It seemed like a good idea to watch movies and then wait a month or so to write the review...maybe 'good idea' is not the term I'm using now. Obviously, I am not going to go back and watch the 'older' movies, but I do want to review them. I will do my best to at least give you an idea if you might enjoy them or not. I have no doubt that this will not be a shining example of wit or anything else, but they can't all be winners.
3/17/17 Killer of Sheep, 1978, BBC #26, National Film Registry
Sometimes it's good for me to sit on a review and let the movie percolate in the old noggin, get some perspective. I cannot say that's the case here. Until I saw the BBC list of the best 100 American films, I had never heard of Killer of Sheep, that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot, but I like to think I have some familiarity with movies from the past forty years, especially critically acclaimed movies. I'm not even sure I can tell you what the movie is about; it's really a collection of vignettes, set in the Watts neighborhood in Los Angeles, focusing on Stan, who works in a slaughterhouse in Watts. The movie may be noteworthy because it was made in 1978 by a black writer/director, Charles Burnett, with an all black cast, telling a story of urban living. I wish I had more insight because I feel like I'm missing something. It has been very popular on Netflix because when I was waiting for it, it was always on a long wait; I finally got it from the library. I did really like the music, which may be ironic, because that is why the film was initially delayed, the filmmakers had not secured the rights to the music. I would say that if you are a cinephile or film student, you should check out this film, but you probably have already.
3/18/17 Hellboy, 2004
I was prompted to re-watch Hellboy after visiting the Minneapolis Institute of Art's Guillermo del Toro exhibit that featured a lot of Hellboy memorabilia and artwork. Del Toro directed and Ron Perlman stars as the lovable demon, John Hurt is his adoptive father, Trevor Buttenholm. Hellboy is part of a secret team that fights supernatural creatures. I'm not sure why the franchise wasn't more successful, there was a sequel, but only one (I think), there is action, special effects, a wisecracking hero (kind of Dead Pool, Spider-Man). It was fun to watch, and while I should have been working on 'the list', it was a nice diversion.
4/6/17 The Eagle Huntress, 2016
I have been recommending this documentary to just about everyone I talk to (about movies, anyway), and I will do the same here. The Eagle Huntress is a documentary filmed in Mongolia that follows Aisholpan, a 13 year old girl who wants to follow in her father and grandfather's footsteps as an eagle hunter. This requires that she captures her own eagle from a nest in the mountains, a bit risky. Aisholpan has an indomitable spirit and disregards any discussion from men (other than her father) that she cannot and should not be allowed to participate in eagle hunting or the annual competition. She's also still just 13, and enjoys being with her friends at school and wearing nail polish and ribbons in her hair. I loved so much about this film: the scenery was breathtaking, so breathtaking that I started researching holidays in Mongolia and Kazakhstan; the relationship between Aisholpan and her father is heartwarming, he never discourages her and doesn't succumb to the pressure of the other men, and he is openly proud of her; Aisholpan is charming and determined and a wonderful role model for young girls everywhere. Even though the film is subtitled, the action is pretty self-explanatory, but there is also narration by Daisy Ridley (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) which fills in the blanks quite nicely. If you'd like to introduce your kids to a) foreign films b) documentaries and c) a different culture, this is a wonderful movie to watch.
4/7/17 McCabe and Mrs. Miller, 1971 #16 BBC, National Film Registry
I don't know why, but I thought McCabe and Mrs. Miller was a John Wayne movie; to say that was incorrect is a huge understatement. It was directed by Robert Altman and stars Warren Beatty and Julie Christie. It is set in the West, and it has miners instead of farmers or ranchers, and a saloon. Beatty is John McCabe, a gambler with is eyes set on building an empire, with a brothel as its foundation; Julie Christie is Constance Miller, a Cockney woman of ill-repute. I have seen Julie Christie in a few films, and I thought her cockney accent was extremely distracting, and I didn't believe her in this role at all. This is another film that I don't get why it's on the best of lists. It may be me, I don't know. McCabe and Miller are successful running their brothel, but McCabe gets too big for his britches when he refuses an offer to sell his business to a ruthless mine owner, and that bodes ill for McCabe. I have found my like/dislike for Warren Beatty is hit or miss, and this is somewhere in between. There you go, my lukewarm review. Take it for what it's worth.
4/8/17 Queen of Katwe, 2016
The Disney film Queen of Katwe is based on the true story of Phiona (Madina Nalwanga), a young girl living with her family in the slums of Kampala, Uganda. Phiona and her family struggle to survive selling vegetables, trying to keep a roof over their heads, when one day Phiona walks into a center where children are playing chess. She doesn't know much about the game, but quickly and intuitively, she begins to learn, getting encouragement from Robert Katende (David Oyewolo) who runs the missionary program sponsoring the chess program. Phiona's mother (Lupita Nyong'o) doesn't like that the chess distracts Phiona and her younger brother, Brian, from supporting the family, but she doesn't realize that chess may also open doors for the children to education and a better life. The movie isn't a cliff hanger, there are no special effects or stunts, and you might think that watching a chess match is about exciting as watching paint dry, and in this instance, you would be mistaken. The matches are edited to highlight the drama and the tension, and I think it works. The movie is about Phiona's development into a competitive chess player as well as a young woman, challenged by her circumstances and, at times, her ego. Phiona is the focus, but we learn about her family, and the hardships they face, and the things we take for granted. Her brother, Brian, is a spitfire and a good chess player; her sister, Night, is rebellious and chafes under her mother's strict rules. This is another good choice for your family movie night, maybe start with this and then The Eagle Huntress; take your family on a journey to Africa, encourage your daughters to be anything they want, and that they are as smart as the boys.
Welcome to the best little movie blog in the world. Reviews of Academy Award winning films and anything else that comes to mind.
Labels
drama
music
national film registry
documentary
historical
family-friendly
action
comedy
foreign film
animation
moody
child-friendly
American Film Institute
biography
kid-friendly
classic
shorts
fantasy
science fiction
world war II
costume drama
BBC
super hero
mystery
military
westerns
americana
flashback
live action
ensemble
Jewish history
dreary
holocaust
epic
GLBT
silent movie
sports
French
television
Hitchcock
John Wayne
vietnam
boxing
legal
world war I
Gary Cooper
Paul Newman
horror
woody allen
spanish civil war
Joan Crawford
war
Elizabeth Taylor
religious
Greta Garbo
More 2017 nominated films: Nocturnal Animals, Moana, Passengers, Elle
4/3/17 Nocturnal Animals, Nominated Best Supporting Actor, 2016
I don't even know what to do here. I've tried explaining the movie to a couple different people, and while I agree the premise is unusual and original, I couldn't get past the opening sequence, hell, I can't even talk about the opening sequence without getting uncomfortable, and then I just wanted the movie to be over. AND, even after watching the special features, which explained a lot, nothing made those first five to seven minutes relevant. Anyway, the movie is told from two points of view, one is 'the real world' with Amy Adams as Susan Morrow, an art gallery owner, currently married to Hutton Morrow (Armie Hammer, although, truth be told, it could have been anyone) who has received a manuscript from her ex-husband, Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal). The 'real world' story is told in flashbacks, so we see Susan in current time, but also go back to her relationship with Edward. As Susan reads the book called Nocturnal Animals, the story is portrayed in the movie, with Jake Gyllenhaal taking on the male lead, Tony Hastings, who is driving with his wife and daughter (Isla Fisher and Ellie Bamber), who look a LOT like Susan Morrow, when they are harassed and practically driven off the road by a few rough looking guys, who have bad intentions. Tony's family is taken from him, and he needs the help of Detective Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon in an Oscar-nominated role) to find out what happened. The men become partners of sorts as they try to find out what happened and also bring the bad guys to justice. The film goes back and forth between reality and the novel, showing us Susan in her pretty unhappy life, seeming to think about Edward and 'what if?'. I thought the whole premise was very clever, and to me, whether you see it or not comes down to your personal taste; if I would have skipped the first 10 minutes, I would have liked the movie a lot more I think. Gyllenhaal was really good in dual roles; Adams, who I love, was okay, but it was Gyllenhaal's movie. Shannon was good as well, and lately, he has been great in so many different films, but the Supporting Actor category was tough this year. Director Tom Ford has thought out every detail, with all the little hints carried from the real world to the story world; the lighting to differentiate the two worlds. I don't know if I have ever done this before, but I am going to walk back my initial reluctance to like this movie and to recommend it (with my previous caveat). That's what happens when you wait a week to write a review.
4/8/17 Moana, Nominated Best Animated Feature Film, Best Original Song, 2016
I enjoyed Moana, I didn't love it, but I did laugh out loud at some parts, and I did love the Oscar-nominated song "How Far I'll Go", and I'm partial to stories that have strong female leads, and I don't think we've had anyone from the Pacific Islands. Instead of the more familiar Greek or Roman myths, Moana is the story of Polynesian gods and demigods and how the islands were created by Maui, a demigod, voiced by The Rock/Duane Johnson; as many gods and demigods from different mythologies, he loses his mojo and has to wait for an unsuspecting human to rescue him. Moana is that human, defying her father to go farther out to sea than is considered safe. Some of the funniest moments are Moana and Maui bickering with each other. They face adventures fighting off coconut pirates (true story), a giant coconut crab, voiced by Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) who seems to be aware of his Jamaican counterpart from The Little Mermaid, Sebastian. His few minutes on screen are pretty hilarious. Johnson's personality really came through even though it was an animated persona and Auli'i Cravalho was terrific both as an actress and singer, in fact, it was her singing on Oscar night that got me excited about watching the movie; she did a spectacular job. I just noticed that I didn't mention her until almost the end, and I apologize for that, it's probably due to the fact that I've written this particular review over three separate days, which plays hell with any train of thought. One thing that I did find annoying was the character of Heihei, Moana's pet rooster, who just seemed like the director/writer checking a box: cute, but dumb pet sidekick. If you're looking for a family movie, I suggest getting this from the library or buy it, if you're so inclined, and if you're really adventurous, perhaps you can find the sing-a-long version.
4/8/17 Passengers, Nominated Best Original Score, Best Production Design, 2016
My feeling after watching Passengers starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt was, meh. It was another movie with an interesting concept, suspended animation gone awry, but only for a few people, the rest are blissfully unaware, but I don't think it could decide if it wanted to be a comedy, a drama, a science fiction action movie or all of the above. A brief synopsis: 5,000 passengers (colonists) are traveling for 120 years to a new planet and they are in a state of suspended animation; Jim Preston (Pratt) is awakened by a mechanical error, and finds himself alone on the ship, well, alone except for Arthur, the robot bartender (Michael Sheen) and other android or virtual characters. In his loneliness, Jim comes across a fellow passenger, Aurora Lane (Lawrence) and he falls in love with her through her video profile, and has a debate with himself and Arthur about waking her up, and pretty much shortening her lifespan and guaranteeing she won't see the new colony. After a year of being alone, Jim wakes her up, although he pretends her capsule had a mechanical failure as well. So, no real surprise that they fall in love, it wasn't even that hard. They spend a year together, when Arthur decides that he needs to tell Aurora that Jim woke her up on purpose. This does not go over well at all, but their spat is interrupted by another pod malfunctioning, and Gus (Laurence Fishburne), a crew member waking up; the three discover that there are some major issues happening with the ship. Up to this point we've had a little comedy, a little romance, and now we get into the science fiction/action bit, when the ship is in danger of exploding, Preston is willing to sacrifice himself to save the ship, and Aurora. After watching movies like Interstellar and The Martian, my expectations are pretty high, and the few minutes of action/suspense, didn't do anything for me. I was disappointed with Jennifer Lawrence; maybe it was the script, but I did not for one minute believe she was Aurora Lane. Chris Pratt was Chris Pratt, smart alecky, brash, nothing terribly new.
4/11/17 Elle, Nominated Best Actress, 2016
I am not going to give too much away because you really have to watch this movie unfold, and I don't want to ruin it. What I will say is that with all due respect to Emma Stone and La La Land, Isabelle Huppert, nominated for Best Actress, was robbed, absolutely, no question in my mind. Huppert is Michele LeBlanc, an executive of a video game company, which if you know anything about video gaming (and I know very little), it's a pretty male dominated industry. Michele comes off as an angry, bitter, vindictive and controlling woman towards her son, her lover, her ex-husband, mother, really almost anyone. Honestly, I usually hate those types of women (people) and movies that feature them, which is probably why Netflix thought I would rate it 2 stars, but the Paul Verhoeven-directed movie is more complex and so is Huppert's portrayal of a very resilient woman. Michele has a dark past, although not a secret one, and it clearly affects her forty years later, especially in her relationships with men. Michele enters into relationships with men that at best are ill-advised and at worst, dangerous, but it's almost like she does it knowingly, taking herself to the edge, seeing if she can pull herself back. I haven't seen most of Huppert's films, but even if I didn't like the film, I usually appreciated her role in it (I have seen Heaven's Gate, Madame Bovary, 8 Women, Amour). The movie is graphic, violent and occasionally difficult to watch, but Huppert is really good, but the total flipside to Emma Stone's character in La La Land, that's for sure. So, it's not much of a synopsis, but if you like foreign films and the work of Paul Verhoeven and Isabelle Huppert, and a tense, unconventional story, I recommend this. But this won't be for everyone, and I won't be offended if you don't watch it.
I don't even know what to do here. I've tried explaining the movie to a couple different people, and while I agree the premise is unusual and original, I couldn't get past the opening sequence, hell, I can't even talk about the opening sequence without getting uncomfortable, and then I just wanted the movie to be over. AND, even after watching the special features, which explained a lot, nothing made those first five to seven minutes relevant. Anyway, the movie is told from two points of view, one is 'the real world' with Amy Adams as Susan Morrow, an art gallery owner, currently married to Hutton Morrow (Armie Hammer, although, truth be told, it could have been anyone) who has received a manuscript from her ex-husband, Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal). The 'real world' story is told in flashbacks, so we see Susan in current time, but also go back to her relationship with Edward. As Susan reads the book called Nocturnal Animals, the story is portrayed in the movie, with Jake Gyllenhaal taking on the male lead, Tony Hastings, who is driving with his wife and daughter (Isla Fisher and Ellie Bamber), who look a LOT like Susan Morrow, when they are harassed and practically driven off the road by a few rough looking guys, who have bad intentions. Tony's family is taken from him, and he needs the help of Detective Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon in an Oscar-nominated role) to find out what happened. The men become partners of sorts as they try to find out what happened and also bring the bad guys to justice. The film goes back and forth between reality and the novel, showing us Susan in her pretty unhappy life, seeming to think about Edward and 'what if?'. I thought the whole premise was very clever, and to me, whether you see it or not comes down to your personal taste; if I would have skipped the first 10 minutes, I would have liked the movie a lot more I think. Gyllenhaal was really good in dual roles; Adams, who I love, was okay, but it was Gyllenhaal's movie. Shannon was good as well, and lately, he has been great in so many different films, but the Supporting Actor category was tough this year. Director Tom Ford has thought out every detail, with all the little hints carried from the real world to the story world; the lighting to differentiate the two worlds. I don't know if I have ever done this before, but I am going to walk back my initial reluctance to like this movie and to recommend it (with my previous caveat). That's what happens when you wait a week to write a review.
4/8/17 Moana, Nominated Best Animated Feature Film, Best Original Song, 2016
I enjoyed Moana, I didn't love it, but I did laugh out loud at some parts, and I did love the Oscar-nominated song "How Far I'll Go", and I'm partial to stories that have strong female leads, and I don't think we've had anyone from the Pacific Islands. Instead of the more familiar Greek or Roman myths, Moana is the story of Polynesian gods and demigods and how the islands were created by Maui, a demigod, voiced by The Rock/Duane Johnson; as many gods and demigods from different mythologies, he loses his mojo and has to wait for an unsuspecting human to rescue him. Moana is that human, defying her father to go farther out to sea than is considered safe. Some of the funniest moments are Moana and Maui bickering with each other. They face adventures fighting off coconut pirates (true story), a giant coconut crab, voiced by Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) who seems to be aware of his Jamaican counterpart from The Little Mermaid, Sebastian. His few minutes on screen are pretty hilarious. Johnson's personality really came through even though it was an animated persona and Auli'i Cravalho was terrific both as an actress and singer, in fact, it was her singing on Oscar night that got me excited about watching the movie; she did a spectacular job. I just noticed that I didn't mention her until almost the end, and I apologize for that, it's probably due to the fact that I've written this particular review over three separate days, which plays hell with any train of thought. One thing that I did find annoying was the character of Heihei, Moana's pet rooster, who just seemed like the director/writer checking a box: cute, but dumb pet sidekick. If you're looking for a family movie, I suggest getting this from the library or buy it, if you're so inclined, and if you're really adventurous, perhaps you can find the sing-a-long version.
4/8/17 Passengers, Nominated Best Original Score, Best Production Design, 2016
My feeling after watching Passengers starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt was, meh. It was another movie with an interesting concept, suspended animation gone awry, but only for a few people, the rest are blissfully unaware, but I don't think it could decide if it wanted to be a comedy, a drama, a science fiction action movie or all of the above. A brief synopsis: 5,000 passengers (colonists) are traveling for 120 years to a new planet and they are in a state of suspended animation; Jim Preston (Pratt) is awakened by a mechanical error, and finds himself alone on the ship, well, alone except for Arthur, the robot bartender (Michael Sheen) and other android or virtual characters. In his loneliness, Jim comes across a fellow passenger, Aurora Lane (Lawrence) and he falls in love with her through her video profile, and has a debate with himself and Arthur about waking her up, and pretty much shortening her lifespan and guaranteeing she won't see the new colony. After a year of being alone, Jim wakes her up, although he pretends her capsule had a mechanical failure as well. So, no real surprise that they fall in love, it wasn't even that hard. They spend a year together, when Arthur decides that he needs to tell Aurora that Jim woke her up on purpose. This does not go over well at all, but their spat is interrupted by another pod malfunctioning, and Gus (Laurence Fishburne), a crew member waking up; the three discover that there are some major issues happening with the ship. Up to this point we've had a little comedy, a little romance, and now we get into the science fiction/action bit, when the ship is in danger of exploding, Preston is willing to sacrifice himself to save the ship, and Aurora. After watching movies like Interstellar and The Martian, my expectations are pretty high, and the few minutes of action/suspense, didn't do anything for me. I was disappointed with Jennifer Lawrence; maybe it was the script, but I did not for one minute believe she was Aurora Lane. Chris Pratt was Chris Pratt, smart alecky, brash, nothing terribly new.
4/11/17 Elle, Nominated Best Actress, 2016
I am not going to give too much away because you really have to watch this movie unfold, and I don't want to ruin it. What I will say is that with all due respect to Emma Stone and La La Land, Isabelle Huppert, nominated for Best Actress, was robbed, absolutely, no question in my mind. Huppert is Michele LeBlanc, an executive of a video game company, which if you know anything about video gaming (and I know very little), it's a pretty male dominated industry. Michele comes off as an angry, bitter, vindictive and controlling woman towards her son, her lover, her ex-husband, mother, really almost anyone. Honestly, I usually hate those types of women (people) and movies that feature them, which is probably why Netflix thought I would rate it 2 stars, but the Paul Verhoeven-directed movie is more complex and so is Huppert's portrayal of a very resilient woman. Michele has a dark past, although not a secret one, and it clearly affects her forty years later, especially in her relationships with men. Michele enters into relationships with men that at best are ill-advised and at worst, dangerous, but it's almost like she does it knowingly, taking herself to the edge, seeing if she can pull herself back. I haven't seen most of Huppert's films, but even if I didn't like the film, I usually appreciated her role in it (I have seen Heaven's Gate, Madame Bovary, 8 Women, Amour). The movie is graphic, violent and occasionally difficult to watch, but Huppert is really good, but the total flipside to Emma Stone's character in La La Land, that's for sure. So, it's not much of a synopsis, but if you like foreign films and the work of Paul Verhoeven and Isabelle Huppert, and a tense, unconventional story, I recommend this. But this won't be for everyone, and I won't be offended if you don't watch it.
2017 Oscar nominees: Trolls, Allied, Loving and Fire at Sea
3/12/17 Trolls, nominated Best Song, 2016
I am pretty sure I was not the target demographic for this movie, and I'm just as sure my feelings weren't helped by watching it at 1:00 in the morning. But, I needed to get it back to the library and it seemed like a good idea at the time. I can't even really explain the premise of this animated, soon to be franchise, but here's a brief attempt: the Trolls are good and happy and they are hiding from the Bergens, who are mean and grumpy, but eat Trolls once a year to be happy. Yeah. Voices are provided by Justin Timberlake, Anna Kendrick, Zooey Deschanel and a cast of dozens; it seemed like the director/writers were trying to pack in as many 'top' or hot voices as possible, even if it was for only one line. The music was great; remakes of many 1970s and 1980s hits: "Sound of Silence" by Paul Simon; "Hello" by Lionel Richie, "September" by Earth, Wind and Fire (all the songs have been adapted/remade) and the Oscar-nominated song "Can't Stop the Feeling", which was so much better live and on the Oscars. I can't give you any more of a synopsis, because I stopped caring.
3/18/17 Allied, nominated Best Costume Design, 2016
I am pretty sure I was not the target demographic for this movie, and I'm just as sure my feelings weren't helped by watching it at 1:00 in the morning. But, I needed to get it back to the library and it seemed like a good idea at the time. I can't even really explain the premise of this animated, soon to be franchise, but here's a brief attempt: the Trolls are good and happy and they are hiding from the Bergens, who are mean and grumpy, but eat Trolls once a year to be happy. Yeah. Voices are provided by Justin Timberlake, Anna Kendrick, Zooey Deschanel and a cast of dozens; it seemed like the director/writers were trying to pack in as many 'top' or hot voices as possible, even if it was for only one line. The music was great; remakes of many 1970s and 1980s hits: "Sound of Silence" by Paul Simon; "Hello" by Lionel Richie, "September" by Earth, Wind and Fire (all the songs have been adapted/remade) and the Oscar-nominated song "Can't Stop the Feeling", which was so much better live and on the Oscars. I can't give you any more of a synopsis, because I stopped caring.
3/18/17 Allied, nominated Best Costume Design, 2016
I feel like I should have enjoyed Allied a lot more than I did: a drama set in World War II with an element of mystery, but it fell short somehow. Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard star as Max Vatan and Marianne Beausejour; Max is a Canadian intelligence officer who falls in love with Marianne, a member of the French Resistance as they participate in a dangerous mission in Casablanca. They get move to London, get married and have a baby. Something about Marianne doesn't sit right with Max's bosses in the intelligence branch, and they think she is working for the Germans as a spy. Max, determined to protect the woman he loves, starts to dig into Marianne's past, and is shaken by what he finds, and what his duty requires him to do. I think I would have liked more suspense and intrigue; for me, it came too little and too late. I usually love Cotillard (Two Days, One Night and La Vie en Rose), and I liked her here, but there were moments when her performance seemed forced. Pitt was good, as well, and the two had a chemistry, but...I don't know if it was the writing by Steven Knight or the direction of Robert Zemeckis, but I think a good opportunity was lost. It's not a terrible movie, just not as good as I hoped.
3/19/17 Loving, nominated Best Actress, 2016
This is a hard review to write, because I think the story of Richard and Mildred Loving is an important one in our nation's civil rights history, and I liked the movie, but it's a subtle, modest, quiet movie, and I'm not sure many people rush to the theaters to see those movies anymore, or at least not as much as they used to. Some of this country's most important moments have come about because of ordinary people trying to live their lives, even if it's against the current 'norms'; Rosa Parks, Annie Lee Cooper and the Lovings. Joel Edgerton plays Richard Loving and Ruth Negga (in an Oscar-nominated role) plays his wife, Mildred Loving. Richard is white and Ruth is black, and in 1950s Virginia, they are having an illegal relationship; they go to Washington, D.C., where they can legally be married, but come back home to Virginia where they are arrested in the middle of the night. The Lovings move to Washington, but Ruth misses the open spaces of home where she wants their children to play, and they move back, but they have to hide. Eventually, the law finds them, and arrests them again, harassing them, until Ruth writes to Attorney General Robert Kennedy and he recommends the American Civil Liberties Union to help them. The case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1967. The Lovings both seem to be quiet and private people, even their 'opposition' in the form of the sheriff isn't as violent and explosive as he could have been, like in Mississippi Burning. There is really only one moment where Richard seems out of character, and it's after a night of drinking with his brothers-in-law and friends (all black), and one of the men says to him (my paraphrasing) 'You're not black. You can go back to being white if you get a divorce'. Richard doesn't say anything at the time, but the next scene is him at home, drunk, crying, telling Mildred that he can take care of her. It broke my heart. All he wanted was to be with the woman he loved, raise their children and take care of his family. There is a quiet strength in Mildred, and at times, she seems to be the one holding everything together. When I was telling people about the movie after I watched it, I made the comparison to Selma, another Civil Rights movie, but on a larger scale, with big marches, riots, speeches, big, impactful scenes, and you needed that movie for that event, and people went to see the movie, and it won a lot of awards. Loving, as I've mentioned, was a quiet film, and maybe for that reason, not a lot of people saw it in the theaters. And I think that's a damned shame. The dignity and strength that these two people embodied should have more of a celebration (although June 12 is known as Loving Day, the day of the Supreme Court decision), and hopefully the film will experience a new life on television and in schools (there is virtually no violence or profanity that I can recall). Ruth Negga was up against a pretty tough cast of characters for Best Actress, and the lack of fanfare around the film probably didn't help her odds, but doesn't diminish her role or the film in any way.
3/22/17 Fire at Sea, nominated Best Documentary, 2016
I hope this doesn't sound too callous, given the nature of the documentary, which "supposedly" was to follow the plight of refugees from Africa and the Middle East coming to a Sicilian Island, but this movie did nothing to move me emotionally. I think an opportunity was lost to show the impact of the refugees coming to this small Italian island on the islanders and the people rescuing them or helping them. This could have been a long form companion to the documentary short 4.1 Miles, which did an amazing job, in less than an hour, of showing the stress and heartache of the men rescuing refugees from leaky boats, and villagers of trying to help them. It seemed to me that Fire at Sea was two movies that never quite synched up; one looked at the refugees coming over on dangerously ill-equipped boats and briefly examined the refugees as they were brought to Italian ships or on to shore; and the second, and the one that dominated, followed a young boy as he went through his daily life, playing with friends, going on a boat with his father, getting his eyes examined and treated for lazy eye. The two did not ever seem to meet up with each other. I found myself asking what was the point? Reviews said this was a powerful look at what was happening in the world with the influx of refugees and the humanitarian crisis, but it didn't seem that way to me at all. I was very disappointed.
This is a hard review to write, because I think the story of Richard and Mildred Loving is an important one in our nation's civil rights history, and I liked the movie, but it's a subtle, modest, quiet movie, and I'm not sure many people rush to the theaters to see those movies anymore, or at least not as much as they used to. Some of this country's most important moments have come about because of ordinary people trying to live their lives, even if it's against the current 'norms'; Rosa Parks, Annie Lee Cooper and the Lovings. Joel Edgerton plays Richard Loving and Ruth Negga (in an Oscar-nominated role) plays his wife, Mildred Loving. Richard is white and Ruth is black, and in 1950s Virginia, they are having an illegal relationship; they go to Washington, D.C., where they can legally be married, but come back home to Virginia where they are arrested in the middle of the night. The Lovings move to Washington, but Ruth misses the open spaces of home where she wants their children to play, and they move back, but they have to hide. Eventually, the law finds them, and arrests them again, harassing them, until Ruth writes to Attorney General Robert Kennedy and he recommends the American Civil Liberties Union to help them. The case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1967. The Lovings both seem to be quiet and private people, even their 'opposition' in the form of the sheriff isn't as violent and explosive as he could have been, like in Mississippi Burning. There is really only one moment where Richard seems out of character, and it's after a night of drinking with his brothers-in-law and friends (all black), and one of the men says to him (my paraphrasing) 'You're not black. You can go back to being white if you get a divorce'. Richard doesn't say anything at the time, but the next scene is him at home, drunk, crying, telling Mildred that he can take care of her. It broke my heart. All he wanted was to be with the woman he loved, raise their children and take care of his family. There is a quiet strength in Mildred, and at times, she seems to be the one holding everything together. When I was telling people about the movie after I watched it, I made the comparison to Selma, another Civil Rights movie, but on a larger scale, with big marches, riots, speeches, big, impactful scenes, and you needed that movie for that event, and people went to see the movie, and it won a lot of awards. Loving, as I've mentioned, was a quiet film, and maybe for that reason, not a lot of people saw it in the theaters. And I think that's a damned shame. The dignity and strength that these two people embodied should have more of a celebration (although June 12 is known as Loving Day, the day of the Supreme Court decision), and hopefully the film will experience a new life on television and in schools (there is virtually no violence or profanity that I can recall). Ruth Negga was up against a pretty tough cast of characters for Best Actress, and the lack of fanfare around the film probably didn't help her odds, but doesn't diminish her role or the film in any way.
3/22/17 Fire at Sea, nominated Best Documentary, 2016
I hope this doesn't sound too callous, given the nature of the documentary, which "supposedly" was to follow the plight of refugees from Africa and the Middle East coming to a Sicilian Island, but this movie did nothing to move me emotionally. I think an opportunity was lost to show the impact of the refugees coming to this small Italian island on the islanders and the people rescuing them or helping them. This could have been a long form companion to the documentary short 4.1 Miles, which did an amazing job, in less than an hour, of showing the stress and heartache of the men rescuing refugees from leaky boats, and villagers of trying to help them. It seemed to me that Fire at Sea was two movies that never quite synched up; one looked at the refugees coming over on dangerously ill-equipped boats and briefly examined the refugees as they were brought to Italian ships or on to shore; and the second, and the one that dominated, followed a young boy as he went through his daily life, playing with friends, going on a boat with his father, getting his eyes examined and treated for lazy eye. The two did not ever seem to meet up with each other. I found myself asking what was the point? Reviews said this was a powerful look at what was happening in the world with the influx of refugees and the humanitarian crisis, but it didn't seem that way to me at all. I was very disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Whiling away the time while staying at home
There is no denying that these are very strange and tumultuous we're living in. Obviously I haven't been blogging too much lately, i...
-
There is no denying that these are very strange and tumultuous we're living in. Obviously I haven't been blogging too much lately, i...
-
12/26/19 The Two Popes, nominated Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, 2019 I cannot speak to the accuracy of The ...
-
It seems from February until Thanksgiving cinema is a vast wasteland, filled with throwaway movies. I've learned over the eight years of...