A Review you can use: 13 Hours.

Good afternoon!

In keeping with my New Year's resolution, I'm determined to see more movies in the theater.  To that end,  Hubby and I have just seen Michael Bay's newest film, "13 Hours."

Like so many things in our world these days, "13 Hours" is not easily categorized. Is it an action movie?  A thriller?  A war film?  A political statement?  A dark comedy?

It is all of the above.

"13 Hours" tells the true story of the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya when ambassador Christopher Stevens and Information officer Sean Smith were killed in an American Embassy during a coordinated attack by militants. Another compound approximately 1 mile away was also attacked and 2 CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed. Both Woods and Doherty were former Navy SEALS, The event is also called the Battle of Benghazi.The movie details the events leading up to the attack, the attack itself and the aftermath.

It's a breathless, fast paced film. I checked my watch about halfway through and could not believe how fast time had gone. Surprising and excellent performances by Jon Krasinski  and former fellow "The Office" castmate David Denham.  Krasinski makes the leap from comedic goofy guy to convincing serious action guy smoothly, and his performance is one bright star in a sky of sparkling moments.  Director Michael Bay presents the film with the unblinking feel of a documentary, complete with several time stamps.  

Bay steers clear of pointing a political finger, although much of the fall out stemming from the Battle of Beghazi has been hard to avoid in this presidential election year.  The viewer is left not so much blaming one person or one party, but rather blaming the breakdown of leadership and the "cover your a**"" mentality that is so much a part of the fabric of the US government.  There is no question in the point Bay is trying to get across by telling this story about the battle that's lead to months of testimony and chest thumping about emails and phone calls and and more emails.  Bay is shining a light on the six men who managed to defend more than 30 Americans against all odds when the rest of the US refused to help.  These six men did not worry about polls or votes or politics or political correctness.  They worried about defending the people in their care even though repeated calls for help went unanswered.

As an American I am proud of those six men.  

This movie is not for the faint of heart.  It is violent.  But it is also touching, and at moments funny.  This would fall into my "important movies" category.  You should see this. You should educate yourself about the Battle of Benghazi. You should teach your children, because they aren't learning history in schools anymore, and certainly not much in the way of current history.  Watch this film.  Read what you can.  Draw your own conclusions.  For me, the last line of the movie said it all.

And I'm not going to tell you what that line is. You need to see it for yourself.

  

A Review Your Can Use: The Hateful 8

Good afternoon all!

So it's the new year and one of my resolutions was to go out and see more movies in the theater.  We're on Day 2 of 2016 and I've been to two movies already.  A good start.

I'm not going to bore you with a review of Star Wars.  You're going to go see it either because you love Star Wars or because everyone else on the planet is going and you're going to enjoy it because it's a movie built to be enjoyed by everyone.  Instead, I'm going to write a review of a movie whose release was limited to very specific theaters across the US, but is genius on several levels:  The Hateful 8.  

Let me first say I'm not a Quentin Tarantino fan. I'm telling you this so that you know I'm not writing a litany for worship at Tarantino's feet. I didn't like "Pulp Fiction" much and word that there's a third "Kill Bill" doesn't make me giggle with glee.  I did enjoy "Django Unchained" and "Inglorious Basterds" is one of my favorite films.  So I am reviewing "8" with a completely balanced eye, and I'm moved to write this review because I'm a writer and frankly when I see great writing in any form I need to give it a cheer.

Set almost completely in a snowbound cabin in Wyoming, "8" has the feel of a stage play.  The movie is dialogue heavy.  We learn nearly everything we need to know about the characters through what they say more than how they look or what they do.  Costuming is simple: heavy, brown, filthy, lumpy coats and boots all around, so in the staging Tarantino has leveled the field. Everyone pretty much looks alike.  Everyone sounds similar, with the exception of a couple accents.  But in words and phrases there's no telling the good guy from the bad guy simply by looking at them or hearing them speak.  Nope, this is a movie where you actually have to LISTEN to what's being said and that's where the genius of the film comes in.

Tarantino wants to give us the old time feel of what going to the movies meant a couple generations ago, so he's filmed it in 70MM, which means all these fantastic digital screens can't handle it. Hence the limited release. Simply put:  there aren't many theaters that even have the technology to run this film, which is actually a FILM. He didn't stop there, however. The movie is over three hours long. Yep.  More than three hours. I have trouble sitting still that long. But Tarantino gives us something we haven't seen from a long movie in a long time:  An intermission.  We actually had time to get up, get another soda, use the facilities, whatever, for about fifteen minutes.  It was perfect. And the fact that the movie clips along lightening fast didn't hurt either.

So what's it about?  It's a Western...set in winter...with bounty hunters and prisoners,  former Civil War officers from both sides, and unabashed racists all find themselves trapped in a single room.  They are all taking shelter from a blizzard.  Battle lines are drawn and redrawn as, through conversation, each character sees themselves allies and then enemies with every other character.  The movie is hardly for the faint of heart, given Tarantino's love of shock language and graphic violence.  In today's ultra sensitive society, there are those who are going to decry the treatment of Jennifer Jason Leigh (Daisy) who is punched and beaten and shot at pretty much the whole film. Let's all remember, folks, this is a story, it's fiction set in a time when the N word was part of every day speech and bounty hunters had the choice between "dead or alive."  It's not like this is set in a grade school in Beverly Hills in 2016.  Oh, and yeah, dear Daisy is as bad a bad guy as any of the others.  

Tarantino's sense of humor is also prevalent.  You're going to find yourself laughing out loud at some really dark moments, and that's okay.  Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell bounce off each other smoothly and it's great to see Bruce Dern in another film.  The winner of most of the scenes, however is Walter Goggins, as the former Rebel soon to be sheriff, Chris. 

It's a great cast doing excellent work in a very well written film.  If you don't have the stomach for very strong language, graphic nudity (there are a few moments of really graphic nudity, but only a few) or violence, or if you're just going to gripe that some of the characters are racist while others are violent toward a woman, then don't go see this film. If you want to see one of today's top movie makers actually produce something that's both original and nostalgic while also being entertaining, then go ahead and see it and have fun.

Of course, you can always also just go see any one of the ten billion sequels or remakes Hollywood is puking out at an alarming rate. Sure, you won't see anything new, but at least your sensibilities won't be stirred up. 

I'm giving this Five out of Five.

And speaking of movie reviews...

My very good friend, fellow author and movie lover, Linda Schmalz and I have released our first movie review book:  Two Moms, Three Glasses of Wine, and a Movie. For our first edition, we chose to review our favorite 50 films each and then 25 movies we both love.  You can get it in print or for the Kindle right now.  Our hope is to turn this project into a long series because, what we've noticed, is that there just are not enough movie reviews written by women while they're drinking wine.  

A Review you can use: Foxcatcher.

Good afternoon!

It isn't often that I write a negative review of a well reviewed, critically acclaimed movie. I don't believe I'm smart enough to feel opposite of what the rest of the world thinks when it comes to a movie.

Oh, wait....yes I do!  

See, reviews are basically opinions.  And everyone has an opinion. Opinions are neither right nor wrong because they aren't based on fact or research. They're based on feelings and tastes.  

Well, except for this time around my opinion is right and everyone else is wrong.  Probably.

I really, really, really wanted to love "Foxcatcher". I have been begging my husband to rent this movie for a long time and he's had no interest in it, so the first time he went out of town I hustled down to the video store and got this.  I popped up popcorn and I settled in.

And about fifteen minutes into the movie I was wondering if I had a load of laundry that needed to be put in the drier.

"Foxcatcher" has everything, and I do mean everything, going for it.  

1)  Steve Carrel in weird makeup and a dramatic role Who isn't cheering for Steve Carrel to make the jump to drama?  We LOVE Steve Carrel!

2)  Mark Ruffalo. He's awesome.

3) Channing Tatum in a wrestling singlet/or shirtless most of the time.  Win.  (I realize Channing's trying to make the jump to dramatic acting, but well, some actors are for looking at and some are for serious drama.)

The content of the movie had me interested:

1) True life drama
2)  Based on Olympic athletes
3) Involving tragedy and family strife.
4) A serious look at the life of a Greco-Roman wrestler, which is interesting.  Many of my friends in high school were wrestlers, and I found their sport and training fascinating.

I WAS SERIOUSLY READY TO LOVE THIS MOVIE.

Until I didn't.  

First of all, the story of the Schultz Brothers and their gold medal wins at the 1984 Olympics is the kick off the movie.  Apparently, post Olympics, Mark Schultz (Tatum) hadn't fared so well and was basically eating ramen noodles and hanging out at his old high school.  

The fact that the story is ultimately a tragedy fueled by a super creepy rich guy (and don't get me wrong, Steve Carrel hits all the marks on his portrayal of John du Pont, the super creepy rich guy) should have been a nail biting, edge of your seat, thriller.

Instead, we got a lot of shots of Channing Tatum eating ramen noodles.  We got a lot of shots of snow and American flags, and Channing Tatum staring off into space.  And by a lot I mean of the 134 minutes of this movie, if they'd cut out just half the shots of snow, flags, and Channing's meaningless/meaningful stares, the movie run time would be in the neighborhood of 90 minutes and still feel like a plodding drag to the finish.

There are moments that are meaningful, to be sure.  Mark Ruffalo, as Dave Schultz, is probably the highlight of the acting.  He's winning, he's steady, and sincere, and in the end, we feel his pain and confusion almost as much as he does.  

Steve Carrel has a career in drama. No doubt. He's decidedly weird and wooden as John du Pont, mostly because I think he's afraid his fake nose will fall off.  He's very uncomfortable to watch because he's so creepy, but again, that's intentional.  Watching him try to impress his mother (played by Vanessa Redgrave, but the part could have been covered by a monkey wrapped in a blanket, they use Ms. Redgrave so little.) is heartbreaking.  

Even Channing Tatum, who is NOT a dramatic actor and mostly likely got the part based on his physical abilities alone, has compelling moments, most of them involving ramen noodles.   There are moments of clarity where we can almost feel his frustration at being the younger brother, at being overlooked, for being the second best.  There is a scene where we watch him eat his frustrations and it might be one of the best scenes in the movie.

Sometimes you can put all the right ingredients together and dinner still doesn't taste good.  That's the case with "Foxcatcher."  Everything should be excellent, and haunting, and suspenseful. Except, well, it wasn't.

On the brighter side, I did get my laundry done.

But decide for yourself. I mean, if you love lots of long shots of snowy farm land and conversations that involve fewer words than film minutes, you may enjoy "Foxcatcher."  

A Review you can use: Exodus: Gods and Kings.

Good evening and Merry Christmas to all!

Christmas Day has fast become a day when people go to the movies, and why not?  We've done it.  I mean, once the church is done, and the presents are done, and you've eaten everything you can possibly hold, why not head outside and be around people you AREN'T related to and DON'T make you crazy?

To that end, Christmas is a time when a lot of movies get released so that people who do want to escape the family fun have something to watch.  This year we have a movie offering of Biblical proportions:  Exodus:  Gods and Kings.

After "Noah" last spring I admit, I was skeptical.  Let's face it, "Noah" is hardly a Sunday School lesson. As a devout Christian that bothers me but as a person who likes to be entertained at the movies, I was entertained. Still, if you're using a book, any book, as source material, how about sticking to the book? That's been a gripe of mine for a long time. I mean, do movie studios just think, "Hey, we have a great book...let's change a bunch of stuff and make a semi crappy movie out of it."  

Why bother using the book at all?  

This is especially true with the Bible because, okay, if you were making a movie out of the Book of Mormon or the Quran or something, you'd try and get it right, right?  But for some reason, since time forever, Hollywood has taken liberties with the Bible.  It's annoying because believe me, the book is BETTER, especially the Old Testament where all kinds of good stuff went down.  You just don't need embellishment, believe me.  and the pressure is higher because so many Christians today are looking at movies like this and saying, "Yeah, great. What are those heathen Hollywood types going to screw up this time?" 

This time around the director is Ridley Scott and I love Ridley Scott. And Christian Bale is Moses, and I love Christian Bale.  So let's go see Exodus!

For those of you who aren't sure, the book of Exodus in the Bible is the history of the Children of Israel 400 years after Jacob moved the family from Canaan to Egypt to live under the protection of Joseph.  400 years later, things aren't so great because the Pharaoh no longer remembers his history, has no idea Joseph saved Egypt during a pretty decent famine, and so the Hebrews are now slaves building all sorts of big statues and buildings.

Moses was born in a time when Pharaoh thought population control was a good idea for the Hebrews, so he made a law that said every male baby born to a Hebrew family had to be killed immediately. Moses' mother put Moses in a basket and sent him down the Nile where he was found by the daughter of Pharaoh, who raised Moses with the help of Moses' real mother who came to live in the palace as Moses' nanny.

There, I've caught you up.

The movie opens when Moses and Ramses are adults, brothers really.  This is part of the history the Bible does not tell us, whether Moses and the future Pharaoh were brothers or enemies or what.  It is commonly held that there was some rivalry, but that Moses was beloved of the old Pharaoh.  Okay, anyway, in the movie Moses heads on down to where the Hebrews are working. Why he gets there is not important, neither in the Bible nor for the purposes of this review.  He comes across Ben Kingsley. Yep, I have no idea who Ben plays, but he's there looking like, well like himself.  And he reveals to Moses that he's Hebrew.  

So far so good.

On his way out of the Hebrew camp, Moses kills an Egyptian, a fact that is explained well in the Bible, but not at all in the movie, and he goes home.  Huh. Weird.

The old Pharaoh dies and that's when we depart from the Biblical account for a while.  Moses is actually driven out of Egypt, not because he killed someone as it says in the Bible, but because he's Hebrew, and hey, it's his sister who was his nanny.  

Okay, okay, I'm willing to over look that little thing.

Moses meets up with a semi nomadic tribe who seem to think tattoos on the women's faces is wonderful but the men have no tattoos at all.  Moses marries one of the women and has a son.  Okay, back on track.

Chasing some sheep one day, Moses gets hit on a the head, buried in mud, breaks his leg, and has a vision of a young boy making tea next to a burning bush.  

What follows for the next forty minutes is all very entertaining, but if you're basing it on the Biblical account, it's complete crap.  I very nearly walked out because according to Ridley Scott, Moses decides he's going to just go in and blow stuff up and declare war on the new Pharaoh.  It actually felt for a good long time that we were getting the story of the Exodus with no mention of the ten plagues.  The couple behind us actually walked out.

Bible believers, take heart.  If you get through the 40 minutes of explosions, you'll get to something that's not only entertaining, but actually follows the Bible a bit more carefully than many others. The Plagues are depicted very well and they actually got the crossing of the Red Sea just about right, which is amazing since many Bible scoffers have long held that the crossing was no miracle but instead just a bunch of people marching through a swamp.

One thing Hollywood again gives us that I'm okay with is a doubtful, then fanatical religious hero.  Russell Crowe did well with Noah and Christian Bale gives a very good performance as Moses.  After teaching Sunday School for more than twenty years one of the things that I have to remind my students is that these heroes of faith were first and foremost people.  They had doubts, they had failures.  Ridley Scott gives us a warrior who battles his faith, so he gets it half right.  (Biblically, Moses had very little confidence when told by God to go free the Hebrews, plus he had a speech impediment.)

Overall, I was not displeased with movie.  While the first hour can be troubling for a purist, the rest of the movie (the movie is 150 minutes long, so get the big bucket) does keep close to the Bible account and is still brilliant and beautiful.  I rather enjoyed God being depicted as a young boy who likes to make tea. Not everyone does, but I believe in a God who takes all forms and so why not that of a young child?

 Some reviewers gripe that the Plagues are all explained away scientifically, therefore God is marginalized.  That's not my take on it.  Remember, the magicians tried to mimic the plagues for Pharaoh as a way of calming him.  The scene where the plagues are being explained away is not an explanation so much for the audience as a moment of comedy because the magnitude of the plagues is so beyond the simple explanations, its humorous. That's how it's presented in the movie and I believe that's correct.

So no, this is not the "perfect" Bible movie.  And if you are taking your children to see it, I caution you. There are scenes of violence that would be disturbing for the younger children.  I feel this one is actually better than "The Ten Commandments" because, well, it just is.  I think there's more of the spirit of the Bible in this one.  So maybe skip the first forty minutes and then come in.

Oh, and side note. We saw this in 3D. Skip the 3D.