movies

Traumatic Disorder (Hostiles review)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

The life of a soldier is oft met with tragedy, both on the battlefront, and at home. But what happens when his battlefield is in his hometown? Prejudice, trauma, and an unhealthy mixture of isolation abound.

 

Hostiles (2017)

Cast: Rosamund Pike, Christian Bale, Wes Studi, Jonathan Majors, Stephen Lang, Jesse Plemons, Ben Foster
Director: Scott Cooper
released on blu-ray Apr 24, 2018
******* 7/10

IMDB: 7.2
Rotten Tomatoes: 73%, Audience Score 72%
The Guardian: ***

Scott Cooper is an American Director, screenwriter, producer, and sometimes actor. His list of director credits include Crazy Heart, Out of the Furnace, Black Mass, and now Hostiles. Having been active in the industry since 1998, Cooper spent the first decade of his career in the television industry, taking small acting roles before fully realizing that writing and directing was far more rewarding.

His directorial debut, Crazy Heart is nothing short of captivating, and shows a side of country music most of us miss. Plus, Jeff Bridges is amazing in it, so obviously Cooper recognizes casting quality over quantity. Hostiles also features a smaller cast and as it takes place in the late 19th century, has an authentic western flavour, but it’s not a misguided cowboys and indians kind of flick.

Special thanks to Nick Riganas for the IMDB summary of the film –

In 1892, after nearly two decades of fighting the Cheyenne, the Apache, and the Comanche natives, the United States Cavalry Captain and war hero, Joseph Blocker (Christian Bale), is ordered to escort the ailing Cheyenne chief, Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi)–his most despised enemy–to his ancestral home in Montana’s Valley of the Bears. Nauseated with a baleful anger, Joseph’s unwelcome final assignment in the feral American landscape is further complicated, when the widowed settler, Rosalie Quaid (Rosamund Pike), is taken in by the band of soldiers, as aggressive packs of marauding Comanches who are still on the warpath, are thirsty for blood. In a territory crawling with hostiles, can the seasoned Captain do his duty one last time?

What I loved about this movie is also what I ultimately hated about it. If I might be so contrarian. I’ve always been a fan of westerns as a young boy, and I attribute a lot of that love to the relationship I have with my father and grandfather, who were both small-town farmers. It wasn’t until my dad moved to the “big city” in his late twenties, met my mom, and had me that the lifestyle cycle started to shift. Either way, they both love westerns, and I have a kinship with anything associated with it.

Hostiles is not your classic John Wayne, Yul Brenner or Lee Van Cleef story – where the heroes and villains are depicted by how long their shadows cast. There is serious consideration of the effect of colonization on indigenous peoples and no ethnic group is cast in a particularly strong light of altruism and rightness, instead each character is morally ambiguous, having both good and bad qualities, just like life should be. But lines are drawn to show both groups and the impact each has on the other. And Cooper does an excellent job of depicting the effects of war and colonization.

Now, what I hinted at about loving, is that in it’s longer run, it tells a great western story, but for that same reason, it doesn’t give characters like Yellow Hawk room to breathe. Which is incredibly frustrating to watch, because Wes Studi is such a legendary actor. Sure Christian Bale and Rosamond Pike are great, and it’s awesome to see how their characters evolve, but if a third protagonist had been given due exposure, this movie would have been phenomenal.

Pros: It challenges our conventions of history and the stories constructed to retell that history. It’s by no means flattering to any party, but as a result it simultaneously feels more raw and empathetic. While not an innovation of the form, Rosamund Pike and Christian Bale deliver great performances.

Cons: The pacing is incredibly slow, and the inclusion of additional characters in the third act feels forced, drawing away from an examination of characters, and into a broader back story for Blocker, which is unnecessary at that point. But again I ask, where is the development of Chief Yellow Hawk and his family?

Runtime: 2 hours 14 minutes

Points of Interest: The film was shot in chronological order, and because it takes place mostly outdoors, the cast was exposed to the elements a lot. Production was shut down on a few occasions to account for weather. This is the second western Christian Bale has starred in – the first being 3:10 to Yuma remake.

It’s amazing to see how the life of Blocker has been shaped by living on a battlefield, and that because the American frontier is filled with tribes and peoples all trying to find their space, he never really gets to rest. Even more interesting that his final mission means escorting one of his early enemies home, and that they come to a better understanding of each other in the process, is very meaningful. I just wish I had seen more perspective from the Chief.

theories Summarized

A couple of final thoughts from me. Whether or not you enjoy westerns, this film is a great candidate to exposure of what western films have meant for American citizens for over a century now. They are effectively a propaganda told through the eyes of the victors. What hostiles does, is try to tell the story in a more nuanced way.

Yes, it does ultimately fall short of it’s goal, both due to pacing and character development, but the parts it succeeds at are well worth the struggle.

Speaking of struggles. I wanted to share this Watch Culture video I did on one of my all-time favourite animated classics – The Last Unicorn. Heavily influenced by classical literature, this is another movie which features Jeff Bridges in a voicing acting role, is directed by the team of Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin Jr. AND the band America did the soundtrack.

It’s highly underrated, in my humble opinion, but I hope this review gives you a chance to check it out or dust it off, as it were!

Lastly, please let me know what you thought of both of these reviews on love, like and share the video, and subscribe to the channel (and email) if you haven’t already. Lots more theories to come!

Tim!

Murder and Father (Mom and Dad review)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

I promised myself I would stop watching bad Nicolas Cage movies. I’ve had my heart broken too many times now, and at this point it’s masochistic to continue.

But then I found out he made a bad movie on purpose, and my interest was piqued.

 

Mom and Dad (2017)

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Selma Blair, Anne Winters, Zackary Arthur
Director: Brian Taylor
released on blu-ray Feb 20, 2018
******* 7/10

IMDB: 5.5
Rotten Tomatoes: 73%, Audience Score 40%
The Guardian: ***

Brian Taylor is an American director, writer, cinematographer, and producer. He is best known for collaborating with Mark Neveldine on the Crank films, Pathology, Gamer, Jonah Hex and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. This is his first film without the support of Neveldine, but it is still well within his wheelhouse of gritty action and dark comedy – Thankfully for me, Mom and Dad is his best film to date, and I hope he continues to explore homage films for the exploitation genre.

Special thanks to Nick Riganas for the IMDB summary of the film –

There’s definitely something terrible going on in the peaceful suburban community, as, one after the other, otherwise loving and caring parents mysteriously turn into ravenous carriers of an unfathomable pandemic that targets their offspring. Suddenly, every son and daughter–not only in the neighbourhood but also in the entire region–have to run for their lives, as the rage-filled murderous intent is simply as unstoppable as it is inexplicable. Of course, Brent (Nicolas Cage) and Kendall’s (Selma Blair) teenage children (Anne Winters, Zackary Arthur) are no exception, and before long, the simmering but usual familial tensions will take a completely different meaning. Kids, stop hiding. Mum and Dad love you so much.

I was half-expecting this film to end on an upbeat note while I was watching it; there were so many clues that indicated both Brent and Kendall were capable of overcoming the instinct that the so-called global savaging would produce. We didn’t know if parents were killing their offspring because of flora and fauna, biological weapons or alien rays. And yet, this movie is far more in-line with grindhouse horror then it is a dark comedy.

The message is the violence itself and the catharsis associated with release from obligation. Being a parent is a great responsibility for sure, but the challenges come in the day-to-day. We all age and lose our youth, so jealousy of the kids looks, opportunities and freedom can become a real grind. Brent fantasizes about his misspent teenage years, and Kendall wants to have a better relationship with her daughter, as it was before the onset of puberty. But that does matter, because in the end their desire to murder outweighs society expectations and social practices. And it’s an awesome thing to behold.

It’s the perfect setting for Nicolas Cage to go over-the-top.

Pros: It packages anarchy and the mundane together in completely believable way. It works perfectly when you can accept the premise without much thought for what sparked the epidemic. Nicolas Cage works perfectly as a disillusioned dad gone crazy.

Cons: While it does an amazing job of executing the concept over-all, it’s in the details that the film loses focus and comes off under-cooked. The pool table flashback and the inevitable visit from the grandparents come to mind in particular.

Runtime: 2 hours 10 minutes

Points of Interest: Nicolas Cage has said this is his favourite film he’s worked on in the past ten years. The film also features cameos from Grant Morrison and Bokeem Woodbine; Morrison is the writer of Happy! which was adapted by Taylor for television.

The film has generally favourable reviews amongst critics, but is far less popular amongst general audiences, my theory for this is that this is not popcorn fare. You have to be in the right mood for something dark, and watch it with people who are open this kind of humour and level of violence. Under the right setting, I could easily put this into a horror marathon, Nicolas Cage marathon or on a gloomy day.

theories Summarized

Film like this don’t get made with A-list actors very often. And this is because most people don’t want to see a movie that challenges convention… unless they are prepared for it going into the film. I can tell that Nicolas Cage had fun making this movie, and for that reason alone, it is worth a watch. When Cage is cast correctly, he is very entertaining. Go watch Mom and Dad, and maybe you’ll learn to appreciate your parents and/or children a little more.

Speaking of B movie genius, have you ever seen Starship Troopers? It’s a cool little movie about what the world would look like if fascism ran rampant, and it is also set in a universe where we’re locked into interstellar combat with giant space bugs.

Lastly, please let me know what you thought of both of these reviews on love, like and share the video, and subscribe to the channel (and email) if you haven’t already. Next week I’ll have a review on folk album and a horror-comedy film, and an interview preview with a pretty cool musician.

Tim!

Throwing Glass In Brick Houses (Phantom Thread review)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

Romantic love can last but a moment, but companion love often lasts for a lifetime. And this is important because it’s a much more real feeling then something so fleeting as lust – the desire to be needed, to be important to someone, to be truly understood, it’s just so much more powerful.

Thankfully, dear readers, this film does expresses just that.

 

Phantom Thread (2017)

Cast: Vicky Krieps, Daniel Day-Lewis, Lesley Manville
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
released on blu-ray April 10, 2018
********* 9/10

IMDB: 7.7
Rotten Tomatoes: 91%, Audience Score 70%
The Guardian: *****

Paul Thomas Anderson is an American filmmaker. He has been nominated for over eight Academy Awards, and his films have generated over 25 nominations for cast and crew. His list of films is fairly short, having made 9 films over a 20+ year career – Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Inherent Vice, Phantom Thread, and 2018’s Waterlily Jaguar.

Now, I would be willing to argue that There Will Be Blood is one of the best, if not THE best film of the 2000s, so when I learned that Mr. Anderson directed it, I took notice and seriously looked at his portfolio. This is important because Phantom Thread is the second film that Daniel Day-Lewis has starred in with this director, and it’s also the last one before he retires.

Special thanks to Focus Features for the IMDB summary of the film –

Set in the glamour of 1950s post-war London, renowned dressmaker Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) are at the center of British fashion, dressing royalty, movie stars, heiresses, socialites, debutants, and dames with the distinct style of The House of Woodcock. Women come and go through Woodcock’s life, providing the confirmed bachelor with inspiration and companionship, until he comes across a young, strong-willed woman, Alma (Vicky Krieps), who soon becomes a fixture in his life as his muse and lover. Once controlled and planned, he finds his carefully tailored life disrupted by love

Now, I’m going to posit another theory, and you can choose to agree with it or not.

Romance is about a fantasy, whereas companionship is about taking a very real journey together. I originally watched this movie because it was nominated for a Best Picture award, and it registered with me, but didn’t affect me at the time. Then I decided to watch this film for a second time because I was reminded of something a friend of mine had said. He told me that this film was especially compelling because the two leads challenged each other. While I agree that Reynolds and Alma challenge each other, and I’m about to spoil an important part of the movie, so be forewarned, I think that poisoning someone to shift the balance of power in the relationship is pretty dramatic. So it still works as a movie, because movies typically take the highs and lows of life and leave out the majority of in-between moments.

But it’s in the in-between moments that human connection exists, and that’s why the story of the house of Woodcock, and the waitress that threw a brick into the front window, is the real focal point of a real love story. Not Daniel Day-Lewis, and we are all the better for it.

Pros: Vicky Krieps steals the show, and while Daniel Day-Lewis is enigmatic and bold, as he is in all of his roles, Alma is far more powerful in her strong-willed directness. The attention to detail in the sets, costumes, and interactions amongst the cast will hold you in, make you gasp for air for a moment, and finally accept the beauteous new outlook on life.

Cons: It is a very insular world, and because it doesn’t invite the casual viewer in, you might miss the fact that this is a far better telling of Fifty Shades of Grey.

Runtime: 2 hours 10 minutes

Points of Interest: The name Alma means “soul” in Spanish and Portuguese. Daniel Day-Lewis has not seen the finished film, and found the role incredibly emotionally demanding.

It might seem obvious now, but the title Phantom Thread eludes to several things. The role of dressmaking in Reynolds identity, the familial ties between Reynolds, his sister, their mother and their business, Reynolds relationship with his mother, and more importantly, the unseen connection between Alma and Reynolds. And this last thread is what drives the story. It might not seem obvious that there is an unbreakable bond between the two lovers, but try as fate might, their love cannot be broken, only strengthened.

That’s what real love does over time, it continues to define the identities of its partners.

theories Summarized

I love this movie. It grabbed hold of my attention, because it demanded a second viewing. I can see myself watching it multiple times over the years. Paul Thomas Anderson has done something wonderful in creating a period film that is timeless, but is very rich in it’s depictions. It’s a little sad that the only award it won was for Best Costume Design, but ironically enough, that might be the highest compliment it could receive given how intimate a role clothes play in our lives.

The exterior beauty of the dress could only exist with the loving labour of dressmaking.

And so that leads us into the Watch Culture video review I have lined up on Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut – Don Jon. It’s a story about sex addiction, and how one man’s addiction to pornography has defined how he views most of his intimate relationships. It’s totally worth a watch, and like Phantom Thread, it has some great insights romantic love VS companion love.

Lastly, please let me know what you thought of both of these reviews on love, like and share the video, and subscribe to the channel (and email) if you haven’t already. Next week I’ll have a review on folk album and a horror-comedy film, and an interview preview with a pretty cool musician.

Tim!

Themes In Film – Redemption (Cross Talk EP 36)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

Redemption is a fairly universal theme in cinema.

It’s something that can motivate anyone no matter what their moral, ethnic, or social standing is. In fact, some of the most beloved characters of all time are ones who follow a path of redemption. You have Darth Vader, Severus Snape, the T-800, Phil Connors (Groundhog Day), Derek (American History X), and Andy Dufresne (The Shawshank Redemption) for starters. Whether the story is one of holding out hope, belief in something greater then ourselves, a desire for change or simply fighting injustice, it’s a great theme that invites us to see the possibility of choices in life.

Now to be clear, the stories we’re talking about in this episode of Cross Talk aren’t exclusively about redemption, even if some of them have an overt story arc featuring the theme. What’s more important to me is to demonstrate how this topic transcends genre, it can be in action movies, dramas, comedies, crime stories, horror and a whole host of other examples. These themes permeate our culture, and I personally think it’s because at any given time we are all holding out for a hero. Redemption teaches us that we are fully capable of becoming our own source of rescue.

Chris and I decided to provide a selection of films to demonstrate this point about the significance of redemption in life. We selected The Green Mile, Unforgiven, Good Will Hunting, In Bruges, Gran Torino, The Hurricane, V for Vendetta, and Les Miserables. All of these films have an element of drama to them, but the stories are wildly different, some being based in fantasy, others based on history, and still others simply fit a time and a place.

Redemption can bring freedom. Freedom from societal oppression, creative limitations, and intolerable views. And sometimes it can absolve past wrongdoings.

I’m really excited to share this one with you because while we are going to go over each of this four examples, Chris has decided to focus his attention on Les Miserables, the 1935 version, and not one of the other twelve film adaptations out there, though I do have some special love for the Liam Neeson vehicle. And then for my pick, I’ll give some insights on why I think the redemption in V for Vendetta comes from Evey, as portrayed by Natalie Portman, and NOT Hugo Weaving’s theatrical V.

And so this is episode thirty six of Cross Talk. Themes of redemption in film.

theories Summarized

That was such a fun topic for us to discuss – I learned something about myself that even I didn’t know, how important a seemingly popcorn flick like V For Vendetta can represent an ideal about culture. And now I need to check out yet another version of Les Miserables, as Chris promises that the 1935 film is the best version out there.

But what are your favourite examples of redemption in the movies? Do you prefer The Shawshank Redemption? What about The Wrestler? Until next time, please like and share the content! And subscribe to the mailing list if you haven’t yet. I’ve got really cool folk country album to share tomorrow from Kacey Musgraves… and I’ll give you your space cowboy!

Tim!

They’re Creepy and They’re Kooky (Tokyo Ghoul review)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

Japanese culture is ripe with interesting examples of fantasy, science fiction, drama. And most importantly it’s always visually appealing no matter what the subject matter being tackled. This week’s review doesn’t hold back.

Tokyo Ghoul (2017)

Cast: Masatak Kubota, Fumika Shimizu, Nobuyuki Suzuki, Hiyori Sakurada, Yu Aoi
Director: Kentaro Hagiwara
released on blu-ray April 3, 2018
****** 6/10

IMDB: 5.9
Rotten Tomatoes: 83%, Audience Score 68%
The Guardian: N/A

Now, I don’t have very much information about this live-action film’s director, Kentaro Hagiwara, as he has managed to avoid appearing all over the internet with a solid measure of success. Thus I am resigned to believe he is something of a ghoul himself, hidden in a secret society and only emerging for brief periods of time to prove his existence.

Which is why I’m not going to assume that this is his first time directing, but I will grade the movie as if it were. So let’s talk about this adaptation of the hit manga by Sui Ishida.

Special thanks to Claudio for the IMDB summary (I corrected some grammar) –

In Tokyo, the shy student Kaneki Ken () finally lands a date with this beautiful girl Kamishiro Rize (). While in a lonely park, she does a gender-reversal on the classic monster movie and attacks him because she is in fact, a flesh-eating ghoul. Luckily, Kaneki escapes after a freak accident that kills Rize, but he soon learns that he has become a ghoul himself in an emergency organ transplant that happened while unconscious from his wounds. He then befriends a group of peaceful ghouls and tries to live his new life with them. However, they are hunted down by relentless two police officers from the Ghoul Division in charge of eradicating ghouls from their district.

My initial impressions after I watched this movie were pretty harsh. While I really liked the premise of an alternate reality where monsters were real and far more complicated then their appearance, I struggle with the CGI used to create this fantasy world. It constantly takes you out of the story, where literally any other distraction could take place and become more engaging.

It’s great to see an assimilation story for the contemporary age, and one that takes what could have easily been a horror film, and turned it into more of a supernatural drama. Lots of cliche ideas about families being found anywhere, and the importance of acceptance for people other then ourselves, but none of the major characters are presented as particularly complex, so the story then suffers.

Pros: It’s visually intense, unnerving and while the CGI itself is difficult to watch, they don’t replace the importance of a good story about mythological creatures that live in modern times.

Cons: It’s almost as if there is an expectation that the story adhere closely to its roots, which appears to be in conflict with the directors much more interesting vision. The primary character played by Masatak Kubota rarely emotes in the right moment.

Runtime: 1 hour 59 minutes

Points of Interest: The musical score is composed by Don Davis, who also did the music for The Matrix trilogy. The director has cited Kill Bill: Vol. 1, District 9 and The Last Samurai as major influences for the film.

If you can get past the bad CGI and the shallow characterizations, this is a very entertaining fantasy movie with some great commentary on social issues, including hierarchy in Japanese culture. The challenges that Kaneki (Masatak Kubota) face as he learns to accept his new lot in life are compelling, and might have been better accomplished with less fights.

theories Summarized

With all of that said, do I think you should run out and get a copy of this flick? No, I think it’s an acquired taste. But, I also recognize that exposure to films from other cultures can be incredibly satisfying, and give context to a broader film discussion. A timotheory if you would.

Now, this week’s Watch Culture video review is a little bit kooky as well, but I can endorse this movie over and over again. Super Troopers is one of my favourite comedies from the early 2000s and a potential spiritual successor to some of the classic Mel Brooks and Monty Python films of the 1970s and 1980s. If you haven’t seen it before, give our review a once over, and I bet we can change your mind.

And of course, please let me know what you thought of both reviews, like and share the video, and subscribe to the channel (and email) if you haven’t already. With even more theories in the pipeline, you’ll have content to chew on for days.

Tim!