Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

*** out of ****

This feels like it's going to be one of the more tortured reviews I've ever written because of the terribly mixed emotions I have about the film. But I suppose my feelings could most easily be summed up with one statement: while “Rogue One” is a very good movie, it isn't a very good “Star Wars” movie.

In (very) short, the film tells the story leading up to the very first moment of the original “Star Wars” (1977), where Darth Vadar's star destroyer is chasing Princess Leia's small ship across the screen. The pursuit was due to the knowledge that the plans for the Death Star were somewhere on board. “Rogue One” tells the tale of how they came to be on board – specifically how a rebel detail led by Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), who is the daughter of the Death Star's creator, stole the plans to deliver to the rebellion.

Sounded like a pretty interesting plot to me, and in many ways it is. It's action-packed, has some interesting characters and dialogue, and even a few chuckles. But there were a myriad of problems with it that made it, for me, a failure as a Star Wars story.

In the best of the Star Wars films (the original trilogy and “The Force Awakens”) the story and objectives are very clear, the lines between good and evil plainly defined, and we deal with a controlled set of characters who are very nicely developed. ALL of those things are missing in “Rogue One”. The first half of the movie is almost hopelessly convoluted, following several different story-lines that seem to go in countless directions. We're introduced to about fifteen key characters (instead of the 6 or 7 that were crucial to the plot of those better films), and often you can't even remember what their names are of what their supposed to be doing. One of these characters, Saw Gerrerra (Forrest Whitaker) is one of the worst “heroes” in the galaxy – he was apparently supposed to be heroic but I found him so awful that I was happy when (spoiler alert) he was blasted into oblivion by a giant shockwave.

Another thing that bothered me might be my own perceptions, as it seemed to me that a successful infiltration of the Empire's data store to steal the plans would have been far better served by a small force working under the radar – in “Rogue One” it's a battle as big as the Death Star engagement in “Return of the Jedi” (1983). There is just soooooo much going on all the time that it's hard to be really engaged by the story. And since so many of the characters are involved in the battle, you lose any tension that the small incursion would have delivered.  Why was it so tense when Luke, Han, Leia and Ben Kenobi were sneaking around the original Death Star?  Because we cared about all of them and they were being stealthy and trying not to be noticed.  "Rogue One"s infiltrators, with similar goals, attack the empire base like a pack of hungry wolves on an unsuspecting deer.

But even with all that, “Rogue One” is a great action movie. For a generation brought up on Halo and Call of Duty, it's probably cinematic ambrosia. But for those of us that were children when the original three films were on the big screen, where we found magic and fun and love and laughter and heroes that we pretended to be during play with our friends, this is really little more than a very good action movie. And it is simply greatly lacking in the tremendous fun that “Star Wars” is supposed to be.

Arrival (2016)

** ½ out of ****

I'd heard so much about “Arrival” before I went to see it that I knew I would have to be careful not to get my expectations too high. Everything I'd read suggested that this was a highly intelligent film that would challenge you and didn't make any attempt to be “Hollywood”. Now right off the top I can say that I understand why people are writing such things, but they've all left out that it's also very slow moving and offers a payoff that really isn't quite worth the wait.

Amy Adams is Dr. Louise Banks, a renowned and highly respected linguist with a history as a translator for the US Government. When 12 huge alien crafts, dubbed “shells” by the media due to their shape, arrive in varied locations all over the world the government contacts her to come try to communicate with the aliens. The shells are in many different countries, all of whom seem to be trying to do their own thing to communicate with them, so the government sees it as a race to be able to talk with the aliens.

Banks, along with theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), seems to be making slow but steady progress in her communications, no small feat considering the aliens communicate solely through visual images they secrete in smoke. The progress  she makes isn't enough for the military, who appear to feel that whichever country is able to talk to the aliens first will be rewarded with a weapon that would give them terrible power over the other nations of the world. The other teams communicating with the shells feel similarly, believing the aliens are trying to set the nations of the Earth against each other, and the film becomes a race to confirm or disprove this idea before the army tries to destroy the shell.

Where all of the standard critics are saying this is “thinking man's sci-fi” and that it expresses interesting ideas that will get people talking, I have to admit I just don't see it. The film poses the government and military in their familiar role of “shoot first ask questions later”, with the scientists as the heroes trying to save the day, both of which are pretty standard sci-fi themes. "Arrival"  gets into some semi-interesting time/space ideas at the end, but though they're delivered in a way we haven't seen before, I'm not sure that makes the whole thing unique or especially great.

I've given the movie two and a half stars, which may not be fair to it as it is overall a pretty enjoyable film, if the slow-moving parts don't leave you too cold. But they left me pretty cold, and since the marketing of the film has had a tremendous amount to do with its “Rotten Tomatoes” rating (currently around 94%) they're pretty much begging you to look at it as a critical wonderkind. And to be frank, I just don't think it is. It's a solid, not-particularly-exciting piece of work that, unlike the really great sci-fi films, didn't leave me with any feeling that I needed to see it a second time.

Denial (2016)

*** out of ****

Like most young men, when I was growing up I was fascinated by WW2, especially the events of the Holocaust. It seemed almost spectacularly evil – that the entire political and military arms of the powerful nation of Germany could be fully engaged and totally unified in such horrific crimes. As I got older I learned more and more about it until I felt I understood what happened and why.

But I was only connecting with it on a historical, academic level. Perhaps the events of the Holocaust were so awful that I unconsciously decided to view them from that angle only, instead of from a personal level. That all changed a few years ago when I got my hands on a copy of “Shoah” (1985), a ten-hour documentary about Auschwitz, Chełmno, Treblinka and the Warsaw Ghetto. I've heard people call movies “important” before, but this is the only one that I feel truly is. “Shoah" used no historical footage or photos, rather was a long testimonial – people who were actually there talking about what happened there, and how it affected them. It was the first time I really connected with the Holocaust on a completely personal level, and watching many of the people in it tell their stories frequently brought tears to my eyes.

Unfortunately, for decades there have been people in the world who deny the Holocaust ever happened. These individuals make me sick, trying to clear the name of Adolph Hitler and his Nazis by suggesting that what happened didn't really happen. I have been unlucky enough to have had conversations with more than one of these people, and their Neo-Nazi agendas, whether disguised or blatant, are absolutely repellent. Even terrifying on certain levels. The new film “Denial” is about such people.

Rachel Weisz plays real-life author Deborah Lipstadt, who in 1993 wrote a book called “Denying the Holocaust” about this movement, its arguments and the motivation of its proponents. In her book she characterized one Holocaust denier, British historian David Irving (played here by Timothy Spall), as bending historical evidence until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda, accused him of falsely shaping accurate information to suit his conclusions, and concluding that his work was “dangerous”. Irving apparently decided this would be an ideal opportunity to get his point of view on the front page and sued her for libel saying her description of him as having falsified evidence, or deliberately misrepresented it, had ruined his reputation as a historian.

In America when someone is accused of libel the courts require the accuser to prove the alleged libelous statements are untrue, but in England (where the case was argued) the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that they are true. This becomes the crux of the movie as Lipstadt decides to go to court rather than settle the case, knowing full well the problems that will go with it. In order to win the case, she would not only have to prove Irving lied, but prove that the Holocaust actually happened in the first place, that Irving had evidence of it, and that his interpretation of that evidence was demonstrably and deliberately wrong. And it placed a social burden on her of “you'd better win, or all the deniers will finally have a leg to stand on.”

The Nazis went to great lengths to make sure that there was little or no paper trail leading to their extermination of the Jews and others they considered undesirable, and when the war was lost they went to great lengths to try to cover all trace that it had happened. So how could one prove in court something where the perpetrators had gone to such lengths to eliminate all evidence of its existence? This is the challenge facing Lipstadt and her team in “Denial”.

Rachel Weisz is fantastic in the lead role, always leaving us with no doubt about her passions and her loathing of Irving and his ilk. Spall is equally terrific as Irving, and I defy any watcher of this film not to want to knock his teeth out. Tom Wilkenson is Richard, Lipstadt's lead attorney, and the second half of the film becomes a full blown courtroom drama. I loved that the script didn't go for any overly dramatic “A-HA!” moments like so many courtroom films do, rather let it unfold as earnestly as possible. It might have been more of a box office lure to go that route, but I was delighted with the movie's lack of Hollywood influence.

“Denial” already looks like it's going to be a box office failure, probably for some of the reasons that make it so effective. But it tells the story of an important event, and of people who were motivated to try to do something important. Specifically ensure that the most horrible event of the 20th century would be recognized for what it was, and expose its deniers as the agenda-oriented monsters that they are.

Well worth seeing.

Don't Breathe (2016)

*** out of ****

After a great deal of time off while dealing with some personal business, Great Big C's movie blog is back. And starting back up with a very nice piece of business in its own right.

“Don't Breathe” is another one of those happy surprises – it looks going in like it's going to be another run-of-the-mill scare-fest like so many being churned out these days, and it turns out to be a taut, suspenseful little gem with many twists and turns that keep you deeply involved and on the edge of your seat. Jane Levy is Rocky, a girl from the wrong side of the tracks who makes money by robbing houses with her boyfriend Money (Daniel Zovato) and their friend Alex (Dylan Monette). Alex's father works for a security company, and Alex uses Dad's computer data to select houses and bypass their security systems. Money is clearly a jackass, and Alex has a crush on Rocky, and it seemed these things would become a vital part of the plot. Luckily the film stays away from these generic storylines and they play a very small part in it.

Alex finds in Dad's database a house in urban Detroit, in an nearly abandoned neighbourhood, whose owner has received a seven figure settlement in a wrongful-death suit involving his deceased daughter. Since then he has added an expensive security system, and the three reason that he keeps a lot of that money at the house.  While casing the place, they also find that he is a war veteran who has been blinded in the line of duty. What robbery could be any easier?

Upon breaking in and attempting to anesthetize the blind owner, they get on with the robbery. Unfortunately for them, he is aroused by their noise and catches them in the act. The owner decides to fight back rather than allow himself to be robbed, and the movie takes off from there like a runaway train. The tension is absolutely wonderful.

Whereas you start out with a great deal of sympathy for the blind man, the twist and turns of the plot end up showing that he's not a very nice guy, and all you want is for the robbers to escape with their lives. Most of the time this seems an impossibility. Director Fede Alvarez, whose only previous feature film was the absolutely horrible and trashy remake of “The Evil Dead” (2013) has made a quantum leap forward with this film. Whereas his earlier effort was only meant to shock and disgust, this film build real suspense, and despite not being a horror film, achieves horror-film levels of fright. I'm a pretty seasoned watcher of scary movies, and this one had me far more ready to bounce off the walls than anything I've seen since “It Follows” (2014). And like that film, this one needed no CGI, special effects or massive production – it is a simple story, told effectively and pretty much over-achieves on all it's objectives.

It's not going to win any awards, but it's a tremendously enjoyable, tense movie that will press any movie-goer's anxiety levels through the roof. Very highly recommended

11.22.63 (2016)

*** out of ****

Back when Stephen King released his novel “11/22/63” back in 2011, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. King has long been my favorite author, ever since first reading “Christine” in 1983. And the Kennedy assassination has long been one of my favorite subjects, and I've read dozens of books about it from the most well reasoned (“Reclaiming History”) to the nuttiest (“Best Evidence” and “Rush to Judgment”). Favorite author, favorite subject.... and what turned out to be a great, engrossing novel. Despite a few minor changes in the storyline, I am very happy to say that Hulu's limited miniseries “11.22.63” does that wonderful book justice.

James Franco is Jake Epping, a recently divorced high school teacher living in a small town in Maine. One of his closest friends is Al Templeton, the proprietor of a local diner. One day Jake finds Al looking deathly ill and much older – and Al's excuse is that he has found a time portal and has been living in the past for the past several years. Al's appearance is due to the time he spent there and the fact that he is dying of cancer and doesn't have much time left. He shows a dubious Jake the portal, which transports him back to October 1960, much to Jake's astonishment. 

After Jake returns to 2016, Al tells him about his plans to change the past. He believes that the world would be a far better place if JFK had not been assassinated in 1963, and he'd hoped to stay there long enough to prevent it. He believes this would prevent the Vietnam War, among other things. But now he will be dead before having his chance and he wants to recruit Jake to take over the mission for him. Jake initially resists, but when Al dies in the night Jake decides to go ahead with the plan before Al's body is found and Jake's access to the time portal is removed.

The portal only transports you back to the very same time in October 1960, so Jake will have to live in the past for over three years before the day of the assassination. He needs to blend in with the times (which means a shave and a haircut before anything else), and find a way to make money. He does most of this through sports betting but he also moves to Texas and takes a job as a schoolteacher. There he awaits Lee Harvey Oswald, who at the time had been living in Russia but would soon return to America.

Watching Jake live in the early 60s is fantastic, and Hulu did a very nice job of always looking authentically like the past. The cars and costumes, the styles and mannerisms, all come off very well. While Jake is dedicated to his mission he is also human and finds friends and even a love interest, which all make his mission more difficult. He shadows Oswald when he returns trying to determine whether there was a conspiracy or not, and tries to do whatever possible to determine how to best save JFK.

Some have complained that Franco wasn't very good in this 7 hour long epic, but I thought he was great. I found he was almost exactly the Jake from King's novel. Sarah Gadon as Jake's love interest Sadie was the weak link in the casting, as she seemed far too young both for the part and to be romantically involved with Franco's character. But overall the casting was fine, and even the minor changes (such as a much expanded part for the character Bill Turcotte) all worked for me. I was even tickled to death that they didn't change the ending, which while not particularly feel-good was pretty much what King wrote.

If you have the time, this is an 8 part miniseries that invites a bingewatch, because it's really just a 7 hour long movie. It's extremely well done and I hope other filmmakers see what an achievement it is and try to develop more epic novels this way, rather than the hack and slash jobs they often have to do in order to fit them into a 2 hour big screen script.

If you have access to “11.22.63”, and any interest in unique sci-fi time travel stories, you won't be disappointed.

The Jungle Book (2016

*** out of ****

I think most everyone knows the story of “The Jungle Book”. A man from a local village was out in the jungle with his toddler son Mowgli, when he was attacked and killed by a vicious tiger known as Shere Khan. In the fight though he burned the tiger's face with fire, causing it to run off. The boy was found by a panther called Bagera, who brought him to a pack of wolves to be raised.

Now the boy is an adolescent, and Shere Khan has learned he lives in the jungle. The tiger will do anything to kill the boy in vengeance for his being burned, and Mowgli must escape to the “man village”. Along the way he encounters all manner of danger, including an hypnotic python and a pack of greedy orangutans, but also makes a good friend in a bear named Baloo. But when Mowgli finds that Shere Khan is destroying his wolf pack to force Mowgli to return, he decides to fight the tiger instead of run away, leading to a climactic battle.

The story has been done before in the movies, and has even been done well. Never as well as this version though, in my opinion. It's hard to believe but there are actually no real animals in the film, as all the wildlife is completely computer generated. There are a couple of scenes where the animation is a bit off (enough so you can tell it's CGI) but for the most part is flawless. There are a couple of nods to the 1967 animated version in the forms of a couple of songs, but they are fit into the story in such a way that they aren't true “musical numbers”. Having watched the older version multiple times as a kid, these little tributes were the biggest smile-inducers in the movie.

But this is by no means a light-hearted adventure. In fact, at times it's downright terrifying, as can even be seen in the trailers. Kids who scare easily will have extended periods where they are scared witless by this thing, as it maintains a real sense of danger and foreboding through most of the film. And when the danger comes front and center, there were plenty of kids in the theater hiding their faces.

The visuals are excellent and the story riveting – this really is a terrific achievement in filmmaking.  It's enough of a kid movie that I wouldn't expect many adults to venture to the theater to see it without the kids, but it has enough plot and action to keep the grown ups interested.  Well worth seeing.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

*** ½ out of ****

I remember going to see “Cloverfield” (2008) when it came out and honestly, it made zero impression on me. I vaguely recall some kind of house party, a Godzilla-like creature and something about an alien twist, but that's about it. So when “10 Cloverfield Lane” was released I was in no hurry to see it, assuming more fo the same. But when I saw it was getting a score in the 90s at Rotten Tomatoes I figured I ought to at least give it a chance. And I'm very glad I did.

Before getting into the story I have to mention how much I admire John Goodman as an actor. Given his massive girth and moon face you would think he would be pigeonholed into a very specific type of role, but instead he is one of Hollywood's most versatile performers. He can play the big, cuddly teddy bear type, the hilarious manic characters, the straight villain and the stone-cold lunatic, all with equal aplomb. In this film he gives a tremendous performance as the latter – and it's one that will chill you to the bone.

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) just broke up with her boyfriend and she has hightailed it out of town looking to start anew. But as she drives a lonesome highway in the middle of the night her car is smashed off the road, flips over and over, and leaves her unconscious. When she wakes up she finds herself in a type of cinderblock cell, cuffed to the wall with an IV in her arm. After first believing she has been abducted by a predator, she is told by her “captor” Howard (John Goodman) that he saved her from the wreckage just as Armageddon came down. There has been some kind of attack, possibly nuclear and possibly chemical, that has made the world at large a poisonous deathtrap. They are in an underground fallout shelter he has built, and if they try to leave they will all surely die.

And they're not alone. Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) is also there with them, and he corroborates Howard's story. He helped build the bunker, and when he saw the bombs raining down he made haste to get there and had to fight his way in. So now the three of them have to wait out the poison in the atmosphere, possibly for one year, possibly for two. Without spoiling any of the details, at first Michelle is doubtful of the story she hears, but through a series of events comes to believe that, though she isn't sure of exactly what happened to the world, there is no doubt that something surely has.

Now don't think that makes her comforatble about being there. Howard, while maintaining an outward facade of level-headedness, clearly has something wrong with him. He's just a bit too quick to anger and a bit too nutty when his anger hits. Michelle eventually determines that she needs to find a way to safely have a look outside, and she needs to keep it completely on the downlow, fearing reprisals from Howard.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" is exceptionally tense. Throughout you have no real idea of what has happened to the world, and even wonder if anything truly has. But the fear of the outside unknown, paired with the crushing pressure of living under Howard's rule, leaves the anxiety level at the breaking point for almost the entire film. This is a much more challenging role for Winstead than anything I have ever seen her in before, and she delivers. Her “Michelle” has just the right mix of fear, vulnerability and courage to make you really care about her fate and root for her to escape Howard's rule. And Goodman is absolutely chilling – cold, ruthless, calculating, and crazily paranoid. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Goodman get a Supporting Oscar nomination next winter for this performance.

The tension remains throughout the film, though for the last 10 or 15 minutes it changes into something completely different. I imagine that there will be many moviegoers that won't like the twist of the last reel to tie it into the original “Cloverfield” but I thought it was fantastic. It's risky and unique, and I loved every second. You don't have to have seen the original to enjoy this movie, as it is singular enough to stand alone without its precursor, and while I can barely remember "Cloverfield", this film will instead stay with me for a long time.

If you enjoy a terrific psychological thriller, I highly recommend "10 Cloverfield Lane". Crazily suspenseful but still with a sense of fun and wit, it is simply a great ride from the first frame to the last.