Sully review

One of the traits Clint Eastwood has embodied over his lengthy career both in front of the camera and behind has been the rugged American spirit of steady faithfulness, of living life well in the day-to-day. That’s why the director’s sensibilities appear to be such a perfect match for a behind-the-scenes look at Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and the “miracle on the Hudson” that enthralled the nation on January 15, 2009. Sully is Eastwood’s inspirational nod to the marvelous things that can happen when we champion the traits of perseverance and steadfast devotion in our own lives.

Tom Hanks portrays Sully in a perfect casting choice. So much of Sully’s story revolves around the fact that he doesn’t view himself as a hero, but simply a man doing his job. Despite Hanks’ worldwide fame, he somehow embodies the spirit of the “everyman” better than any actor working today (see: the recent Captain Phillips). Here, he plays a man whose commitment to his ideals and confidence in his own abilities allow himself to be anchored during the greatest challenge of his life.

The film wisely avoids opening with the infamous “forced water landing,” in which all 155 souls on board U.S. Airways flight 1549 were spared. Instead, we see the barrage of questions Sully and his co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart) are forced to confront, both from the ravenous and fawning media and the decidedly less enthused National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB is convinced that, despite the positive outcome, Sully endangered the lives of the passengers by not attempting to return to La Guardia airport after a flock of birds flew into the plane at the low altitude of 2800 feet, taking out both engines. In between the hearings, Sully grapples with the emotional impact the ordeal is having on his wife (Laura Linney) and daughters, and is plagued by vivid nightmares and doubts over whether or not he did the right thing. “I’ve flown thousands of flights and delivered millions of passengers safely,” Sully says. “But in the end, I’m going to be judged on 208 seconds.”

Sully is a subtle, beautiful tribute to the everyday heroism of a job well done.

Sully is a subtle, beautiful tribute to the everyday heroism of a job well done.

Watching a series of NTSB hearings doesn’t sound like riveting drama, which is what makes the skill with which Eastwood and screenwriter Todd Komarnicki tease out both the revelations and the smaller character moments all the more remarkable. Both the dialogue and camerawork are incredibly realistic, factors that really put the audience in the center of the story.

Of course, much like Robert Zemeckis’ Flight, the centerpiece of the film is the landing itself. And it’s absolutely breathtaking. The film smartly reveals the whole picture of the event in several flashbacks, which allows us to view it within the larger context of the emotions the characters are feeling at that particular moment. It’s a smart narrative device, and it gives the film much of its punch. We do get a couple of repeated scenes, but even then we get to see the same conversations and events from multiple perspectives.

And that is perhaps Sully’s greatest strength—it’s not really about Sully. Sure, he’s the center focus of the story, but I loved seeing the miraculous landing from the perspective of the air traffic controller who thinks he lost the plane (“no one survives a water landing,” he incorrectly believes), or the coast guard boat pilot who can scarcely believe his eyes, or the passengers of the plane themselves, who are in total and complete shock that they’re not dead.

Eastwood’s camera gives ample focus to many players both big and small, driving home the message that one of the biggest miracles we can experience in this life is not really much of a miracle at all. From Sully and Skiles to the stewardesses, passengers, firefighters, policeman and coast guard members, the reason everyone walked away from the Hudson that cold January day in one piece is because everyone performed their jobs to the very utmost of their ability. Everyone has a responsibility, and everyone has a role to play. It may not be a “miracle,” and it may not fit our Hollywood notions of heroism, but, in a time of crisis, it means everything. This engrossing drama enforces that important message with quiet, beautifully understated grace.

Suicide Squad review

Suicide Squad is an impressive film. Not because it’s particularly good or particularly memorable, because it isn’t. Rather, it’s impressive that a big-budget studio film, particularly one featuring well-known comic book characters, can be so utterly and completely average in every conceivable way. From performances to story to tone, every element here seems almost deliberately calculated to meet the bare minimum requirements required to pass muster as entertainment. Take it for what you will, but that’s actually a pretty special achievement.

Director David Ayer, who has made a career off of gritty, thrilling, anything-but-average films like End of Watch and Fury, seems like the perfect filmmaker for this kind of material. But even his considerable talents are squandered in a misshapen jumble of bravura auteurist flourishes and cynical studio pandering.

The Squad in question is formed in the shadow of Superman and what he has come to represent to planet earth. What if another super powered, unstoppable being comes along who isn’t so nice? Wouldn’t it be nice to have some insurance? So argues bureaucrat Amanda Waller (Viola Davis, whose performance is clearly the best part of the film), and she somehow convinces the U.S. government to assemble a cadre of violent, deranged criminals should the appropriate crisis arise.

These criminals, holed up in a maximum security penitentiary surrounded by Louisiana sludge, are a veritable who’s-who of psychos. There’s lethal sniper Deadshot (Will Smith), the increasingly unhinged Harley Quinn (Margo Robbie), pyrotechnic Diablo (Jay Hernandez), mercenary Slipknot (Adam Beach), master thief Boomerang (Jai Courtney) and deformed monster Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje).

They’re put under the care of Special Forces soldier Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), who calls them out after an ancient paranormal threat known as the Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), threatens to (say it with me) destroy the world, with the help of a zombie army. It may not come as a surprise that these folks aren’t too keen on being cooperative. But the promise of a shortened prison sentence, combined with the explosive charges implanted in the criminals’ necks, may hopefully keep them in line. Can these baddies find it in their hearts to put aside their self-interest and work together for the sake of each other and the world?

Even before a conflict is introduced, the film takes its (very long) time introducing us to each member of the Squad, not only their criminal backstories but also, in some cases, their ties to their past, perhaps the very things keeping them human. Deadshot, for example, desperately wants to be involved in the life of his young daughter. And Harley, of course has her doting Mr. J, aka the Joker (Jared Leto), scheming up a way to break her out. It’s great to get to know so much about the major characters early in the film, but it’s a slow burn as we wait for something to actually move the plot forward. There’s a balance somewhere between story and character, and Ayer’s script misses it.

Suicide Squad is a bland and derivative comic-based film that still contains some impressive performances.

Suicide Squad is a bland and derivative comic-based film that still contains some impressive performances.

Once the film gets going, it’s…fine. The banter between the Squad is pretty fun (if often cheesy), and I liked seeing the group’s camaraderie grow as the film goes on. One scene in particular, in which the group lounges in a bar, feels like it’s taken from a much better and more interesting film (though even this scene is marred by the film’s ridiculous over-use of flashbacks). But the central conflict, and the action sequences in general, feel completely derivative, and for a film with such talented performers and memorable characters, that’s disappointing.

Thankfully, the film does get a lot of mileage out of its performances. Davis does a fantastic job with Waller, an icy and ferocious snake who is every bit as vicious and unpredictable as the criminals she brings out to play. Robbie is a joy as Harley, feasting on each of her snarky lines and playing it over-the-top without feeling like a cartoon character. And Smith brings a lot of emotional weight to Deadshot; you feel the desire he has to be reunited with his daughter, but he still conveys the danger and power the character should have.

Unfortunately, the rest of the performances feel forgettable, and that’s most obvious with Leto’s Joker. For a character so iconic, it’s strange that the film relegates his best moments to flashback scenes. Although his character is crucial to Harley’s development, he plays no major role in the central plot. I think Leto does okay with the character, but I didn’t really get to see enough of the Joker to make a judgment on that. For big fans of the character like myself, that’s a shame.

Suicide Squad made the news when Warner Bros. decided to employ reshoots to “lighten” the humorous elements of the film after the relative box-office disappointment of Batman V. Superman. But the studio seems to have a short memory. Christopher Nolan’s lauded Dark Knight trilogy was grim and gritty, but people loved the films because they had considerable dramatic heft and, more importantly, a soul. It’s not about whether a film is “gritty” or not; it’s about whether the film is good. The only mark of quality is, well…quality.

With that in mind, I didn’t really feel the uncomfortable imbalance between the humorous and darker elements of the film some were expecting. It’s occasionally kind of funny, but never gets as bleak or self-serious as some of the stuff in Batman V. Superman. My problem is that there appears to be so little lack of effort surrounding the film in general. There are no terrible elements here; everything basically works. But why should we settle for “basically works” as a measure of quality? There’s nothing to really get mad about, but also nothing to stir much of a reaction beyond a shoulder shrug.

Suicide Squad is like the Arby’s of comic-based superhero flicks. It leaves the audience feeling like it has eaten a meal without giving it any particularly memorable flavors to enjoy. It’s bland and forgettable, but it still qualifies as food. At least there’s no danger of contracting salmonella.

Star Trek: Beyond review

For a franchise celebrating its 50th year, Star Trek is riding high. Following the red-hot reboot film directed by J.J. Abrams and its sequel, the latest film in the franchise, with Fast and Furious veteran Justin Lin at the helm, has the challenge of keeping that momentum going while satisfying longtime fans of the original television shows, some of whom were dissatisfied with the creative decisions of the last film to bear the Star Trek moniker, Into Darkness.

By title alone, it’s assume to see that Star Trek Beyond is aiming for something different. In style and tone, it resembles the original television series more closely than the Abrams films. This results in a surprisingly fun, enjoyable thrill ride, but one that thankfully doesn’t shrimp on the epic scope and dramatic action fans of the rebooted films have come to love.

Here, we find the crew of the Enterprise drifting through space as it seeks out another area of the galaxy to be explored. Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is still wrestling with the legacy of his late father and figuring out his place in the universe.  Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto) is torn between his love for Lieutenant Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and his feelings of devotion to the dwindling race of Vulcans he considers family. Other returning cast members include ship engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg), pilot Sulu (John Cho), ship doctor McCoy (Karl Urban) and navigator Chekov (the late Anton Yelchin).

Compared to past entries, the story here is simple. The crew receives a distress call from an alien captain whose flight crew has crash landed on an abandoned planet in an uncharted system. The noble Kirk promptly launches a rescue mission, but quickly runs afoul of the villainous Krall (Idris Elba), who bombards the Enterprise in search of an alien artifact that is the key to a world-destroying weapon. Soon the crew members finds themselves spread out across a mysterious planet with only their wits and the bonds of friendship to guide them, though the assistance of the enigmatic Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) certainly helps too.

Star Trek: Beyond is a fast-paced, exciting adventure that should please fans of the franchise.

Star Trek: Beyond is a fast-paced, exciting adventure that should please fans of the franchise.

The great joy of Star Trek has always been the camaraderie and banter between the crew, and this entry doesn’t skimp on great character interactions and humorous dialogue. The script, written by Pegg and Doug Jung, crackles as it whirls an amazing variety of set piece action sequences at the audience, but the film never feels stuffed or overwhelming because it’s still so grounded in its characters. I love Pine’s young, inexperienced and self-doubting Kirk, a captain who still manages to be an inspiring leader despite his insecurities. His bromance with Spock continues to be an affecting one. I also love Pegg’s Scotty, whose thick Scottish brogue never fails to amuse, and Urban’s McCoy, whose cynical reactions to almost every situation get tons of laughs. The balance fells almost perfect, but other characters are given little attention. The much ballyhooed decision to make Sulu gay is a complete non-event, and it’s especially sad seeing Yelchin’s Chekov so underutilized given the actor’s untimely death. I felt these characters earned the attention the others got, but it’s always a tricky task balancing the development of so many well-known faces in the span of two hours.

As fine as the script and performances are, I really think the star of Beyond is the art direction. This is simply a jaw-droppingly gorgeous film, filled with bright colors and scenic locales. The planet that fills much of the film’s run time features everything from verdant green forests to dark caves and rocky mountains. This natural beauty is contrasted expertly with the grand floating city of York Town, itself a marvelous and sparkling creation. Thomas E. Sander’s production design is Oscar-worthy, and I doubt we’ll see a better looking film this year.

The story itself is the weakest aspect of Beyond. Its flaw is not in its simplicity; I actually rather enjoyed the lack of complex backstory and lightness of the plot. But, as the film progresses, the pacing does begin to drag, and this is especially true when the motivations of Krall are revealed. Although he could never live up to Khan, Krall is far from a bad villain, and he’s intriguing enough to help reverse the trend of stale, uninteresting baddies that populate the vast majority of summer popcorn flicks. But I felt his arc to be convoluted and his backstory confusing. I was left with lots of questions, and, unlike with Khan, I don’t think Krall was meant to be so mysterious. Although Elba does a fine job with the character, I felt the way he was written to be the sole confusing spot in an otherwise easy-to-follow tale.

Star Trek Beyond is a balanced and polished thrill ride from start to finish. Its numerous callbacks and tonal homage to the original series should satisfy longtime fans, while its breathtaking action, stellar performances and grand production design should pull in newer fans. It may not boldly go where no film has gone before, but it’s more than good enough to have me along for the ride.

Finding Dory review

There was a time when Pixar stayed away from sequels. Apart from the successful Toy Story franchise, it seemed like the animation giant wanted to treat its wildly successful films as the standalone masterpieces they are. But the company has taken a different tack in recent years, creating sequels to the likes of Monsters Inc. and Cars. Kicking off a further wave of upcoming sequels is Finding Dory, the long-dormant and much-hyped sequel to Finding Nemo, one of the studio’s most enduring outputs. Like Pixar’s slate of other sequels, it’s not strictly necessary, but it is successful in following the studio’s operating mantra regarding their much-beloved IP: do no harm.

The film takes place one year after the events of the original, with blue tang Dory (voiced by Elen Degeneres) living a peaceful existence beside her clownfish friend Marlin (Albert Brooks) and his son Nemo (Hayden Rolence). Dory, who suffers from short-term memory loss, is startled when fragmented memories of her parents begin to appear, and she quickly decides that she must go in search of them. Of course, forgetful (and impulsive) fish are likely to get lost along the way, perhaps forgetting why they left on an adventure to begin with. And so, Nemo (eagerly) and Marlin (reluctantly) agree to tag along for the ride. Their travels soon lead them to a California Marine park where Dory believes her parents are. Here, they come across a colorful cast of new characters—including Hank the octopus (Ed O’Neill), shark fish Destiny (Kaitlin Olson) and beluga whale Bailey (Ty Burell)—who help Dory and company in their quest to find her missing parents.

By Pixar standards, the plot is extremely simple but not simplistic. While the story contains few surprises, there’s a welcome emotional resonance to Dory’s arc, as we see flashbacks of experiences with her parents as a child. The audience uncovers Dory’s memories along with her, which is an engaging hook. Compared to other recent Pixar sequels like Cars 2 and Monsters University, Dory does a better job of keeping us engaged with the emotional core of the story.

Finding Dory is  a visually stunning and fun little sequel to the classic original.

Finding Dory is a visually stunning and fun little sequel to the classic original.

While Dory succeeds under certain comparisons, it suffers under others. Specifically, the original film it follows. Perhaps no one expected this sequel to reach the emotions and pitch-perfect comedic timing of Finding Nemo, but even so this is a much lesser effort. We get lots of insight into Dory’s character and background, but Marlin and Nemo (along with all other returning characters) are disappointingly static, existing as props to aid Dory’s discoveries and nothing else. While pretty to look at and quite funny, there is nothing here that can be described as essential cinema.

Thankfully, the new characters do a lot to help assuage the familiarity. Hank the octopus is one of Pixar’s most creative creations, a visual tour de force in his bright colors and his expert use of camouflage. Destiny the vision-impaired shark gets a lot of laughs, as do rambunctious sea lions Fluke (Idris Elba) and Rudder (Dominic West). All of the new characters are also stunning to behold; Pixar’s animation has come a long way since even the gorgeous original, making for one of the prettiest CG animated films I’ve seen.

Finding Dory is ultimately a minor triumph in its ability to do no harm. The risk of making a sequel to a beloved property (especially an old one) is the fear that it will be poor enough to diminish opinions of the original. But there’s no risk of that here. Finding Nemo is still a masterpiece, and Finding Dory is a fun, breezy chance to reunite with some classic characters and learn to love some new faces. It’s funny, occasionally inventive and visually jaw-dropping, but I won’t be revisiting it time and again like I have the original.

X-Men: Apocalypse review

The X-Men franchise has always held a unique place among comic-based superhero films. It could be argued that director Bryan Singer’s 2000 original heralded in the superhero renaissance that would soon define the world of blockbuster cinema. The superhero sub-genre has come a long way since then, and the franchise has seen its share of ups and downs, from the disappointments of X-Men 3 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine to the creative rebirth of First Class and Days of Future Past, the latter of which lured Singer back to the director’s chair for the first time since the fan-favorite X-Men 2. With X-Men: Apocalypse, Singer is back along with an excellent cast that includes new and returning iterations of famous and well-known characters, and the result is a film that in many ways feels like a throwback, despite its younger cast. This is both a very good and very bad thing.

Apocalypse is instantly much darker and violent than the films that came before it, as we open upon ancient Egyptians worshipping what they see as a god, but what we see as the very first mutant (Oscar Isaac). He goes by many names, but we see him as En Sabah Nur, aka Apocalypse. This extremely powerful being has been able to survive centuries by transferring his consciousness to a new mutant host, while also gaining his/her powers and adding them to his arsenal of skills. But, when a conflict causes him to be entombed, Apocalypse is buried for thousands of years, until the year 1983, when a cult of followers hunts down his remains and brings him back to life (the film doesn’t really bother with any sort of explanation as to how this transference and reanimation works).

Meanwhile, the mutants we know so well are dealing with the fallout of the events of the previous films. It has been 10 years since mutants were “introduced” to the rest of the world in Washington, D.C. when the shape-shifting Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) saved the president and other world leaders from the vengeful wrath of Magneto (Michael Fassbender). Since then, Mystique has gone rogue, while Magneto has settled down in Poland working at a steel mill and living in an almost-too-quaint forest cottage with a wife and child.

Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) has begun his school for gifted youngsters in earnest, training a new generation in earnest along with Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult). He is introduced to several new students, including the telepathic Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), the laser-eyed Scott Sommers (Tye Sheridan) and the teleporting Kurt Wagner (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Little does Xavier know he’s actually preparing an army to fight against Apocalypse, who sees the human world as a disease that must be eradicated so that mutants can once again rise to rule the earth as gods. By his side are his four horsemen, young mutants he sways to his cause by enhancing their powers, including Psylocke (Olivia Munn), Angel (Ben Hardy), Storm (Alexandra Shipp) and yes, the master of metal himself, Magneto (is it much of a surprise to hear that things in Europe don’t turn out so great?). At stake is the fate of the world itself and the most epic confrontation our gifted heroes have yet faced.

X-Men Apocalypse features just enough enough awesome fan service to excuse its myriad problems.

X-Men: Apocalypse features just enough enough awesome fan service to excuse its myriad problems.

Many of Apocalypse’s problems are obvious from the get-go. The oppressively dark religious imagery and themes of the film’s first third are a real bummer, and the exposition is sluggish and dull. I was bothered by writer Simon Kinberg’s odd attempts at balancing humor with some extremely gruesome content (how they managed a PG-13 with this one is a mystery—it’s brutal). The film is also extraordinarily over-the-top, even for a franchise that seems to wear that as a badge of honor. If John Ottman’s bombastic, overbearing score isn’t enough to convince you of that this movie is supposed to be super EPIC, nearly everything else in the film will. It just seems like it’s trying way too hard.

The other main issue I have with the film is Apocalypse himself. God bless Oscar Isaac, but this is one of the cheesiest villains I’ve seen in a comic film. I love seeing Isaac ham it up, and his design is actually pretty cool, but his plan is confusing and the “sci-fi science” behind his powers is ludicrous. For example: how, exactly does he recruit his horsemen? Even after he finds them (no easy task, given that the film makes a big deal about Apocalypse not having telepathic abilities), does he brainwash them, or simply tell them he’s powerful and that they should follow him? I seem to believe the latter, but it wouldn’t make much sense for some of the horsemen to follow him unconditionally, either. Furthermore, our big bad seems intimidating and powerful in some scenes, while a total pushover in others.

Rarely can a film recover from this many problems, but I’m glad to report that Apocalypse somehow manages to pull it off. The second half is terrific. This is thanks to some mind-blowing set piece moments that rival anything we’ve seen in the series; thank God for Quicksilver (Evan Peters), whose antics are just as much a highlight here as they were in Days of Future Past. We also get a glorious cameo from a certain mutton-chopped mutant that is so insanely cool I couldn’t help but clap for it.

The X-Men franchise has always survived on the strength of its characters, and that holds true here. Magneto and Xavier are the finest written characters in all of superhero-dom, and even when so many other elements threaten that, the bond these two share shines through beautifully. The writing is helped greatly by the performances: McAvoy and Fassbender feel born to play these roles, as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan did before, and they’re better than ever here. I feel the same way about Lawrence’s Mystique, although most of her character growth occurred in the last film. The new cast is also uniformly excellent; I particularly enjoyed Tye Sheridan’s version of a young Cyclops and Smit-McPhee’s interpretation of Nightcrawler, probably my favorite mutant. The action-packed climax doesn’t feel particularly inspired, but I cared enough about these characters that the mostly bland CGI cacophony worked well enough.

X-Men: Apocalypse is an odd grab-bag of half-baked ideas mixed with undeniable brilliance. The franchise has always placed a premium on character, and that’s certainly true here. This unfortunately comes at the expense of a decent story, and I wish the two sides were as balanced and nuanced as they were in Days of Future Past. Still, some messes are very much worth seeing, and that is true here. Fans of the franchise will have plenty to enjoy and ruminate on, but there’s sadly very little here to endear outsiders to the world of mutants.

Last Days in the Desert review

Hollywood sure seems to have a thing for interpretive biblical fiction these days. Unlike artistic adaptations of known Bible stories like Noah or inspirational Christian dramas like Miracles from Heaven, this third biblical sub-genre is intent on filling in biblical gaps or providing additional speculative context to known biblical events. This year has already seen the likes of Risen, which told the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from an alternative viewpoint, and The Young Messiah, which took a look at Jesus’ lost childhood years. Now comes Last Days in the Desert, an artistic powerhouse that dives into Jesus’ 40 days of wandering through the desert as he prepares for his ministry and eventual crucifixion. It’s easily the best of the bunch.

Writer-director Rodrigo Garcia was keenly interested in the relationship between fathers and sons as he wrote the script, and that topic permeates the film. The principal relationship, obviously, is between Jesus Christ and God the Father. This version of Christ (played with haunting clarity by Ewan McGregor), is plagued with intense doubt and confusion about his mission. It doesn’t help that the devil (also played by McGregor) continues to taunt him, attempting to draw Yeshua, as he’s called here, away from his ultimate purpose. Compared to Yeshua’s stoic silence, this demon is playful and full of emotion. He tells Yeshua that God doesn’t love him, that he’s abandoned him, that his mission is fruitless. But there’s a pang there, too, a longing in the devil to feel God’s touch the way he once did, when he was the Father’s right hand angel.

This scenes between the two forces are the film’s most riveting. These conversations ask profound questions that most films (and certainly most Christian films) don’t dare to touch upon. The nature of reality, of free will, of God’s love in a cruel universe, these are the topics that envelop the devil’s mind and, by extension, Yeshua’s. What makes these scenes so compelling is not only Garcia’s sharp and intelligent dialogue but McGregor’s top-notch performance. His devil is a hoot, but his portrayal of Christ is equally riveting. If most Jesus movies seem more concerned with Christ’s deity than his humanity, the opposite runs true here. This is the most human portrayal of Christ I’ve seen. He thirsts, he gets blisters on his feet, he yells in frustration, he laughs at jokes and, in one odd scene, a fart. Sometimes, he says the wrong thing, or says the right thing in the wrong way. Because we don’t see Jesus perform any miracles or preach any messages, we see him as much more human that we’re used to. The effect is somewhat disconcerting but also effective.


Last Days in the Desert provides a riveting portrait of a conflicted Christ, and carves an utterly unique space among Jesus films.

Thankfully, the entire film doesn’t consist of Christ wandering around the desert. He runs across a father (Ciaran Hines) and son (Tye Sheridan) caring for the father’s ailing wife (Ayelet Zurer). Yeshua agrees to rest for a few days as he helps the family build a house. The relationship between this earthly father and son is strained. The boy wants to go to Jerusalem and follow his dreams, but the father wants him to stay and build upon the land. As Yeshua befriends the boy, he begins to ponder his relationship with his heavenly father in light of the fraying father-son relationship he has found himself in the middle of. Meanwhile, the devil believes he has found new ways to tempt and torture Yeshua through the family he is so keen on helping.

Last Days is undoubtedly an odd film, one that is very loosely structured and almost deliberately plotless. It’s also gorgeous, thanks to the work of legendary cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who makes the harsh desert landscape pop. His lens is so full of light and color, there are scenes where you would swear you were looking at God himself, especially during some of the sky shots (he achieved similar effect in The Tree of Life and The Revenant). I was thrilled to see Lubezki’s interpretation of the crucifixion; the scene’s stark, almost cold beauty and creative angles put it among my all-time favorite interpretations of that iconic moment.

Last Days in the Desert is an extraordinary artistic achievement, but on an emotional level it isn’t entirely successful. Some awkward attempts at humor fall flat, some relationships feel underdeveloped and the pacing will likely be too slow for some. It also isn’t a “redemptive” Christian tale in the traditional sense. In fact, its commercial credentials are almost non-existent. Garcia is much closer to Pier Paolo Pasolini in style and tone than Mel Gibson (we get even less reference to the resurrection here than Gibson’s brief nod in The Passion of the Christ).

But most of the things that would turn people away are what make the film so unique. I’ve never seen a Jesus film like Last Days, and given how much material there is to copy out there, that’s a statement I never thought I’d make. It’s a provocative, soul stirring and yes, uncomfortable film, but that’s exactly why I can’t wait to see it again.

Captain America: Civil War review

It seems like none of our heroes can get along these days. We recently saw two legends spar in Batman V. Superman, and morally opposed vigilantes Daredevil and The Punisher squared off on Netflix’s Daredevil. Now, with Captain America: Civil War, we find many of our Marvel heroes exchanging both verbal and physical volleys. Superheroes may often be known for facing off against memorable bad guys, but their greatest foes may come from within.

Civil War finds our heroes facing more division than ever before, as their worlds become more morally neutral and their lines begin to blur. It’s a bleak, devastating and emotionally gripping landscape, which is why this latest Marvel film often feels more like a Greek tragedy than a summer popcorn flick. It’s also one of the many reasons why Civil War stands as the best Marvel flick to date.

Steve Rodgers, aka Captain America (Chris Evans) finds himself once again clinging to his WWII-era values as he butts heads with longtime companion Tony Stark, aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) over a new UN-sanctioned bill that would force the super powered Avengers team to answer to world governments. Tony sees this oversight as necessary; Avengers incidents have caused untold destruction around the world, and his hubris created the robotic villain Ultron. What harm could a bit of control cause? But Steve, with memories of Nazi Germany still fresh in his mind, fears that this oversight may be more akin to chains. What if our heroes need to act, but the council decides they shouldn’t?

Each hero attempts to smooth talk the other to get them to join their side, and it’s here that the script does a brilliant job setting up why this conflict is important and why we should care. Other Avengers have long and fascinating discussion on the nature of control and what it means to be a hero. The landscape is a surprisingly moral one, and all the more worth paying attention to because it doesn’t provide any easy answers. Many of the heroes, like us, see the logic of both sides. Some heroes, like The Vision (Paul Bettany) and Black Widow (Scarlet Johannsson), operate primarily on logic. Others, like Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and newcomer Black Panther (an excellent Chadwick Boseman), are motivated to pick sides primarily by emotion, driven by events in the film that change their perspective. Still others, like The Falcon (Anthony Mackie) and War Machine (Don Cheadle), are more concerned with loyalty (the former with Cap, the latter with Iron Man). But each character, big and small, is given a reason and motivation for their actions, and that richness and depth of character echoes throughout the film.

Civil War is a bold and nuanced superhero flick, filled with memorable characters and action setpieces.

Civil War is a bold and nuanced superhero flick, filled with memorable characters and action setpieces.

But this conflict is informed by more than the UN bill. There’s also Bucky Barnes, aka the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), Steve’s childhood friend who we last saw as an unstoppable Hydra-controlled killing machine. When it appears he committed a deadly bombing, Tony goes on the hunt, but Steve’s loyalty to his friend requires him to go against the law to protect his friend and get behind the truth of what actually happened.

What’s so extraordinary about Civil War is that it juggles so many elements without feeling overstuffed or underdeveloped. The film is so well written, and the characters so well fleshed out, that, even when the film is keeping secrets from the audience, it’s easy to track with. It’s one of the talkiest superhero movies I’ve seen, but that means that, when the entirely spectacular action comes, we actually care about what we’re seeing (something the recent Batman V. Superman failed at).

I’ve said before that Marvel has a villain problem, but this film deftly sidesteps that flaw in several ways. It gives us a villain of sorts (Zemo, played by the always great Daniel Bruhl), but he’s just a regular guy, and his motivations are rich and understandable. More importantly, he’s not the main source of conflict. When you have the earth’s greatest heroes fighting each other, why do you really need a bad guy at all?

Civil War may sound like a downer, and it can be, but it’s also probably the funniest Marvel film to date. That’s mostly thanks to Paul Rudd’s Ant Man, but also the introduction of Tom Holland’s new Spider-Man. Sure, he’s mostly there for fan service, and his justification for joining the battle is thin. But it’s hard to complain when he shows up on screen, because this is the Spider-Man fans have been waiting for. Young, inexperienced and highly out of his depth, this Spidey laughs in the face of danger because he doesn’t quite see the gravity of the situation; he’s having too much fun with his new powers. The film’s major set piece battle between the two sides is a total blast, one that had me grinning throughout.

The word I keep coming back to with Captain America: Civil War is balance. The film deftly balances old and new, comic and tragic, epic and intimate. The new characters are perfectly realized and the old ones feel like they belong there. It’s the funniest Marvel film, but also the saddest. It’s filled with jaw-dropping action scenes, but it also breathes long enough to tell us why we should care that all these brightly dressed heroes are flipping through the air and blowing things up. Civil War brings an unparalleled depth and gravitas to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s essential viewing for even the casual Marvel fan. For everyone else, this is the movie that will convince you to become one.

Phoenix Film Festival Recap: The indie spirit is alive and well

One of my favorite things about film festivals is that you never quite know what you’re going to get. The modern cinematic experience has largely been soured by early reviews and spoiler-filled trailers, but attending the Phoenix Film Festival is like stepping back into a time when all it took to sell you on a movie was a title and a two-sentence summary. While larger festivals like Sundance have in some ways become too commercialized, such wonder (and sometimes horror) in the face of mystery is still very much present here.

I didn’t expect to be so sobered (and educated) by Since: The Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, a hair-raising documentary about a tragic plane bombing that haunted a generation. I didn’t expect to be so moved by The Man Who Knew Infinity, an impeccably acted biopic about Indian math whiz Srinivasa Ramanujan. I didn’t expect to have my mind so thoroughly twisted in knots by the sci-fi time travel wonder Displacement, or laugh so hard at The Meddler, a film that on paper seemed to be a more serious drama.

The tagline for the Phoenix Film Festival is “find your new favorite movie,” and, while that may be a bit dramatic, I appreciate and understand the spirit of such a phrase. You really can find anything at a place like this, even your new most hated movie. Both sides of the coin seemed to be present during screenings of Night of Something Strange, a schlocky horror film so disgusting it had even the staunchest gore hounds running for the exits (and the true-blue sickos singing its praises).

I, along with many others, certainly found some of my new favorite short films here. The best piece of advice I could give to a first-time festival-goer is see some short films. Sci-fi shorts, horror shorts, animated, live-action and documentary are all on display, and they’re some of the most creative (and sometimes downright bizarre) stuff you’ll ever see. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a theater audience laugh as hard as we did during the Spanish-language short “A King’s Betrayal,” which is narrated by a piñata horse as he makes his journey from store selection to ultimate grim purpose. It’s a similar concept to the upcoming Seth Roger-led animated film Sausage Party, which will have a hard time matching this.


The Phoenix Film Festival is a great example of what makes festivals so much fun and so special.

The shorts programs also best illustrate my other favorite aspect of film festivals: the community. One of the highlights of the festival was getting to chat with director Peter Brambl about his awesome short film “The Mountain King.” It’s an impeccably crafted and loving homage to 70’s crime thrillers, telling an epic and generation-spanning story of loss and redemption in the span of 10 minutes. We discussed our shared love for this style of cinema and I told him how I’d love to see the short made into a feature, since there’s clearly enough material to do so. He agreed, and said it was likely going to happen.

I love getting in line for a movie and asking others, “what have you seen?” I sat next to a woman in a screening who had written her reactions to the films she had seen in her programs. She was a sci-fi fan and spent several minutes talking about what had stuck with her during the festival. I worked as a volunteer in theater operations, which gave me a lot of downtime in-between screenings. Talking to other volunteers about movies for hours was a rare opportunity for me to discuss one of my favorite subjects at length without getting disapproving glances or feeling like I’ve overstayed my welcome. I met friends who were always eager to discuss further.

That’s ultimately what makes festivals like the Phoenix Film Festival so rare, and so special. That shared passion, the ability to watch 4, 5, 6 movies in a row and still be excited about it, is infectious. That breathless anticipation during the opening credits, and either the slow build of satisfaction or the mounting dread of disappointment are something the audience shares together. We all go on the same journey, though we experience it in different ways.

I suppose the same can be said for life. In this microcosm of existence known as a film festival, the question is often the same: “what have you seen?” But in the answer lies the endless possibility of lifetimes.

Midnight Special review

Writer-Director Jeff Nichols has made a career out telling riveting tales about lonely outsiders who don’t seem to fit in. Films like Mud and Take Shelter have also been populated with spectacular performances and a healthy dose of realism. With Midnight Special, Nichols has taken his favorite themes and styles into the science-fiction genre. The results are uniformly spectacular.

The film’s story is drenched in mystery and intrigue, so it’s a hard one to convey without giving away what makes it unique. It opens on Alton (Jaeden Lieberher), an 8-year-old who is…very odd, to say the least. He wears thick goggles and large, obtrusive headphones. A newscast informs us that he has been kidnapped from his “home,” a Texas cult compound known as The Ranch. What’s odd about this kidnapping is that he has been taken by his father, Roy (a typically excellent Michael Shannon) and Roy’s childhood friend, Lucas (Joel Edgerton). They’re locked in a hotel room, the windows covered by cardboard. Although Roy is Alton’s father, the boy has been under the legal guardianship of the Ranch’s charismatic leader, Calvin Meyer (Sam Shepard) for the past few years. It appears that the acolytes of The Ranch, including Roy, have been worshipping Alton as some kind of prophet. Because Alton isn’t just a little different. He recites strings of numbers. He speaks in languages he doesn’t know, and some that don’t even exist. He picks up cryptic satellite frequencies. It’s been said that he causes fevered visions in those he comes into contact with, visions that cause people to drop their lives and follow him. To where, exactly? His followers believe that Alton is the only one who can save them from an impending apocalypse.

The U.S. government, as is often the case, is interested in Alton for different reasons. They’ve heard Meyer’s sermons, and believe Alton may be receiving and reciting classified government data. So the FBI sends in a specialist from the NSA (Adam Driver), who believes he can decode the messages Alton is receiving and figure out their true purpose. Meanwhile, Alton’s powers are becoming increasingly unstable, and his mother (Kirsten Dunst) fears his health is weakening to the point where he may die before his preordained (and very mysterious) date with destiny.


Jeff Nichols’ sci-fi thriller is filled with intense scenes, memorable performances and potent themes.

The plot is decidedly kooky, as sci-fi plots often are, but this one is especially so. The film teases information and revelations out at such a slow pace (and sometimes not at all), that we never quite feel comfortable in its universe. This is, of course, very deliberate, but what prevents the film from going off the rails is the realism Nichols brings to the proceedings. From its tone to its storytelling and performances, Midnight Special’s odd events feel like they could be taking place in the real world. With so many sci-fi films focused on elaborate special effects and artificial chrome skylines, the grittiness that exudes through every pore of the film is a welcome change.

The world “gritty” has lost much of its meaning in our modern film vocabulary, but Midnight Special is gritty in the old-fashioned sense. It’s not deliberately “dark” or “edgy” in order to appeal to the disillusioned youths. “Gritty,” for me, means that we see the hardships the characters endure, the struggles they face. They may become literally caked in mud, or they may reveal their deep hurts in more subtle ways. Even “gritty” movies can be filled with air-brushed actors, heroes who never seem to bruise or bleed despite wall-to-wall action. This film is interested in none of that. Like Nichols’ previous work, it’s more interested in sneaking up on you, immersing you in an anything-but-ephemeral time and space.

The other aspect that really sells the film is the performances. Michael Shannon, Nichols’ go-to actor, has never been better. Despite the machinations of the complex plot, Roy remains a very committed father wanting what is best for his son, and that sort of primal instinct to put family above all else is something most of us can relate to. The same goes for Dunst, who has been experiencing sort of a career renaissance. Along with her amazing work on Fargo, she continues to master the balance between subtle, heartbreaking desperation and strong, deep-seated resolve. Edgerton and Driver deliver fine work as well, but of course a film like this lives or dies on a child performance. Thankfully, Lieberher is more than up to the task. He nails Alton’s mix of odd and endearing. He very much drives the film’s events (and is in many ways, quite dangerous), but we also never forget that he is just a kid, and he is often as afraid of himself as other are in awe of him. The 12-year-old actor has gotten an enviable amount of work in just a few years, and his performance here proves he will continue to be highly in demand.

The aspect of Midnight Special that most makes it, well…special, however is its ultimate optimism. I’ve tired of sci-fi dystopia and aliens hell-bent on our destruction, and I imagine many filmgoers have as well. The film’s central mystery is intriguing, but the journey itself is engaging primarily because the emotions driving it are simple. The bonds of family are stronger than almost any other we can form in this world, and they’re sturdy enough to weather any storm. We all desire a place where we can fit in, where we can truly call home. The film’s climax reflects these themes in ways that are both surprising and effective.

Midnight Special is a slow burn, and its esoteric plot may prove too cryptic for some viewers. But, for this sci-fi geek, this beguiling mix of E.T. and Dark City is a mystery that features potent performances and themes well worth diving into.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice review

Batman v Superman, Warner Bros. attempt to set up an extended DC Comics universe to rival Marvel’s movie empire, suffers from a curious form of blockbuster malady. It tries to give us too much in some areas and not enough in others, expecting that the extravagances and the restraints will balance each other out to create a satisfying flick. But that’s not how movies work, and I feel like there’s enough talented people backing this project to know that. Still, the result is a movie that feels like it will end up pleasing no one.

The this-is-all-too-much side of the equation comes mostly in the form of the story. Penned by David S. Goyer and Chris Terrio, the plot begins intriguingly, with an excellent opening focused on the destruction caused by Superman (Henry Cavill) during the climactic battle in Man of Steel. It turns out that Bruce Wayne aka Batman (Ben Affleck) was in Metropolis when the chaos was raining down on the city, and a building filled with his employees was destroyed. Wayne sees Superman as a powerful and destructive force that answers to no man, and vows to destroy him.

Meanwhile, Superman’s alter-ego, Clark Kent, sees reports of the increasingly brutal vigilante justice being metered out by Batman in neighboring Gotham City. He sees Batman as the true threat to justice. But humanity, reeling from the fact that a god is walking among them, is much more concerned with Superman. A senator (Holly Hunter) has begun holding hearings about Superman in an attempt to hold him accountable for the destruction he has caused. And in the middle of it all is the wily Lex Luthor (played with unambiguous glee by Jesse Eisenberg), who sees the bad blood brewing between the two superpowers and immediately begins concocting a plan to exploit it in the hopes that the two will take each other out for good.

The first hour or so is mostly engaging, with a clear, compelling conflict and character motivations. The film raises some provocative questions about the nature of justice and the relationship between god and man. Even as the film goes on, the plot doesn’t get any more overstuffed than your average comic-based film. But the structure of the story is immensely problematic. It’s hard to remember a big-budget tent pole flick this lazily constructed. Some scenes seem to be dropped haphazardly in random sequence. We jump back and forth between characters, sometimes mid-conversation, which disrupts any sort of flow the movie is trying to maintain. Odd dream sequences frequently take us out of the story, and some character decisions later in the film seem rushed and poorly developed. At 2.5 hours, this bad boy could have used some major cutting.


If Batman v Superman is the future of the comic-based blockbuster, it looks to be a dark, dull and dreary one.

Director Zack Snyder, who also helmed Man of Steel, has never met a metaphor he couldn’t bludgeon to death, and so we get lots more painfully obvious religious symbolism surrounding Superman. We also get tons of ridiculous dialogue from Luthor which sounds like it was written just to make the trailer sound EPIC (bludgeoned even further by Eisenberg, who seems like a really wrong choice for the character). Add in bombastic sound effects and an overbearing Hans Zimmer score (who disappoints after his excellent work on Man of Steel) and you have a senses-draining headache on your hands.

The filmmakers attempt to rein in some of this grandiosity by exercising restraint in key areas. Unfortunately, these areas are important, and so the film’s glimpses of excellence aren’t given the depth or care they deserve. Fans were concerned when Ben Affleck was cast as Bruce Wayne, but I love his portrayal as an older, wearied Bruce pondering his legacy. As a man with little left to lose, it’s easy to understand why he would put himself in so much danger to take down what he sees as a menace, even if said menace is an unstoppable god. He has some nice scenes with his perennial butler Alfred (played here by the always-welcome Jeremy Irons). I wish Bruce, and especially Aflred, had gotten more screen time, because once Wayne dons the bat suit, things go south. This version of Batman is reckless and seemingly has no issue shooting at bad guys and blowing up their cars. For a guy attempting to rein in an all-powerful alien’s destructive habits, he sure doesn’t seem to care much about his own collateral damage. He even gets to help smash some buildings that (for all we know), may still have people inside during the film’s climactic fight (we do get a throwaway line from a newscaster claiming that downtown is “deserted” after working hours, but how could he know that for sure?).

We are also introduced to Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), who I suspect will be the favorite character in the film for many. Since we’ve never had an adequate big-screen version of this iconic character, I enjoyed every second of her all-too-brief appearances. She totally kicks ass.

But characters like Wonder Woman reveal the film’s biggest deficiency: it’s that darn subtitle. No one here is masking that the film is one grand set-up for the upcoming Justice League movie. As a result, Batman v Superman is the very definition of a placeholder (albeit a very expensive one). About halfway through, I resigned myself to the fact that the film would be dispensing with character development almost entirely. The vast majority of plot developments and character motivations exist to get a person from one place to another so that they can do a thing that will set off another thing. Stuff happens, things explode and bad guys are defeated. We gain precious few insights into why characters are the way they are, or how the events of this film changed them. They’re all pawns in a very long chess game (returning characters such as Lois Lane and Perry White may as well not be in the film at all).

It’s a darn shame, because this story had great potential. But the sum total is a gorgeous looking, expensive production almost entirely bereft of meaning, one that raises provocative questions it doesn’t feel equipped to explore. Batman v Superman reminds me of those dark days in the mid-00’s when most superhero movies were overly gritty, mostly terrible and no fun at all. Let’s hope the sub-genre’s future isn’t content to turn more cool ideas into dull slogs like this one.