'Vice' Review

Nominated For: Best Picture, Best Director; Adam McKay, Best Actor; Christian Bale, Best Supporting Actor; Sam Rockwell, Best Supporting Actress; Amy Adams, Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Editing, and Best Makeup and Hairstyling.

Won: Best Makeup and Hairstyling.

Vice explores the epic story about how a bureaucratic Washington insider quietly became the most powerful man in the world as Vice-President to George W. Bush, reshaping the country and the globe in ways that we still feel today. 

Written and directed by Academy Award-winner Adam McKay, Vice is McKay's seventh directorial feature. Before 2015, McKay was mostly known for writing and directing mainstream comedies starring Will Ferrell such as Anchorman, Step Brothers, Talladega Nights, and The Other Guys. Then he made The Big Short and wound up winning the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay while the film received a total of five nominations including Best Picture and Best Director. Tasked with explaining the housing market crash of the late 2000s, McKay simplified matters via fourth wall breaks, symbolism, celebrity cameos, and so much more. Clearly, the switch-up worked well for McKay though, so it's not surprising he'd carry that style over to Vice. However, this time he's wholly demolished the fourth wall and dialed everything up to an eleven. So, chances are, you'll hate this film if you weren't a fan of The Big Short. Vice is already proving to be quite divisive amongst critics and audiences alike, but that should be expected given the political subject matter. Some may feel offended by McKay's twisted satire while others may think he didn't go far enough. 

Whatever the case may be, I'm not easily offended or all that interested in political rhetoric, so I personally wasn't bothered by any of McKay's creative decisions. In fact, I can't help but respect McKay's ambition due to the twisted, subversive route which Vice explores alongside its audience. Vice has little in common with traditional biographical pictures, and that was so refreshing to witness. Usually, bio-pics are a favorite of the Academy, so I wind up watching a few every year, but they rarely surprise me or differentiate from what's come before concerning narrative structure and style. There's nothing wrong with following a formula or abiding by a proven approach, but I'll be much more likely to admire bolder technique than something I've seen a thousand times before. McKay really swings for the fences with lacking subtlety, risky comedic gags, and some very inspired editing choices. While I wouldn't necessarily say every risk paid off, I found the dark comedy to be hilarious and the film to be more entrancing as it went on. 

McKay's method of presentation maintains a brisk momentum to what could have otherwise been a dull look at the life of Dick Cheney and his rise to unprecedented power. Just when you're expecting drawn-out dialogue, McKay cuts away. In spite of breezy pacing and humor, McKay upholds a degree of seriousness and grounds his depiction of Cheney somewhere between the extremes of caricature and a sympathetic lead. He's humanized to an extent but still seen as evil by the camera. In one particular fourth-wall break, Cheney provides his own justification for his actions, though the film doesn't concede to his viewpoint. One audience member left at that point, and if you're thinking this film seems to skew far too left, don't worry... McKay's well aware and calls himself and the audience out in a bonkers post-credits scene that I considered a riot (this will contribute to the film's polarized reception more than anything else). 

Regarding production quality, cinematographer Greig Fraser makes effective use of shadows and low-lighting, Nicholas Britell offers a varied set of compositions in his score, and the production design's excellent while the hair and makeup work is extraordinary, going a long way to transform the illustrious ensemble convincingly. Also, as a brief side-note, the events in Vice are clearly embellished and exaggerated for comedic effect so don't expect a historically accurate glimpse into Cheney's life. The filmmakers acknowledge as much with an opening title card that informs the audience Cheney was a secretive man so they "tried their f*cking best." I just went along for the ride with an open mind.

Elevating Vice from an experimental passion project to a serious awards contender, Christian Bale's once again committed wholeheartedly to physically transforming himself for a role. Over the years, Bale has gone through cycles of intentional weight loss and gain to better embody his characters, just look to The Machinist, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and American Hustle for evidence of this. It's surely an unhealthy practice, and Bale's recently acknowledged that it's beginning to catch up with him as he enters his late forties. Bale slips into the guise of Cheney like it's nothing and perfectly replicated his vocal mannerisms, steely gaze, and cold composure. Matching Bale beat-for-beat is counterpart chameleon actress Amy Adams. As Lynne Cheney, Adams only gained about 12-15 pounds in comparison to Bale's approximated 40-pound pack-on, but she wears the conniving Lynne Cheney persona like a glove. Their devious dynamic and calculated scheming behind-the-scenes in Washington D.C. was a fascinating and unnerving background element which enhanced the film's shady atmosphere. Both performances are well deserving of their current awards buzz, and I hope the momentum translates to Oscar nominations for the two of them at the very least. 

Amongst the stellar supporting cast, Sam Rockwell, Steve Carell, Tyler Perry, and Jesse Plemons all put forth solid performances. Rockwell channels the dopier side George W. Bush to great comedic effect, and Tyler Perry plays Colin Powell as very straight-faced. It honestly took me a while to view Donald Rumsfeld as anything other than Carell in extensive makeup, but as the film went on, that notion disappeared. Lastly, I wouldn't dare spoil Plemons role, but that will prove divisive to many as well. As for me, I personally dug it and considered it to be an interesting framing device. 

Vice is without a doubt the 2018 release vying for the title of the most creative feature, brimming with nuanced black comedy most filmmakers wouldn't dare poke with a twenty-foot-long stick. Not every component sticks the landing, but those which do, further contribute to the film's fascinating storytelling approach in a satisfying manner. 

Film Assessment: A

'Nocturnal Animals' Review

Nominated For: Best Supporting Actor: Michael Shannon.

In Nocturnal Animals an affluent art gallery owner Susan Morrow receives her ex-husband Edward's manuscript for an upcoming novel "Nocturnal Animals" dedicated to her. As Susan reads the horrifying tale of revenge she reflects on her past with Edward and the film sphincters off into three stories that are more interconnected than one would first suspect. 

I won't explain much else because the less you know going into the Nocturnal Animals, the more confused you'll be leaving the theater spurring on an intellectual train of thought that will allow you to eventually put all the pieces into place and see the big picture of Nocturnal Animals. Nocturnal Animals like Arrival, another film that was released this year starring Amy Adams based on obscure literature, is a thought-provoking cinematic experience. 

Viewers will be baffled by the shock value found in the film's bonkers slo-motion opening sequence of nude morbidly obese women dancing while the opening credits slowly creep onscreen, thankfully giving the audience something else to focus on, and from that point on will likely be striving to understand exactly what is happening and struggle to find connections between the splintered narratives. This is a film that will probably be more enjoyable to watch with successive viewings because the viewer will have already digested the crazy proceedings once. They then might be able to better understand what it all means and believe me, Nocturnal Animals warrants plenty of analysis. 

Former fashion designer Tom Ford writes and directs the insightful revenge thriller, taking the viewer on a ride that first exposes them to a refined, elegant environment before plunging them into a fictional take on West Texas that's truly got grit. One of the more interesting aspects of Nocturnal Animals is how fabricated Susan's reality seems and how realistic Edward's fiction appears and Ford further brings out visual juxtaposition between the two as cinematographer Seamus McGarvey brilliantly frames gorgeous picturesque imagery while editor Joan Sobel expertly cuts between the trio of tales. I haven't read Austin Wright's novel on which the film is based, but can say Ford's screenplay is an excellent adaptation for the screen and it's also worth noting that Abel Korzeniowski calamitous compositions are a great underlying accompaniment. 

Nocturnal Animals also features a seasoned cast of A-list actors who bring a strange blend of understated and overstated performances that will likely garner praise this coming awards season. Amy Adams' Susan Morrows is simultaneously hopeful in her past and calculating as a result of her long-winding life while Jake Gyllenhaal also gets to inhabit dual personas as Susan's recollections of her past lover Edward Sheffield and the protagonist of "Nocturnal Animals" (Sheffield's novel) Tony Hastings bringing serene sensitivity to one and a brewing venomous longing vengeance to the other. 

Two supporting performances steal the show though as Michael Shannon plays an unhinged officer with some Southern drawl and Aaron Taylor-Johnson's deranged redneck sociopath Ray Marcus will make your skin crawl. Other familiar faces including Isla Fisher, Armie Hammer, and Laura Linney are to be found in bit-supporting roles and are serviceable for their minuscule screen-time. 

The ending of Nocturnal Animals will leave many unsatisfied but the longer my mind dwelled on it, the more appropriate the ending seemed to be considering the overarching theme of revenge. Many will probably be turned off by Nocturnal Animals' oddities, only taking everything at surface level and refusing to dig any deeper, but I found the thriller to be intellectually engrossing and would highly recommend it to anyone that likes to solve puzzles or leave a film pondering the plot. 

With that being said, there were some things that don't quite fall into the big picture yet in my mind and I'm sure that once I revisit Nocturnal Animals enough I could decipher the meaning but I'm interested in acquiring it on Blu-Ray for a director's commentary alone. Nocturnal Animals takes a chaotic approach to it's three-pronged story structure and I found bringing order to the chaos through thought processes the most satisfying part of the viewing experience, but the slick cinematography, exceptional editing, mixture of nuanced and exaggerated performances, and concentrated direction amidst the insanity alone make Nocturnal Animals worth a watch.

Film Assessment: A-

'Arrival' Review

Nominated For: Best Picture, Best Director; Denis Villeneuve, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.
Won: Best Sound Editing.

Aliens have arrived. Planet Earth's world governments are in disarray as to how the situation should be handled. They gather experts to address the situation and make contact with the extra terrestrials. Sounds like an average alien-invasion movie right? Well, it's how Arrival expands upon that very basic idea that makes it one of the best dramatic science fiction films I've seen in recent memory and maybe even my favorite film of the year so far.

Arrival is based on the short story "Story of Your Life" written by Ted Chiang and tells of the sudden appearance of twelve large egg shaped UFOs and humanity's response. The United States gathers linguist expert Dr. Louise Banks and theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly to establish communication with the extra terrestrials and discover their purpose on Earth. Denis Villeneuve directs the mysterious science fiction flick, as a followup to Prisoners and Sicario, and I believe this addition to his filmography makes him a viable candidate to be the next Christopher Nolan in terms of successfully delivering satisfying thought-provoking material to the cinema.

The technical crew at Villeneuve's disposal serve up top notch visuals as cinematographer Bradford Young frames shots that are both awe-inspiring and cryptic and the visual effects team inject an appropriate sense of scale to the wonderful escapist scenery when factoring in the space craft. The score composed by Jóhann Jóhannsson evokes the perfect blend of mysticism, intrigue, and suspense to match the abstract story and underlying philosophical themes about humanity. If you listened to it independently, you probably wouldn't be wowed but it makes an excellent accompaniment to Arrival. 

Eric Heisserer pens a worthy screenplay that takes Ted Chiang's story and expands upon it in a more modern and relatable context. Heisserer's script is brilliant because it doesn't forget about Earth's socio-political atmosphere, character growth, the realism that must be taken into consideration if there is indeed life beyond, and most importantly, to tell a thrilling story. Heisserer manages to cram all of the aforementioned elements into his script and when the scene changes you're simply left to wonder what it all means.

My best simplification of this is that Arrival is essentially a thousand-piece puzzle. When you first glance at it, you have no idea what pieces fit where, what any of it means, and what the final picture will look like but over the course of the film, the pieces slowly come together and you make connections that are simply mind boggling and leaves you to think, think, and think some more. 

The performances exhibited in Arrival don't disappoint either as Amy Adams displays emotion and nuance in Dr. Louise, making her a relatable entry point for the viewer to latch onto. Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker both are terrific in the capacity used as Ian Donnelly and Colonel Weber respectively, but are relegated to secondary roles in favor of concentrating on the protagonist. And to save you the trouble of IMDBing, you may recognize Michael Stuhl, who does a fine job, from his more recent work in Doctor Strange and Men in Black 3.

In summary, Arrival is cerebral science fiction at its finest. The film is exceptional and commands multiple viewings for cinephiles to properly process and unravel the mystery. While some viewers may leave the cinema puzzled, those entrenched in the plot won't be able to stop their train of thought deciphering the grand scheme that's been presented.

Film Assessment: A+

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Man Of Steel'

This week's Throwback Thursday Review is over Man Of Steel, the film that launched DC's Extended Universe and will be further propelled with this week's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Man Of Steel is an interesting film to review because of the decisively mixed reactions from both critics and the general public and you will soon learn what end of the spectrum I lie on. Just a warning, there will be some spoilers for some major plot points in the film that I feel need to be discussed. Next week I will continue my series of reviews of the Bourne series with the second installment The Bourne Supremacy. In the meantime, I will certainly have a Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice review uploaded very soon.

'Man Of Steel' Review

Man Of Steel is probably one of the most divisive films in recent memory, with critics either hailing it as a masterpiece or labelling it to be a sloppy mess, and the audience's just as evenly split. I'll admit I lie more in the middle ground, as there are elements in Man Of Steel I would consider brilliant and there are portions of the film that irked me, and I feel most problems were with the creative team and not the performances or the technical aspects.

For one, the film has this bleak, dreary, grayscale filter applied for a majority of the lengthy 2 hours and 23 minute runtime that honestly looks like it was ran through some filter on Instagram. Now there is technically "color" in the film of course, but most of the sets, environments, and costumes are in a darker gray, black, or blue color palette that makes the film all the more bleak and dreary. That's another point of discussion altogether, the film attempts to emulate Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy and it's not all too surprising since Nolan produced the project.

Now, I don't mind Warner Bros. trying to emulate their previous success with the Dark Knight Trilogy, which also helps to differ their comic book cinematic universe from Marvel's, but I don't think that everything needs to be so dark and gritty. I think a happy medium of both a dark and light tone would probably work better but Warner Bros. certainly know how to execute a darker, gritty film, and Man Of Steel is that exactly.

Man Of Steel is visually a masterpiece. This is large part to director, Zack Snyder, whose talents mostly lie with visual iconography and not the actual story itself. The cinematography feels very natural and when combined with the editing makes for a smooth viewing experience doing justice to the visual iconography Snyder brilliantly imagined. The film's visual effects are a mixed bag in my opinion. The effects for Superman's powers at times can look very fake, but for the most part seem quite authentic and are well realized. When Superman first gets his suit and flies around for a bit, the effects are remarkable and the cinematography adds to the authenticity incorporating some shaky-cam and gorgeous shots both behind and in front of Superman.

However, there is one brief moment where it is apparently clear a green screen is being utilized. In this brief moment, Superman's flight just seems mismatched with the background and there's a lighting issue where Superman looks darker than the surrounding brighter lighting and it annoys me every time I watch the film. I feel the effects for Superman's strength, heat vision, and X-Ray vision are handled exceptionally well and the sound mixing and editing are also well executed throughout. In particular, Superman's super-hearing and the Krypton technology sound effects are two of the best showcases of the excellent sound design.

One odd sound design choice though was that the weapon utilized by the Kryptonians to attempt to harvest the Earth for a new generation of Kryptonians, the World Engine, sounds like a dub-step cannon. Amidst the subject of sounds, I feel that I must comment on Hans Zimmer's fantastic score. Zimmer manages to create this grand, epic score that seems to be a perfect embodiment of the ideals of Superman but expressed in music.

The performances across the board are quite exceptional, and I have to say that both young actors portraying the younger Clark Kent, Dylan Sprayberry and Cooper Timberline, impressed me in their brief screen time. Henry Cavill makes for a very capable lead as Kal-El (Superman), although he's no Christopher Reeves, but he certainly fills all the requirements I think an actor needs to portray Superman. One thing I think he does remarkably well is his facial emoting, where he really sells that he's struggling or frustrated when using his powers and whatnot. Unfortunately, the film doesn't make time to explore the duality and pressures of balancing his normal life as Clark Kent and his super heroics as Superman but that's one element I can't wait to see explored in these future DC films, whether it be Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice or Justice League.

Amy Adams makes for a solid Lois Lane and actually does quite a bit to drive the story, but unfortunately at times becomes too much of the damsel in distress trope because of her willingness to plunge herself into danger. Aside from those little nitpicks, Lois comes across as a strong, developed female character, whose purpose isn't purely to be a love interest.

Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner both make for great father figures to Kal-El/Clark Kent as Jor-El and Jonathan Kent respectively and you can instantly feel their connection to Kal-El due to the incredible chemistry they have with Cavill and the gravitas of both actors. Diane Lane serves as Kal-El's mother figure as Martha Kent and is terrific in that capacity but she is very much a supporting character that's relegated to a few scenes sprinkled throughout. Laurence Fishburne gets to play Perry White, and I think he was terrific in the small capacity used.

Meanwhile for our antagonists, we have Michael Shannon, who makes for a great villain as General Zod. At times he seems a bit over the top and chews the scenery, not that that's necessarily a bad thing though. I liked that he had a genuinely believable motive and like most great villains believed what he was doing was just. Antje Traue is truly awesome as Zod's lieutenant, Faora, who kicks a lot of butt and is honestly everything the character Captain Phasma should have been in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. 

In summary, I think that Zack Snyder certainly presents a film that's very much style over substance, as the first half of the film is phenomenal but it finds itself in a sticky situation with it's grand finale that I will discuss in great detail soon. The scenes that I enjoyed watching were primarily in the first half of the film when Superman is actually saving people or the flashbacks where he's adjusting to life on Earth. I really like how the film stays primarily in the present day and jumps back to flashbacks to fill in for some crucial parts of Superman's origin story instead of wasting an hour on a young Kal-El growing up on Earth. The story is quite lacking in some moments towards the end and there are creative decisions made regarding Superman that seem out of character for the Son of Krypton that I personally see as an abundance of issues.

The action sequences are all grand and epic in scale but while they are quite awesome, I have a number of issues with a few in particular. One really small nit-pick is that these fights use the most blatant, obvious product placement although I don't see how Kryptonians destroying a Sears would convince anyone to shop there? The fights between Superman and the Kryptonians feature copious amounts of collateral damage, that just seems way too excessive. I understand that two people with these powers would destroy tons of property but the fight between Superman and Zod almost levels Metropolis.

What annoyed me to no end regarding this was that throughout the fight, Superman rarely makes any attempts to stop Zod from destroying any buildings or save any civilians, but rather actually even pushed Zod into some of these buildings. This was amidst a fight where buildings were collapsing. I feel that this interpretation of Superman was pretty reckless and there was tons of collateral damage as a result. The one time Superman did save people during this fight was when he snaps Zod's neck to prevent him from using heat vision to kill people. So yes, Zod's death was a necessary evil but it seems even more out character for Superman to kill someone, regardless of what they've done or plan to do, but this version of the hero clearly doesn't take much issue with cracking necks. The screenwriters should have avoiding putting the character of Superman, whose supposed to have a higher morality, in a position where he's forced to kill his villain. In fact, it's kinda hard to even call this interpretation a true hero and I think that is the film's biggest problem. 

Now to sum all of this up, if someone came and asked me to give a one-word review of Man Of Steel, I'd have to say that it's "meh." It's not great, but it certainly isn't terrible either, it's honestly just okay and I feel that Warner Bros. shouldn't accept something that's passable if they ever hope to truly compete with Marvel's Cinematic Universe. 

Film Assessment: C+