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