Deep Water Horizon

Deep Water Horizon

This is a disaster movie with sub-titles. The oil rig’s catastrophic destruction overwhelms the film. Any human-interest stories are marginalized by non-stop devastation. This is a very technical film. Laced in the dialogue are explanations of the rig’s operation and what went catastrophically wrong. Big pressure dials, lots of buttons are displayed to show the rig’s complexity. Peter Berg, the director, did an effective job depicting the disaster and fatal decisions leading up to the explosion. But the annihilation becomes wearisome.

The first hour of the movie is set up. The movie starts with Mark Walberg and Kate Hudson wife and husband waking up in bed. Walberg has lost his Calvin Kiln underwear model six pack replaced by just one pack and Hudson is puffy in the wrong places (desperately needs a manicure). From there things escalate. There are some fine performances. Kurt Russell who plays Mr. Jimmy the tough but compassionate rig boss and John Malkovich is his counter point. Malkovich is the BP executive desperate to meet deadlines by cutting expenses. The clash between Russell and Malkovich is the start of cataclysmic dominos culminating in the death of eleven men and culminating in billions of dollars in damage.

The movie gives short shrift to the ensuing ecological disaster. Over 130 million gallons of oil was released into the Gulf polluting 1,100 miles of shore lines. Countless numbers of wild life perished. BP would pay $20b to settle claims. Berg just gave one sentence at the end of the film.

Unless you are a rough neck or a bored retired catastrophe underwriter this film is not for you. 

Birth of a Nation

Birth of a Nation

The momentum of this movie was sluggish, especially the first third. The problem with doing a true story, the ending (for the most part) is known.  The lead up to the climax drags on a bit and anticipation can be a distraction.  Early scenes were a combination of benevolent treatment of young Nat by his masters interspersed with brutalization of slaves by their owners. These horrible acts molded Turner’s character and would serve as a catalyst later on.

 His elders’ saw Nat Turner as a scared child and a future leader. Early on he was tutored to read, but the Bible was the only book slaves were permitted to read. In turn he became a slave preacher. To make money his owner took him to different plantations to preach to the slaves. The real purpose was not religious instruction but another form of control. At these plantations, the cruelties he witnessed seared his mind.  

We (most of us) have seen the brutality of slavery from films like” Twelve Years a Slave” and “Roots”, nevertheless some scenes depicted were hard to watch (I closed my eyes during one shot). If the “N” word bothers you or seeing lots and lots of lynchings disturbs you, this not your movie. I do not wish to diminish the historical importance the Nat Turner’s revolt but reading about it and seeing it are two different things. This is a heroic movie, but tough to watch.

The lead actor is Nate Parker. The director is Nate Parker; the author is Nate Parker and the producer is Nate Parker. His work is commendable; but perhaps another set of eyes would have brought a different perspective. Parker’s acting was commendable and in the horrific last scenes more demanding. He was more effective as an avenging messianic leader than a soft-spoken preacher.

Armie Hammer plays Turner’s master. They go from boyhood friends to beneficent master to slave whipping owner. Hammer is so laid back he sleeps in most scenes. He portrays the dilemmas of befriending a slave and holding him accountable for transgressions required in ways dictated at the time. Penelope Ann Miller played the wife of the slave owner, I did not recognize her. Time is a cruel master.

If you are not familiar with the Nat Turner revolt of 1831, see the movie first. The Nat Turner revolt is pivotal in American history; it portends the Civil War.

p.s.-This movie has nothing to do with W.D. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”-1915.

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

The last time there was this much testosterone in one place is when the Russian women’s track team were in town. With all the dead bodies the magnificent seven shot they used every bit of their hormone. As gruesome as this sounds the movie is uplifting and enjoyable. The bad guy, played by Peter Sarsgaad, is murdering the locals and pillaging the town for its gold. The good guy, Denzel Washington, who ironically is all dressed in black riding a black horse is hired by a widow seeking revenge for the death of her husband.

The movie harkens back to the old western films. The town is a bunch of rickety wooden buildings. There are sweeping landscapes with red rock formations shaped like castles. There were the usual western outposts: the general stores, and the undertaker looking for business. There are saloon women of questionable reputations. These “ladies” looked a hell of a lot better than the original 1960 movie (but what did I know I was 11 at the time).

 The cast is wonderful. Their comradery was a work in progress jelling together at the critical moment; they are sympatico. All seven play important roles, but Denzel Washington, Chris Platt and Ethan Hawke have air time. Denzel is a steely eyed gun slinger who leads the seven. Chris Pratt delivers comic banter, but he is a dead shot also. Ethan Hawke is a former confederate soldier haunted by past battles.  Peter Sarsgaad interpretation of evil is sublime. With his pinched sweaty face and beady eyes, he kills without compunction.  The body count in the movie is impress but without gore. The bitter taste of revenge is palatable

.

What was impressive about the movie was the minor characters contributed to movie with their own back stories and heroic deeds. The widow, played by Haley Bennett, held her own in the gun fights. She was the spirit of the resistance and a natural leader

.

Honorable mention goes to Denzel Washington’s body double. His trick riding was quite impressive. No way did Denzel do that ridding. Oh, do I assume too much? I am sure Denzel and I acquired our equestrian skills at the same place, the Merry-Go-Round at Coney Island.

Homage must be paid to Akera Kurasawa’s film the Seven Samari which inspired both versions of the Magnificent Seven. Domo Agrigato.

Hellor High Water

Hell or High Water

This film takes place in Texas; maybe West Texas, but who cares. The film features prosaic tenets of old TV westerns. There are two brothers robbing banks, the hated foreclosures bank, the fat slow moving Texas Ranger who is smarter than he looked. There was a zaftig floozy making the moves on Pine’s character but nothing happened.

The movie’s mood is sullen. The small towns are dusty and lonely. The brazen robberies are a juxtaposition to the towns phlegmatic existence. Aside from a busted nose to one gets killed during the robbery.

Chris Pine is the quite smart brother. He is the brains behind the robberies. This is a chance for Pine to break away the “Captain Kirk” persona and show more dramatic talent. He did good job, but honestly nothing was a stretch.  Ben Foster the other brother who is an ex con who is impulsive and reckless.  They rob numerous small local banks. They only take the draw money. There is a method to their madness of which becomes apparent as the movie unfolds.  It is not complicated.

Texas is land of the Second Amendment. When you pull a gun out in a bank there is a high probably lots of guns pointing back at you. This scene was one of the few funny scenes in the movie.

Jeff Bridges is the Texas Ranger pursuing the brothers. His performance nearly highjacks the movie. Not only was his character portrayal great, but he was hysterical.  He has a long suffering partner named Alberto, who is half Mexican and half Comanche. Bridges spews a continues stream of ethnic jabs, which Alberto takes in good nature. They are like an old married couple.  Bridges is the wise old cop a few months away from retirement. He is tuned into the bank robbers and they play a deadly cat and mouse game.

This movie has received high acclamation from the critics. This not a great movie?  It a good movie. If you can restrain yourself wait for On Demand.

Ghostbusters (2016)

Ghostbusters (2016)

This movie mildly met my expectations. As a package it was fun to watch and in many ways nostalgic. Anyone who saw the iconic 1984 version would be naturally curious. Some performances were weak while others acceptable, but none were wickedly funny. The problem with a “reboot” is it wants to hang on to its linage but at the same time has the challenge to be fresh. The director and writers played this movie safe. Cast chemistry was very good. No one character dominated.

Melissa McCarthy has two basic personas, Tammy (wild woman) and Maggie from Saint Vincent.  Here Maggie as the lead scientist appeared. McCarthy was too low keyed and mostly unfunny. Her signature physical antics were absent. A subdued Melissa McCarthy is like watching strippers dance with their clothes on.

Kristin Wiig was the other scientist. Aside from some horny physical attraction to Hemsworth she was relegated as a mumbling worry worth. She is a very witty actress and could have contributed more to her role.

Kate McKinnon was the ordnance maven. She fabricated all sorts of ghostbusting weaponry (reminiscent of the 1984 movie). She sported a frozen a mad scientist look. Even with a limited guise she was funny in several spots even with little dialogue.

Leslie Jones has been described as a force of nature (I describe her as the last person you want to be stuck in an elevator with). Her performance in SNL is aggressive and wild. Here she was relegated to being a mere human. She was essential to the film but restraining here character was a mistake

At first I was not enthusiastic with Chris Hemsworth. The beefcake blond bird brain stereotype was obvious and unimaginative.  But his role grows on you and he has some funny skits. If the writers had more nerve they would have exploited sexual angle with Wiig. A three some with a ghost would have been edgy; calling Patrick Swayze. 

The movie was more effective when it was physical. Being slimed is still fun and fighting specters is what ghostbueters do. There are some end of the world battles. Chaos was done well.

Interestingly the special effects were not much different from the 1984 original. After thirty-two years you would expect some significant innovations. May be the director wanted to connect with the past.  Sadly, the Marshmallow Man did not appear.

There were some wonderful  nostalgic cameos from the 1984 movie.  The big names all seemed to have a good time and boosted the movie. Missing was the “Key Master”, Rick Moranis. He was asked but declined to appear.

This movie has its weak points, but there is enough to make it watchable. For those over sixty this s a nostalgic walk. Hey, for the rest of you can do worse. Until the “Suicide Squad “opens.

p.s. Theme music is the same as the original-why mess with perfect.

Tarzan

Tarzan

As a boy I was a Tarzan fan. My Tarzan was Johnny Weissmuller. He was German American and a five-time Olympic gold medal winner in swimming. He was not great actor, but the shows were action packed. Swinging from vines, riding elephants using his famous jungle call (which he patented). The focus of the films was action sprinkled with accidental acting.

This action flick this film was slow to get going. There was plot set up, convincing Tarzan to return to Africa, flash backs explaining the back story (done well). It dragged on a bit, but the pace quickened later on with human and non-human battles.

The 2016 Tarzan is a blond Swedish actor named is Alexander Skarsgard (before acting he was a model-dah). He is an obvious departure from traditional Tarzans but it does not detract from the action. His acting a bit stiff, but what he lacks in nuance he makes up in physicality. It took an hour and sixteen minutes before he took his shirt off. The guy is ripped. I stopped counting abs at twelve. He fights apes (not too well), natives and evil white men. He looks great on the vines.

 Margot Robbie is Jane. She is bubbly. Even in dire situation she remains rosy.  Whatever happens she knows Tarzan will come for her. This is a theme of the film, Tarzan’s devotion to Jane. There are geopolitical crises afoot and Jane is used as the bait.

Christoph Waltz is the villain who is in the service of King Leopold of Belgium. The plot is to enslave the Congolese natives and plunger their diamonds. Waltz is an admired actor but when he plays the bad guy with Natizi characteristics, you just want to punch him in the nose. He gives a solid performance absent repartee. This made his performance dower. Some levity would have been most welcomed.

Samuel L Jackson is an American named George Washington Williams who accompanies Tarzan back to Africa. Jackson does not even try to use of 19^th century speech cadence. He is still talks like the man on the plane with does M….F…. snakes. His performance grows on you as he tries to keep up with Tarzan. In part It becomes a buddy movie.

Poor Dijmon Hounsou, someone had to go native and he pulled the short straw. He plays the chief of fierce tribe and is Tarzan’s mortal enemy. His fierceness is compromised by wearing a little leopard skin skull cap and mittens with claws. He is intimidating any disguise, but the mittens kill it.

A problem of the movie is actors seem to be on different planes. Skarsgard is too serious, Robbie is too bubbly, Jackson seems to be playing in another movie and Waltz is graven. For movie to coalesce there needs to be some acting consistency.

For $180m production cost I think more action was expected. With some of the disappointing cinematic fair out there this is not the worst movie you can see. Just calibrate your expectations

Spoiler Alert- No loincloths are worn. Anyway who wants to see Samuel L Jackson in a loincloth.

Independence Day-Resurgence

Independence Day-Resurgence

In 1996, the day before leaving for Switzerland, I went to the midnight show of Independence Day. It was a highly anticipated film. The special effects were impressive (who can forget the Empire State building exploding). The story was transparent and the film had humor.  It was also very lucrative.

This movie is a mess. It uses five writers. The more writers used the more chaotic the film becomes. With all the destruction, this film resembles a demolition derby rather than a movie. Destruction is pervasive; it is the hallmark of the film. No landmark on any continent is spared. The original film also used destruction but the director had a purpose, to use it as the catalyst to fight the aliens

.

The actors were mere props. Some of the acting was stilted and others uninspired. There were actors from the original film: Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsh, Vivica A. Fox (the striper mom).  They did not energize the film. Pictures of Will Smith were plastered on the walls of the White House so he must be dead (Actually he was filming Suicide Squad). His grown son was his stand in. Liam Hemsworth (Thor’s brother) is one of the leads. No one’s acting was memorable, including Harmsworth’s, but good looks forgive many sins.

The essence of the plot is “let’s get them before they get us”. Same as the other flick but here bedlam highjacks the film. The movie wallowed in excessive and expensive CG. This is a weakness of the poor writing and feckless directing.  The production cost is $165m (plus advertising= $330m). I hope the Chinese (their market rivals ours) have a large appetite for schlock.  

p.s.-To kill time I snuck into the movie “The Shallows” with Blake Lively. I was more curious than interested. I caught the last third of the film. From what I saw It was very good; tension was palatable with Blake trying to outwit a shark. The setup is she is stuck on an out crop of rocks and only a few yards from shore and high tide is rising. The shark waits. The shark made human sashimi of some errant surfers. Jaws is the holy grail for this genera. This film is a worthy candidate for shark movies.