PASSENGERS   3.2 ***

          PASSENGERS is romantic film surrounded by breathtaking sci-fi. After so many survival films about one man only or one woman only, on an island or in space , it's nice to see a survival film with two people and nobody else for a change. And with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence as the leads, this is a  adventure you can't keep your eyes off of.

The story is set onboard a spaceship transporting more than 5000 people to a new life on another planet, It's supposed to be a 120-year journey but  with 90 years yet to go, a meteorite strikes the ship and, among other things, causes Chris Pratt's character, Jim's hibernation pod to open prematurely. He cannot reactivate the hibernation pod and is all alone  except for a bartender droid Arthur. He knows he will die before the other pods open which is to be 4 months before the landing. Having spent a year all by himself , Jim decides to intentionally wake up a woman for companionship. That woman is Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence). As they begin to unravel the mystery behind the malfunction, they fall in love, but when certain truths come to surface, they find their spaceship and their lives falling apart.

Chris Pratt is a fine actor, playing a character that is humorous, and emotionally driven at the same time. Jennifer Lawrence is a beautiful actress that gives her best with her role as well. Seeing the two together is perfect chemistry on screen. This is also a  movie with stunning visual effects from artists  with extraordinary imaginations and creativity.

This is a  sleek, romantic film, boy meets girl in a pod, boy wakes girl up, boy falls for girl and girl for boy. Add in  the million and one things that the super ultra, high-tech spaceship can do is also enough to make any sci-fi fan go, 'Whoa, that's super cool.'

It  is a compelling story about a relationship and whether it can survive cosmic ordeals as well as a BIG lie…..a romantic drama set in space confronted by catastrophic deadly event.

Rated PG-13 for sexuality, partial nudity and action/peril

Clark

PS: I really liked this movie. I’m a big sci-fi fan and then add in 2 of my favorite actors in the lead roles. It has been heavily criticized for having a somewhat unbelievable ending. But what the heck, it’s sci-fi and it’s fun to stretch reality. If you are going to nit-pick at unreality then why go to sci-fi movies at all. I agree a story can exceed the boundaries of a good sci-fi, but “PASSENGERS” doesn’t.

MOONLIGHT  3.0***

  

 The main theme at the heart of "Moonlight" is about a young black man's coming of age in a poor, drug-afflicted Miami neighborhood and his inability to  define himself in terms that his surroundings will allow. He doesn't fit into any of the categories available to him, so he sets out to force himself into one that seems like the best option. His name is Chiron, and the movie shows him  at three didtinct stages of his life, portrayed by three different but wonderful actors.( In this regard, Director Barry Jenkins did not let the  three actors who play Chiron to ever meet during production. Jenkins said the reason for this is, even though these actors were portraying the same character, he wanted each of them to build their own persona of Chiron during their respective segments of the movie with no influence from the other portrayals.  

The first of the three stages is entitled: “Little”. It follows young Chiron (with the nickname of Little) running from a group of school yard bullies when he meets a father figure in an abandoned apartment in Juan, who's a drug dealer. He isn't a stereotypical drug dealer that's often seen in movies, but one that's as fully realized as a supporting character in the first third of a movie, can be. He offers Chiron a place from his home and his drug and sexually addicted mother only to realize that he's a major factor (sells her the drugs) in Chiron's  crumbling.
home life.

The second stage, titled “Chiron”, follows him through high school and the bullies have only gotten bigger.  But he has his best friend Kevin, to help him through which leads to a sexual encounter between the two of them which is a sexual revelation for Chiron & his gayness from then on follows Chiron throughout his life. Yet, even that one happy moment is taken away when Chiron is beaten in a cruel bit of homophobia.

The final segment titled “Black” (a nickname Kevin gave him), shows the man that Chiron has grown up to be; the spitting image of his father figure, Juan. Yet, there's still something missing in his life, and as Chiron receives two phone calls, one from his guilt ridden  mother and the other from Kevin. He  sets out to visit both of them, old feelings of both love and resentment still there. I’ll let you find out how it goes with both.

This was a low budget film that has gotten rave reviews from the critics and it will be nominated for Best Picture in the Oscars. Technically and visually it is an excellent movie and the performances are fine  and my rating reflects those things. But for me I was underwhelmed and not emotionally moved by the story. Maybe that’s because it is a big downer with no humor and a lot of sadness. The downer type story seems to be a trend this year with “Manchester by the Sea” and “Nocturnal Animals”. But all  three will get Best Picture nominations.

Rated R for some sexuality, drug use, brief violence, and language…BUT a soft “R” |

Clark

FRIED GREEN TOMATOES   4.0***

      'Fried Green Tomatoes' is a deliciously delightful “feel good” film that tells dual stories of four women. The story of Evelyn and Ninny ( 1980s) deals with various themes such as age, loneliness, feeling useless and unappreciated and love; while Ruth and Idgie's story (1920 to 1930s) told by Ninny to Evelyn is about devotion, compassion, courage, racism and love. However, at heart, 'Fried Green Tomatoes' is about friendship.

Fannie Flagg adapts the screenplay from her very own novel and gives it a poetic feel.  Director Jon Avnet  expertly has the movie tell the story of four incredibly strong women with grace and sincerity.  

'Fried Green Tomatoes' showcases four marvelous performances. The late Jessica Tandy (as the vivacious and friendly Ninny,  the storyteller) who is always a delight to watch on screen, Kathy Bates (as the shy pushover who transforms into the strong independent Evelyn), Mary Louise-Parker (as the vulnerable yet courageous Ruth) and Mary Stuart Masterson (as Idgie the free-spirited kind-hearted tomboy) are all first rate. Thanks to them the connection and love between the characters shines brightly the screen. Cicely Tyson deserves special mention in a wonderful supporting role.

'Fried Green Tomatoes' is a movie that will pleasantly surprise and delight you. 'Fried Green Tomatoes' is primarily about, having a best friend, and being a best friend.

Clark

PS: Mary Stuart Masterson did all of the bee stunts herself because her stunt double refused and quit at the last minute.

Nocturnal Animals  3.2 ***

      “Nocturnal Animals” is an intense dark thriller. Right from the very start we are made to feel uncomfortable, and I mean really uncomfortable.  Picture, if you will, images of completely naked and obese women moving rhythmically to a heavy beat with various body parts moving simultaneously in different directions. They resemble what could be described as artistically grotesque burlesque, all while the opening credits are rolling in the background.

We are first introduced to Susan (Amy Adams), who is an artist who arranges art exhibits and galleries . She seems very confident and successful, but behind the public figure, her life is troubled.  She then receives a novel named 'Nocturnal Animals' from her ex-husband  whom she has not seen in 20 years, and this is where things get interesting. As she reads the novel, we experience the novel visually so we are getting a story within the story we are watching. Susan's ex-husband is Ed (Jake Gyllenhaal) who has never forgiven her for the divorce and other. Jake also portrays Tony, a character in the novel which is about a  Mom, Dad and their daughter in the family car going on vacation. They are on a deserted highway late at night and are run off the road by three vicious hoodlums. The ensuing encounter and horrible outcome is so harrowing it is almost unwatchable, and from there the story becomes a fascinating and absorbing quest for justice or revenge if  there is no justice to be had.  As Susan continues to read it triggers flashbacks about her previous marriage for which a small flame still burns, and she begins to sense that the story may be a vengeful reminder  of her own guilt and remorse for how she ended the marriage.

The stories become entangled with each other and it all becomes very intense, and that is how I would describe this film…. very intense.

As for  the performances, the movie features a very impressive ensemble cast all at the top of their game. Amy Adams yet again proves why she's one of the most versatile actresses with a strong performance that combines personal  assurance with the vulnerability of someone who knows they've made mistakes in their past.  Adams is joined by Jake Gyllenhaal, who takes on dual  roles yet again for this film. Gyllenhaal has really grown as an actor, particularly in the last five years, and it’s great to see him continue that in this film. The rest of the cast features a scene stealing Michael Shannon, who plays the detective in the book story along with an effective performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who is truly vile as the villainous hoodlum

This is one wicked thrill ride…. a  journey of dark emotions some of which you can’t help but feel and carry out with you.

Rated R for violence, menace, graphic nudity, and language

Clark

MANCHESTER by the SEA  3.5***

     Some people find a way to pick themselves up from the rubble of a personal tragedy and rebuild a life for themselves. Others are permanently broken, and they die in spirit if not in body. 

"Manchester by the Sea," writer and director Kenneth Lonergan's  deeply heartfelt new film, contains characters who are representative of both of the above types of people. The tragedy befalls the characters portrayed by Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams, and the film follows Affleck's character as he unexpectedly becomes guardian of his nephew after his older brother dies, while he is trying to exorcise his own personal demons. C. Affleck gives an amazing understated performance…. one quiet but sustained howl of anguish, that's easily one of the best of the year. Michelle Williams gets a much smaller role, but she makes a huge impression, particularly in one scene  between her and Affleck in the latter half of the movie which is truly outstanding !!

Unlike many big-budget studio movies, MANCHESTER BY THE SEA is not afraid to make the audience work and test the viewer's patience with its constant cutting between past and present, as well as its unravelling of character background and motivation. In fact, one of its best aspects is the lack of close-ups. Almost everything is filmed from afar, which reflects Lee's emotional distancing. And it's not until later where you finally find out why Lee has detached himself from the rest of the world. Then, from that point on, you're in his head; you watch the film unfold from a point-of-view almost entirely foreign to how you viewed it at first. 

Lonergan's screenplay doesn't make a false move. This film is largely about inarticulate people trying to process extremely complicated emotions, and they remain inarticulate -- they don't suddenly express their feelings in nicely phrased speeches in order to bring the film to tidy resolutions. The movie's final point, that broken people sometimes just stay broken no matter how badly others want them to have a happy ending, is certainly not uplifting, but there's something refreshing about how  honest it is.

Despite this being a big “downer” of a movie, it is without a doubt one of the most personal and heart wrenching films of 2016. It WILL be nominated for Oscars for Best Movie, Best Director, Best Original Screen Play, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress and Actor.

Rated “R” for language with a lot of ‘f’ words through-out.

Clark

PS: I made a mistake and took my wife to see this one. I should have previewed it better. She almost walked out . Said it was the most boring movie she has seen in a long time and would give it minus stars !!!!!!   I barely made up for it by taking her to one of her favorite restaurants plus I gave her the TV remote when we got home !!!

FANTASATIC BEASTS and WHERE TO FIND THEM   2.3***

       Let me say up front that this is not a bad movie. But I notice a lot of Potter-fans are looking at this movie through rose-colored glasses, and are unable to see its obvious flaws, and there are flaws.

.I'm not going to compare the film to its  Harry Potter predecessors, because that's ultimately unfair. This was a new thing.. After all, this film takes place 70 years before Harry Potter entered Hogwarts.. By the way J.K. Rowling  makes this her screen writing debut which in my opinion was a mistake. She should stick to books !! The script felt too basic and unimaginative and was unable to capture the charm and whimsy of her book.  .

Our new wizard team is comprised of  Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler, and Alison Sudol. I'm not sure if it was because the youth and innocence is no longer there (like with the original team at Hogwarts), but I didn't care for the team. I didn't find anything compelling or charismatic about this particular group. Unfortunately, Redmayne gets lost in his obscure quirkiness, and Colin Farrell's character was underused.

But let’s look at some of the good things. This film tells the story of an English wizard who travels to New York with a suitcase full of magical creatures. The creatures get loose, and he has to recapture all of them  before they create citywide panic and destruction. The characters are fun, the visuals are impressive( although it is overloaded with CGI which is not up to par). And the Potter atmosphere of whimsy is all over this film. I also liked how the music of the movie starts with the soft Potter-theme, and then immediately abandons it for the rest of the film, and sticks with its own new theme music. There's plenty of references to Potter things for fans to enjoy, but you do not need to be a Potter fan to understand what is going on in the film. This movie can very much stand on its own.

But now for more bad. The movie seems to forget the primary plot for more than half of its running time. For most of the movie we follow the main character in his quest to retrieve from all over New York his “Fantastic Beasts”  which is fun, but has very little to do with the main plot. It seems as if the movie suddenly remembers that it has a villain (who is only briefly referred to  with quick flashes to newspaper headlines) and it forgets that it still has to build towards a finale. Out of nowhere the final act is suddenly dropped into the movie. That is a bit sloppy and causes confusion about what the heck is going on.,  Technically, the movie is poorly edited  which is why some scenes are hard to follow.  

 That said, I was still marginally entertained. But the film critic in me feels that this movie should have been a whole lot better.  

Clark

         Loving  3.0

        “Loving” is the true story of Mildred and Richard Loving who were ordinary people caught up in an extraordinary situation. The Lovings were married in Washington, DC in 1958, although they lived in rural Virginia. No one would have noticed or cared, except for the fact that Richard was white and Mildred was Black. At the time, a mixed marriage was a felony in the state of Virginia. The plot is based on what happened next in their lives.

Joel Edgerton portrays Richard. He's a bricklayer, and, apparently, a very good one. He always has work. Ruth Negga plays Mildred. Mildred is a homebody, who does her job very well, and turns out to be the wiser of the two.

As a compelling human interest story, the movie is exceptional. As a film narrative,  the picture is unusually low key and somewhat plodding  with very little drama to heighten the importance of a Supreme Court decision ruling that laws prohibiting mixed race marriages were unconstitutional . The decision was nothing short of landmark when issued in 1967, a full nine years after the ordeal began for Richard and Mildred Loving. Even so, Joel Edgarton and Ruth Negga deliver sensitive portrayals as the interracial mixed couple, jailed for the audacity of being married and living in Virginia.

That being said, I personally was underwhelmed by the movie. I was expecting more sizzle but as it turns out that is not what the Director wanted. He wanted this to be a simple but genuine story about 2 people in love who just wanted to be left alone to live their lives. The movie’s emphasis was on the love story with the dramatics left out.

Clark

   INFERNO  2.5***   

Inferno is the third film based on a Dan Brown book, Tom Hanks once more comes back as Robert Langdon, a highly acclaimed professor of Cambridge University., and Ron Howard is back to direct. He also was the director of the previous two movies, The Da Vinci Code (2006) and Angels & Demons (2009). Inferno is the least captivating of them all.

The usual formula for the cat-and-mouse thriller consists of bad guys chasing good guys who keep escaping, with the cycle repeated several times until the movie ends. There are many variations of course, and the premise for Inferno  is based on a deadly toxin being released capable of mass deaths. Set in fabulously exotic locations , the film doubles as a beautiful travelogue in case the plot line fails. And fail it does.

At the beginning we meet the battered Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) in an amnesiac condition on a hospital bed, confused about everything except his attractive doctor, Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones). When an assassin tries to finish him off, the couple head off on a kind of tourist speed- dating journey that takes in the best views of Florence, Venice and Istanbul. A deranged but  gifted billionaire calculates that overpopulation will destroy the planet and wants to release a nasty gas that can kill half of humanity (roughly 4 billion, give or take a few). The World Health Organization, several gendarme platoons and various evil exploiters out for a fast buck  all chase Hanks and Jones and each other franticly for about two hours until the closing credits produce relief.

For me it all comes down to the director, Ron Howard. He's made some masterpieces over the years, but he's not consistent and he fails here. It feels like no one's heart was in this movie.. It ticked off all the boxes for a big action thriller, but didn't really seem to try to be anything more than that. Although it's fairly entertaining, it is nonetheless confusing and somewhat cold.  It feels like it's trying to say something important, but never gets around to it.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence.

Clark

 A R R I V A L    4.0****
PROLOUGE:  Before I start the review I want to make a couple of comments. First “Arrival’ is one of the best Sci-Fi movies to comes along. Yes it has spaceships, yes it has weird looking aliens and yes the initial reaction is fear and to blow them to pieces before they annihilate earth… BUT it is so not the typical Sci-Fi movie. The aliens arrive in a friendly not threating way, invite humans to enter the spaceships and attempt to communicate. And the focus of the story is on the perplexing difficulty of establishing communication with an advanced alien species the process for which is fascinating & spellbinding .  But the main purpose of this comment is to let you know there is a wonderful subplot involving the  main character Louise played by Amy Adams . It is an important subplot with a fascinating surprise twist in the last part of the film . I did not pick up on it until toward the end . I wish I  had known going in and some of you may also want to know. . But many of you may rather try to figure it out for yourself . So in the main review I don't give it away i.e. no " spoilers". However below the review I have a Special Note that does explain.  So if you want to try first for yourself but come out confused you can come back to my review & get the answer .

 A R R I V A L    4.0****

       Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is a linguist who teaches at a College. One day, twelve giant spacecrafts appear in random locations around the world. Louise's communication skills make her a necessary expert for the USA team as well as mathematician Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) . They attempt to decode and translate the language that the creatures inside the spacecrafts are using in order to prevent a global war. Alien invasion films have, frankly, been done to death. Arrival's script - penned by Eric Heisserer - is ingenious in that it finds an entirely new angle to focus the whole thing on. Rather than start a war and depict the bloodshed and trauma of an alien invasion, Arrival focuses on the struggle to communicate with the octopus shaped creatures with 7 tentacles (dubbed "Heptapods"), and what the aftermath of this could lead to if their mission succeeds.. The whole thing is woven together like a piece of art - the performances, dialogue, cinematography, soundtrack, screenplay, editing and direction all form one elegantly structured whole. It's a simply astonishing feat of film making.

. Amy Adams is superb here, giving a subdued but deeply moving performance. A lot of the film rests on her shoulders for its twists and turns , but she carries it without breaking a sweat. Never given any big Oscar-esque moments, Adams tells Louise's story in her softest moments and through her body language. It's an astoundingly delicate performance. Renner is also solid, and accompanies Adams nicely, even if he can't help but feel woefully overshadowed. Louise as a character is the film's most exciting element - a woman that uses her knowledge and skills to change the world in ways it has never been changed before, all of which comes down to language. When Arrival ends, you could spend hours thinking about the languages we speak and use every day. The potential behind this story was astronomical, and it delivers in spades.

Louise’s dream-like sequences which focus on Louise's young daughter look and feel like forgotten memories (but are they?), while the moments inside the spacecraft feel entirely alien. The production design is stunning, the large pitch black objects hovering over the cities feel instantly dark and threatening, and the brief sights of the creatures reveal something wholly original. In terms of technicalities and aesthetic, Arrival is a thing of beauty - a unique, visually striking film that you never want to take your eyes off of.

Arrival has stunning imagery and effects to play around with, but instead it focuses on language and communication. It also focuses on humanity and time and memory, and all that is worth fighting for on this planet. It is a breathtaking achievement, and one I already cannot wait to experience countless times again. In a year riddled with emotionless superhero films and crude comedies, Arrival is a godsend. Arrival is a film for the ages. Seek it out at all costs, and let it transport you across time and space only to bring you back down to Earth, bringing forth feelings you may never have experienced before. This, people, this right here is why I LOVE movies.

Rating: PG 13 for brief strong language; HOWEVER, this is a mentally challenging movie, a heavy thought journey and kids 12 and under may not be able to comprehend the story. It is NOT an action film. BUT some of those kids might be caught up in the visual splendor of the movie and the special effects to still enjoy it although they might not understand it.  

Clark

SPECIAL NOTE (Spoiler): At the beginning of the movie and through-out and concurrently with her task of trying to solve the aliens language, Louise is having dreams about her daughter Hannah who dies  in her early teens due to a terminal disease, all of which the audience sees as intimately heart-breaking flashbacks. Yet, the intriguing part is, and the big twist/surprise in the last 15 minutes is that  what we may have perceived as flashbacks were actually flash-forwards (Louise seeing her future). In fact,  Louise has never been pregnant nor married (although she has just met her future husband). It is through her contact and communication with the aliens that she is enlightened and acquires the ability to foresee the future. So at the end of the movie a big decision for Louise is whether she will still want to bring Hannah into the world knowing that she will lose her forever soon after?

    HACKSAW RIDGE     3.5***

       This is a war movie that speaks to pacifists, the religious community and militarists, equally. It is a story of Desmond Doss (played brilliantly by Andrew Garfield of recent “Spider-Man” fame)who was a conscientious objector who served as  an Army medic in the bloody battle of Okinawa.

Private Doss was by his religion and personal convictions a conscientious objector who nonetheless wanted to serve his country in the military during the WWII.  But due to his  beliefs he refused to carry a gun and  became an army medic. His decision not to carry a gun, and the extreme lengths to which his army commanders tried to change his mind on this, make up a significant part of this movie. Thus about one-half of the film is spent at basic training and shows the attempts by the Army to break the resolve of Doss to not bear arms..  

In the last part of the film, we get to the battle of Okinawa and more specifically the bloody battle to take Hacksaw Ridge , and the incredible heroics of Corporal Doss as an unarmed medic in battle. Here’s where the movie dives deep into the horror of war. This film is directed by Mel Gibson who  likes to show graphic violence and human suffering ( as in his “Passion of Christ”). The bloodier the better. And this film sinks neck deep into blood and gore. There is extreme violence depicting war, the absolute worst of humanity. Some will find it disturbing. But it is justified by the history behind this story. But be prepared for  scene after scene of graphic mutilations, dismemberments, gore and corpses. The degree of violence can best be compared to “Saving Private Ryan” where there was similar realistic war violence. However, in this film it goes on much longer and more intensely.

This movie will stick with you. People say it's racist against Japanese. BUT that is how it was back then. People will say it's too violent. BUT that’s the reality of war. BUT it's also about the journey of a man who had his relationship with God, made a promise to God( to never hurt another person), and kept that promise. Doss prays "One more, God, let me get one more” (wounded man)" Hands almost destroyed from rope burns, exhausted, beaten, battered and himself wounded he keeps praying “One more, God, let me get one more."

Rated R for intense prolonged realistically graphic sequences of war violence including grisly bloody images. | 

Clark

Okay folks,  many of you like me are experiencing post-election shock, disbelief and stress. Some of you may be quite happy with the results of the election but, nevertheless, worn out from all the political wrangling and mudslinging. So, in either event I have just the movie cure for you . It’s a political fantasy with Rom-Com thrown in. A 1993 movie that is one of the best feel-good movies about a President.. The movie is “Dave”.

You’ll have to search for it but I assure you that it’s worth the effort .

         DAVE  4.0****

     Director Ivan Reitman's "Dave" is a movie so idealist and well-meaning that it'll warm the hearts of even the most cynical Americans.

Kevin Kline plays Dave Kovic, a small-town guy with a big heart who runs an employment agency. Dave's also a dead ringer for President Bill Mitchell and finds himself hired to stand in for Mitchell for a social event but after the commander-in-chief suffers a stroke during an extramarital fling with a secretary, Dave is asked to continue the charade.  The naive idealist finds himself confronted by an administration entrenched in corruption and an embittered First Lady (Sigourney Weaver). And it doesn't take long for Washington to notice the changes in the no-longer-a-bad guy Bill Mitchell, as Dave sets out to use his power to make the country a better place ... while falling in love with Mrs. Mitchell.

"Dave" makes no bones about its politics (which are worn on its sleeve), yet all ideology in this case is irrelevant. It's a story that puts the non-politician and an average guy in the shoes of the most powerful man in the world ( this happily being an appreciative nod to Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"). Such an endeavor (especially with the extreme rhetoric of current politics) is nothing short of refreshing. Which is no doubt helped by the light-hearted romantic comedy nature of the film. Kline is at his most endearing in this double role, Weaver her most charming, and the supporting cast (Kevin Dunn, Ben Kingsley Frank Langella, Ving Rhames and Charles Grodin) is incredible.

Finally, Director Reitman helps the audience fall for the plot. He makes it so believable, honest and true. In the end, the audience will realize that politics will not mend our nation, but rather honest people will. In any case of all the movies about the President, this is one of the best one.

"Dave" is indeed the right movie for post-election 2016…. a political parody done just right. If you haven't seen Dave, you must watch it. And if you have, watch it again. And again. And again. You will enjoy it every time. Unless, perhaps, you are a crooked/bad politician.

Clark

    DENIAL   3.2 ***

       Guilty until proven innocent ?!?! It's a concept that is inconceivable to Americans, yet it's the core of British Law in libel cases. When once respected British historian David Irving sues American scholar and educator Deborah Lipstadt for libel, based on her recent book that accused him of being a Holocaust denier, the burden falls to Lipstadt to prove not just that Irving's work was a purposeful lie, but that the Holocaust did in fact take place. In other words, if the words used in her book against Irving  are true, she would win the case.  But she has to prove that he was a racist, an anti-Semite and knowingly misrepresented the facts in his works as a Holocaust denier.

The movie begins with Ms. Lipstadt as a professor in 1994 at Emory University.  In 1996, the lawsuit by Irvin is filed in London. In preparation for the case , Lipstadt and Rampton visit Auschwitz in 1998. Though the courtroom drama and corresponding legal work takes up much of the film, it's this sequence filmed at Auschwitz that is the heart and soul of the film. Very little melodrama is added … the scenes and the setting speak for themselves and here the cinematography is  absolutely perfect in capturing the vast haunting terror of the place. The trial finally starts in 2000, and as always, it's fascinating to compare the British court of law and process with that of the United States. The formality is on full display, but nuance and showmanship still play a role.  

Rachel Weisz plays Lipstadt as an intelligent and determined woman who refuses to back down from a racist bully like Irwin. Andrew Scott is magnetic as the highly  intelligent Solicitor,  Anthony Julius,   who lays out a defense strategy with a very troublesome requirement for Lipstad: that neither she nor any Holocaust survivors are to testify in the trail. Julius has good moral and tactical reasons for this, and he's at his most emotional trying to explain and defend it to Lipstadt.  Tom Wilkinson is terrific as Richard Rampton, the barrister who puts on the powdered wig and brilliantly presents the case in court. And  then there is Timothy Spall who makes for a perfect villain. He gives us both Irving the charmer and Irving the charlatan -- the expertise, the intellect, the eloquence, but also the malice, the misdirection, the sexism.

As a guide to how historians actually work, and as a guide to the wacky/false world spun by Holocaust deniers, the film is on its firmest ground.  Also the film succeeds in going far beyond a single legal case to raise important questions about the Holocaust and even show an application to today's world. "Denial" offers a unique opportunity for reflection and discussion rarely to be found in a mainstream motion picture.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material (?) and brief strong language ( the “F” word is used once). |    

Clark     

THE ACCOUNTANT  3.2***

  Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck) is a savant genius at math and very skilled at forensic accounting, or "uncooking the books", which he does for unsavory characters and criminal organizations all over the world. Wolff has Asperger Syndrome which is considered a milder form of autism and sufferers are often characterized by "relatively normal language and intelligence" although they still display impaired social interaction and restricted and repetitive behavior. It’s unusual to find a movie character with Asperger's in a movie but it certainly works well in "The Accountant" – and does so on multiple levels. Through the very tough (and some would say abusive) upbringing of his father, Wolff learned to function independently in the adult world – and to protect himself from those who would do him harm – either because he's "different" – or because of his dangerous clientele. Christian has also learned to fly under the radar as a legitimate CPA with an ordinary office with regular ordinary people although he makes his real money (and it’s a LOT) working for criminals on the side.

Even with all those dangerous clients, Christian encounters some of his biggest challenges in his current assignment near Chicago. He is hired by a up and coming tech firm called Living Robotics, whose CEO (John Lithgow) asks him to look into an issue of missing capital, discovered by a young accountant named Dana Cummings (Anna Kendrick). Christian quickly figures out what happened to the money and who did it, but getting so close to the underlying truth of the diversion of funds puts him and Dana in mortal danger. A hired an assassin  and his team move in to try to silence the pair.  

This is a very enjoyable action-crime-drama… if you don't look too close. The background and story of the main character is unusual and rather original – as are many of the movie's plot points – and the story features some interesting twists. More studious Movie Fans may notice that parts of the story don't quite add up, but the story is still  good enough and the characters are so interesting that you may decide that the unanswered questions really don't matter that much.  This movie in the 2^nd half exhibits some sensory overload, but even so it will stimulate not only intellectuals but white-knuckled action junkies as well.  

This is  a creative, exciting and satisfying movie  and the way it humanizes the still little-understood condition of Asperger’s/autism adds unexpected heart to the story. The acting  is excellent. I think Ben Affleck as Christian Wolff is one of the best characters he's ever played. Affleck's performance is both engaging and mesmerizing. Everyone does their job here, but Affleck steals the show.

Rated R for strong violence and language throughout.

Clark

THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN  2.9***

     The Girl on the Train tells the story of  Rachel (Emily Blunt), a troubled, alcoholic, divorcée who commutes every day on the train to Manhattan and each journey is the same and she passes the same row  of houses that she always focuses on obsessively.  Among those that Rachel sees daily is a beautiful, yet mysterious couple, Scott and Meagan,  who seem to live the perfect life, a marriage and life that Rachel pines for. This is made all the more difficult for Rachel given that her ex-husband Tom and his former mistress & now  wife Anna and their child live just a few houses away from that couple. But through all of this snooping, Rachel sees something she shouldn't and soon becomes drawn much more into the lives of these strangers than she ever could have expected.

One thing that can be said is that Emily Blunt owns this movie with a stellar performance. She pulls off a convincing a disheveled, struggling alcoholic who obsesses over her ex-husband’s new family which serves as her main motivation as we follow her story of trying to solve the mysterious disappearance of Meagan, the next door neighbor. You experience a range of emotions with her character from feeling sorry to slightly disgusted due to how she handles a variety of situations. 

In terms of trying to figure out 'what happened',  that is kept well under wraps until the third act of the film, but reaching that point is too slow paced  with not enough twists and suspense which ultimately drags the film down from its full potential. .Also the  time jumps designed to create more suspense were instead rather confusing  given that we already have to follow three separate story lines simultaneously.

'The Girl on the Train' turns out to be a fairly predictable mystery thriller that lacks suspense and originality. The premise itself is inventive, but the film failed to offer the excitement that  was expected.

Rated ”R” for violence, sexual content, language and nudity.

Clark

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN    3.0*** 

      The movie works well on many levels. It follows the basic story set forth in the original 1960s "The Magnificent Seven". Much like in the original where Yul Brenner was the star and main guy,  this remake has Denzel Washington.

The plot is pretty straight forward.  A corrupt wicked businessman  wants to buy out a small Texas town's land rights so he can mine the land for gold. As he begins to exert his will on the town, one of the town's residents stands up to him and when his friend joins in, there's violence and both the men (and several other townsfolk) end up dead. And to top off how mean the main villain is he even burns the church. The man's widow decides to go hire some top guns to put an end to the villain’s greedy, murderous plot. She meets Denzel in a town not far from Rose Creek (the contested town) and offers him the job for  ALL the money the townspeople have. At first, Denzel declines.  However, she eventually convinces him to take the job, and he goes about recruiting some extra help  and, (SURPRISE) he ends up with 7 including himself ( the “Mag 7” ). And what a great bunch the 7 are:  Denzel Washington is  as the charismatic leader, Chris Pratt as the group's joker and explosives-man, Ethan Hawke  as the tormented sniper and Vincent D'Onofrio  as the whimsical frontiersman, along with a Mexican, a Chinese and an American Indian actor. The movie makers took to heart the cry for diversity !!! They share a winning chemistry that makes them  watchable from start to finish. Also to be mentioned is Haley Bennett as the fierce widow/townsperson who stands her ground and is almost an eight to the seven.

The Mag. 7  sets out for Rose Creek and have to convince the townspeople that they must fight to save their town. Those that don’t leave are put through a primitive kind of basic training which is a hoot.

The story is as old as time, a small band of mercenaries with nothing to fight for find themselves drawn into defending the little town from the wrath of the main baddie, capably played by Peter Sarsgaard . When the big showdown comes, it is one heck of a showdown.  The movie builds and builds to this climatic 20 or so minute showdown. What makes the action so good is that there is little CGI. The action/stunts are done through practical effects and terrific stuntmen.

Overall, The Magnificent Seven is a straight up popcorn movie, so don't go  expecting anything else. It’s good and it’s fun but not great. It won’t be a classic as the original was. But it was nice to see a standard Western again, with well-worn characters and beautiful vistas.. This movie is a remake that actually delivers.

 Rated PG-13 for extended and intense sequences of Western violence and some language.

Clark

MISS PEREGRINE’S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN   3.2***

     “Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children” Is quite a surprisingly complex story involving time travel and time loops so I'll try to keep this as simple as possible. 

The story is about Jake played by Asa Butterfield, who, following his beloved Grandfather's death (under strange circumstances) travels to Wales with his Father to solve the mystery of his demise. It's all connected to an orphanage where a group of children with peculiar gifts live in a time loop where the same day in June 1943 is repeated over and over (shades of  “Groundhog Day”) to keep them safe from the ravages of WW2. The children are looked after by Miss Peregrine, wonderfully played by Eva Green, who controls the time loop and there Jake must unravel the reasons behind his grandfather's demise with the help of the children and of course Miss Peregrine. 

The kids featured in this film are adorable once you get used to their peculiarities and some can be somewhat surprising.. And once they start teaming up and working together, it's easy to cheer for them.   Eva Green's is absolutely perfect in this role, She has that natural instinct when it comes to playing mysterious powerful character. The movie is kind of like Mary Poppins meets X-Men meets Tim Burton, and it's a winning combination.

Tim Burton (one of my favorite directors) once again delivers a breathtaking but complex movie with gorgeous visuals. The look and feel of the movie is typical Tim Burton. It has that dark slightly gothic style that Burton fans know and love. But even if you're not a fan of his work there's still loads to enjoy. However there are some flaws. The script is sometimes all over the place and due to the time travel element you really have to keep your eye on the ball or else you'll be scratching your head wondering what the hell is going on. There's are a couple of plot holes that are a problem and Samuel L Jackson, as the main villain, is fun but a little too much over the top.

Apart from that,  there's a lot to like. Once again Burton has crafted a mesmerizing adventure for all the family ( except children less than 12)

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of fantasy action/violence and peril involving huge monsters. skeletons and scary puppets.

Clark

NOTE: Beautiful soundtrack even though it is only the 3^rd of the many Burton films not done by Hans Zimmer. There are 2 especially good vocals … one at the beginning and the best of the 2 at the end as the credits are rolling ( it’s  by Florence Welch and entitled  "Wish That You Were Here" which should be nominated for an Oscar for Best Song)

     SULLY  3.6***

                If there's one thing you can count on Clint Eastwood doing well, it's directing an emotionally heartfelt story.  “Sully” is about “The miracle on the Hudson” starring Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, and Laura Linney. There are plenty of obstacles with any film about a true story, but with a film based on an event that lasted a mere 208 seconds, it's extra difficult. But Eastwood manages to pull a great story out of those unbelievable events that comes in just under 2 hours. Of course, the flight itself isn't the only hurdle that captain Sully went through, as he had deal with reporters, investigators, and especially the National Transportation Safety Board which seemed determined to diminish his heroic efforts by suggesting he could have landed at a nearby airport.

Who could possibly be better to play Captain Sully than the great Tom Hanks. And boy does Hanks ever deliver. He always effortlessly pulls off the dramatic speeches and powerful dialogue , but his more subtle acting is even more impressive. It's the moments when Sully is reacting to the big moments with only his facial expressions and body language that shows how great an actor he is..    

Eastwood ( and remember he’s 86 yrs. old) and his editors also deserve tons of credit for their work here. Much like Hanks' subtle acting, I love when Eastwood holds back the bombastic music (that can often overwhelm a good story) and lets the audience choose how to feel by watching excellent cinematography, acting and directing. This may be Eastwood's best directorial work since Million Dollar Baby. By the way, the understated Eastwood also composed much of the musical score for the movie.  

Most of all, this film is a great display of the power of the human spirit. Everything about this film is grounded with humanity. No one and nothing seems fake. So often Hollywood is flooded with over-the-top filmmaking that can easily dilute the power of the film's message. “Sully” knows exactly what it's going for, and it does it to near perfection.

It's rare for a film to inform, entertain, and inspire  all at the same time as this one does. By the way stay for roll of the  credits for the appearance of the real-life Sully and many of the real life survivors and crew all reunited alongside the actual plane (now in a museum in Charlotte NC) .

Clark

NERVE  3.0***

       “Nerve”,  starring the very pretty Emma Roberts and handsome Dave Franco, is a new thriller about a high school senior named Venus (Emma) who joins an online community, called Nerve, of adrenaline-junkies where anonymous watchers can dare players to do, well, whatever they want to see someone do. It's a game of truth or dare, minus the truth. You have a choice to be either a watcher or a player. Over the brief period of 24 hours, a phone app puts teen players  in danger through dares that are played for cash payments. In the meantime, a fan base of watchers sends in money to watch certain players take on requested dares specific to information picked up from their social media profiles.  

 From start to finish, this film is a non-stop white-knuckle thrill ride that is exciting, intense, romantic, and most importantly, a lot of fun. You will have a smile on your face and also be on the edge of your seat.        

 One thing that was great about this movie was that the dares were realistic, and didn't feel ridiculous. All of the things that Emma is dared to do are things that you know actually could happen in real life. The dares range from her getting a tattoo, to having to go 60 miles per hour on a motorcycle while the driver and co-player, Ian (Dave Franco), is blindfolded. While the dares get more and more intense and dangerous as the film goes on, nothing felt overly unbelievable or too exaggerated..

"Nerve" is a fantastically fun and incredibly intense movie that has great chemistry between Roberts and Franco, great visuals to go with an awesome soundtrack, and cool action sequences in the form of the dares that the characters have to complete. This is a great movie for anyone who just wants to spend 90 minutes on a roller coaster ride of a film.

Rated PG-13 for material involving dangerous and risky behavior, some sexual content and nudity, language, drugs and drinking -all involving teens 

Clark

ELVIS & NIXON  3.8*** (The movie was produced by Amazon and did not go in the theaters. It’s available on Amazon and will probably be available on other channels.)

       Believe it when they say 'truth is stranger than fiction". This is the bizarre account of Elvis Presley (Michael Shannon) flying a commercial airline to the nation's capital for a secret meeting with President Nixon.. Elvis, with best and patriotic intentions, goes to The White House, with a hand-written letter asking for a Federal Agent-At-Large badge. It is December 21, 1970, just four years before Richard Nixon (Kevin Spacey) would be forced to resign from office. The Commander-in-Chief reluctantly decides to meet Elvis after urging from White House staff and, more importantly, his daughter asking for an autographed picture of Elvis.

This movie, similar to the meeting itself, is entertaining and an interesting oddity. It is a tongue in cheek look at the actual meeting that has comic and heartwarming qualities. We have the ego-maniacal "stuffed shirt" President Richard M. Nixon and the megastar Elvis Presley. Both men, of great importance for different reasons, are boasting and bragging on the other to get what they wanted. Elvis wanted his badge and  Nixon wanted an autographed picture.  Spacey is hilarious, playing the role a bit downbeat, but has all the Nixon mannerisms down pat. He steals the show from Shannon, who doesn’t really  look or act so much like Elvis, but tries to say something with his dead eyes. This is a hysterical,  historical comedy about the actual meeting.

This will not become a movie classic nor will it be a movie that history classes will view for accuracy. What this is though is tremendously entertaining and watchable. This is a movie you can just sit back and watch and not have to think about .  

Clark

PS: The actual photo (see below) taken at the meeting has become the most requested photo from the National Archives.
Something also on the odd side, is that the soundtrack has NO Elvis music. Tunes are by Rufus Thomas, Otis Redding, Sam & Dave and Blood, Sweat & Tears.