keep in touch or even attend their mother’s funeral), but she grudgingly allows him to stay with her and her son Hugo (Alejandro) in their small apartment temporarily.  Maximo’s years of being indulged and not having any responsibility gets him into one awkward situation after another.  He knows nothing about family life, so devalues his relatives, seeing them only as means to an end, i.e., finding another sugar mama.

     He tries to get help from one of his friends (Lowe), who has a similar arrangement with an older woman (Lavin), but the two men get into a brawl when one betrays the other—another scene that is supposed to be hilarious.

     Most of the story deals with the bizarre premise that Maximo can guide his sister (an attractive widow who hasn’t dated in years) and naïve nephew smitten with his 10 year-old classmate) in the art of seduction.  But this is the one (only) thing in which he is an expert, and in the process of helping others, he finds the value of family.

     Significant mishaps occur along the way, with a script intended to be funny, and indeed, the screening audience did get a big kick out of it.  My own impression is that except for the young-men/old-women twist, not much is novel or particularly funny in this film.  It is the same tired theme of the infantile man somehow achieving his goals without earning them in honorable ways.  His only redemption in my eyes is his realization that he has let his nephew down and then tries to make up for it in a touching, meaningful way.

     How to be a Latin Lover has a good cast, and the director, Ken Marino, has created a particular kind of comedy that makes people in the mainstream laugh, but leaves those of us who want more substance, hungry.  

Hard lessons for a Latin lover to learn

Grade:  C-                                    By Donna R. Copeland

BUSTER'S MAL HEART

Rami Malek     DJ Qualls     Kate Lyn Sheil     Sukha Belle Potter

      Writer/director Sarah Adina Smith’s surreal production could only succeed with the force of Rami Malek’s portrayals of odd characters (e.g., Mr. Robot) who can mysteriously transform himself into different personas ranging from everyman to psychotic man.  Here, he is at least two characters—one, a restless night clerk at a hotel who is frustrated with a job beneath his intellect; and the other, a deranged “mountain man”, fleeing from the law after a traumatic event.  There is a lot to fill in between these two appearances, and it’s not always clear exactly what is transpiring. 

     Smith jumps back and forth in time (which I nearly always hate, but her aim here might be to keep the viewer guessing and slightly disoriented to identify with the star’s predicaments), so that we see Jonah happily married to Marty (Sheil) and reveling in his precocious daughter Roxy (Potter), but he’s feeling stifled and bone-weary from his job.  His social/political views help fuel his anger.  The family has moved in with Marty’s parents to save money for a plot of land in the country, and this is clearly stressful for all, and what brings Buster to the brink is the dawning realization that they may never fulfill their dream.

     One night at the hotel, a mysterious man (DJ Qualls) asks for a room, but refuses to give any ID or even a name.  He easily engages Jonah into conversations about a coming apocalypse called an “inversion”, heightening his anxiety and further prompting Jonah’s existential/political questions.  Eventually, Jonah tries to get rid of the man, and thinks he has, but…

     Other times, we see Malek as longhaired bearded “Buster” roaming around in the mountains, breaking into vacation homes, and running from the sheriff and his deputies.  Smith leaves us guessing here, as well as at other times, as to which scenes are hallucinations and which are real.  At times, I even wondered whether the Qualls character might be another of Jonah’s personalities. 

     Buster’s Mal Heart is intriguing, fortified by Rami Malek’s performance in television’s “Mr. Robot.”  Similarities between Jonah (“Buster”) and Mr. Robot are enough to enhance this production’s already fascinating value.  DJ Qualls gives the right amount of creepiness as the mysterious hotel guest to rev up the mystery.

Drama with tinges of humor morphs into a mystery/thriller.

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland

CITIZEN JANE: BATTLE FOR THE CITY

     Courageous Jane, taking on the influential leaders of New York City in the l950’s, made landmark strides in challenging them to take a different perspective on city planning.  The importance of the topic is noted by the observation that the scale and speed of urbanization from the 1950’s to now is the greatest in the history of cities.  Moreover, what we’re doing now will shape cities for years to come.  This documentary addresses the question of what constitutes a successful city and who it is who makes decisions about its size, form, and function, as well as who will live there.

     In the mid-20^th Century, two figures stand out as embodying the issue of city planning.  One is Robert Moses, a modernist New York City planner with grandiose ideas about what was possible, as well as strong beliefs about public housing and transportation.  His opposition included a cheeky journalist named Jane Jacobs, who contended that cities should be about people, public places, and neighborhoods that are inter-connected and accessible.  Moses championed the automobile and the need for throughways that necessarily had to cut through green space and neighborhoods.  And although he started out as a progressive wanting to address city blight and areas of poverty, he was looking at it from a distance—an aerial view, so to speak.  Whereas Jane walked the streets and made astute observations from which she formed her ideas about what makes a city vibrant and successful.

     To address the city’s poverty, Moses favored tearing down tenements (which he did by the thousands), “wiping the slate clean”, and starting all over again, eliminating the sidewalk culture and people clustering together.  He was late in realizing that this vision resulted in isolated communities, dead-end streets, and separation of work, residential, and recreational areas, along with residential sectioning based on social class.  Three of his most outrageous ideas were to 1) build the Cross Bronx Expressway, tearing up vital neighborhoods and essentially creating a wall between north and south Bronx; 2) build the Lower Manhattan Expressway, dividing it up like he did the Bronx; and 3) run Fifth Avenue through Washington Square Park.  Fortunately, because of the activists’ efforts, he was denied the last two ideas.

     Jane Jacobs expressed her opinions on city planning in one of eight books she wrote.  In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she questioned city planners (Moses’ brand was repeated in cities across the country) and countered them with her own vision of what constitutes successful cities:  Diversity in people, jobs, uses of streets, types of buildings, and the accessibility of all these to all people.  “Fit your plans to people; not buildings”, she would say.  One of Jacobs’ most fundamental beliefs about cities is that the city is a living, ever-changing organism, and we need to manage the change organically and on the basis of our observations, getting input from the people who reside in it, rather than taking a top-down approach to planning.

     The comprehensive, engaging documentary traces the early lives of Moses and Jacobs and the evolvement of their ideas and actions across the many years of their careers.  The cinematography by Chris Dapkins is extraordinarily good in lustrous black and white, eye-catching colors, and original footage from the time.

     A cautionary note at the end of the film is that what happened in the U.S. in the fifties, is now going on in China, where they are creating isolated developments without streets that are likely to become the slums of the future.

Citizen Jane Jacobs challenges the concepts of noted New York City planner Robert Moses.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland