The Edge of Seventeen (2016)

*** ½ out of ****

I was fifteen years old when “The Breakfast Club” (1985) was released, and it had a big impact on me. None of the six primary characters were actually much like me but I saw parts of myself in all of them, and their onscreen struggle to find their identities was one of the first times a high-school movie really resonated.

And though I would never argue with anyone calling “The Breakfast Club” the best high-school film ever, my personal favorite is “Pump Up The Volume” (1990). I wasn't a teenager anymore, but the lead character in that movie (Mark, played by Christian Slater) was someone I TOTALLY identified with. I WAS Mark Hunter in high school, I just never started a pirate radio station. So seeing someone on the screen that you think of as just like you is something I can identify with.

And that is what makes “The Edge of Seventeen” something special. In it, Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld) is a high-school student with exactly one close friend, Krista (Haley Lu Richardson). She feels awkward in every last social situation unless it's just her and Krista together, which is when they feel comfortable, loose and can be themselves. Nadine has an older brother (Blake Jenner) who is extremely popular, an athlete, and a huge circle of friends. Nadine, of course, hates him and everything he represents.

So when her best friend Krista and her brother end up dating, Nadine feels abandoned, alone and willing to do virtually anything to try to better her situation. Or so she tells herself. Because she's not really willing to do anything at all to change her situation, she just wants to wallow in the unfairness of it all. This takes her on a few uncomfortable journeys, one including the boy she has a crush on, and another involving a boy who has a crush on her. But Nadine's personal inability to find any empathy with anyone always causes each situation to be a disaster.

The constant throughout it all is Mr. Bruner, her history teacher (Woody Harrelson). Easily my favorite role ever for Woody, he is the adult that always calmly says what every adult would want to say, but never does for fear of hurting a youth's fragile feelings. Basically he tries most to help by letting Nadine know that each problem she drops in his lap is her own, not something for him to fix for her. If more adults acted like this, perhaps the youth of today wouldn't enter their 20s with the same attitudes previous generations dropped when they entered their teens....

What make “The Edge of Seventeen” so wonderful is its universality. Nadine thinks herself a rebel, a social misfit and totally unique at the same time. However, she's just like everyone else – awkward, dying for acceptance and wishing she had the courage to let everyone know what only her best friend knows – that she's pretty cool if you give her a chance. But what she doesn't realize is that this is how EVERYONE, even the most popular kids, feel about themselves in high school. That when you're seventeen, your lack of understanding of your own identity makes everyone incredibly fragile. Some of us are just better at dealing with that than others.

This isn't the new “Breakfast Club”. But I bet for a lot of young girls out there it will be a new “Pump Up The Volume”. Just as I thought of myself as Mark from that movie, there are going to be a tremendous number of young girls who think of themselves as Nadine. And they will learn an important lesson from her – that once you can see past the fact that you're not the only person in the world, that other people's feelings matter just as much as your own, that's when you start to grow as a person and become an adult.

And watching Nadine do it is a lovely exercise in fun and pathos. I give it a very, very high recommendation.

Get Out (2017)

*** out of ****

Ok, so we all know it has a stupidly high rating on Rotten Tomatoes (currently 99%). That's higher than “It Follows” (2014), the scariest film I've seen in many years. Is this one is good as “It Follows”? Not on your life. But it's entertaining as hell and has some damn good spooks in it too.

Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) is a talented young photographer, and he and his girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams) have gotten serious enough that he's going with her to meet her parents. He's moderately concerned how he'll be perceived as he's black and she's white, but he appears more resigned than anything. He expects a typical “white liberal” welcome, where everyone will go out of their way to show how accepting they are of him, while dropping the odd comment here and there to show they are really, really not okay with it. And at first he's right......

Her Dad keeps calling him “m'man” and insists on a hug when they meet. Mom (Catharine Keener) says all the right things, but keeps glancing at him with very distasteful looks. She's a therapist who can hypnotize patients, and one evening under the guise of help Chris quit smoking, she hypnotizes him without permission. And if you thought when watching this movie that things had been tense and weird up to that point, well, you ain't seen nothing yet.

There are other non-Caucasions around, but Chris notices that they act really, really bizarre. The gardener Walter (Marcus Henderson) for instance, seems like an NFL-sized combination of Uncle Remus and Hymie from “Get Smart”. The maid (Betty Gabriel) appears to be a constantly terrified robot (when I saw her I leaned over to the friend I was with and said, “She's like a Stepford Wife”). Clearly there are weird things afoot..... but for a very lengthy part of the movie we have no idea what the weird things are.

Believe it or not, this is the genius of the story. You know something is amiss, you know that Chris is in serious danger (and so does he, most of the time), but you really don't know why or from whom. It could be only one or two of the characters that are dangerous..... or it could be all of them.

Without giving too much away, your worst fears about how dangerous things are weren't as bad as how dangerous things REALLY are. But what's really going on is so friggin' weird that it's borderline awesome! I suppose I might have guessed what the danger was if someone forced me to guess, but then I would have dismissed it as too far out there. But the way the plot unfolds makes the eventual explanation crazy, but still almost believable. ALMOST.

It has some good jumps, some really creepy stuff, and the occasional really great laugh. For a fluffy horror picture that's enough for me to give it a good recommendation. But this is better than the average horror flick, full credit to them, but it isn't exactly as good as a 99% Rotten Tomatoes rating would lead you to believe. If you like the genre you'll love it, if you can tolerate the genre you'll like it, but this won't make any non-fans of scary movies into new fans. A solidly entertaining effort.

The Founder (2016)

*** out of ****

When I was a kid, I knew who Ray Kroc was – he was the always-smiling, benevolent owner of the San Diego Padres. I also knew he'd made his money in McDonald's (which confused me, as his name was not McDonald), but really I didn't know much more than that. The film “The Founder”, based on his entry into and building of the McDonald's empire, shows that Kroc was a considerably different man than that perception I had of him in the 1970s.

The film begins in 1953, with Kroc (Michael Keaton) chasing his million-dollar dreams. He's one of those guys that doesn't believe in building his life and wealth slowly – he wants it all and he wants it now. This has left him chasing one get-rich-quick scheme after another, and as he entered his 50s he was selling multi station milkshake mixers to burger stands. But when he receives an order one day for 8 multi-mixers, he thinks it must be a mistake – what kind of restaurant could possibly need to mix 42 milkshakes at a time?

So he travels to San Bernadino, California where he meets Dick and Mac McDonald (Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch). Their hamburger stand is built entirely around quality and speed – creating the same food over and over again, exactly the same every time..... in almost NO time. Kroc is fascinated by everything they've done; the “speedy system”, the disposable packaging, and the fact they only had five things on their menu – hamburgers, cheeseburgers, french fries, milkshakes and soda. Kroc finds out that they've tried franchising their system, but that it didn't work. Seeing it as another “million-dollar-idea”, Kroc convinces them that he can do better and sets off to build an empire.

Keaton is absolutely wonderful as Ray Krok, especially for the second half of the movie when Kroc's “kill or be killed” ruthlessness in business becomes a centerpoint of the story. Offerman and Lynch are equally excellent, one as the hard-assed bossman (who really is a small thinker) and the other as a “can't we all just get along” rube with good intentions. Laura Dern has a small part as Kroc's long-suffering wife, but it's an extraneous part with no meat, and she simply takes up space in her scenes.

“The Founder” is really a very good film. I don't know enough of the real-life story to know how accurate the depiction is, but the movie is just flat-out enjoyable, even if more from a historical standpoint than a purely entertainment one. Keaton, who started out as a rom-com guy has been showing how good his acting chops are for a long time – in 1990 he played his first bad guy in “Pacific Heights” and since then has turned in some fabulous performances. He didn't get any award nominations for his portrayal, but I would call it every bit as solid as any work he's done lately (if not quite as eclectic as some of the roles).

Not one that will go down in history as the subject matter isn't for all tastes, but absolutely a fine film that I highly recommend.

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