Arrival (2016)

*major spoilers lie ahead

Denis Villeneuve, the bright director who brought us "Sicario" and "Prisoners," now delivers a mysterious alien visitation movie. He has a brilliant way of bringing a new twist to an old genre and "Arrival" is no exception.

One day on our blessed Planet Earth, 12 daunting spacecrafts appear out of thin air at 12 different cities. The lens-like obelisks just float there, taunting their viewers with the big questions: What do they want? Why are they here? Where did they come from?

The U.S. Military recruits linguistics expert Louise Banks (Amy Adams) and theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) to investigate and determine the giant squid-aliens' intentions. Through a series of charades and drawings, they begin to learn the beautiful loopty loop language that seemingly inks into the air as though it came out of a wizard wand. Louise explains to those who employed her (and the audience) how teaching and understanding the basics of language - things like pronouns and requests - they will eventually get to the bottom line: what's their deal.

The big story is interspersed with flashes of Banks' memories of her dying child, and a husband who left her. We are drawn in to her story and just as mystified by what haunts her. She performs her work with an air of sadness and burden but effectively connects with the aliens.

In the middle, things get chaotic. A message from the aliens is possibly misinterpreted as an attack and suddenly things start ~happening. Decisions are being made by people that are somehow important, communications are stopped (why?) and some rogue soldiers try to blow up the alien spacecraft that defies physics with a little bit of C4? A lot happens at once and I'll admit I was losing it a little then.

While everyone is running around like chickens with their heads cut off, Louise has a chat with our squid friends. Now, it isn't often that I am blown away by a plot twist, and maybe it's embarrassing how I didn't see it coming? But my whole opinion changed with the reveal.

Just like that, the past is the future, the present is the past, and the future is in her hands. With everything in perspective she is given the great gift of understanding and experiences the full breadth of her life in a single moment. Not only does she take charge of the alien situation at hand, but she makes decisions about herself. She chooses a life where she knows her daughter would die and somehow that's just amazing to me. She chooses the tragic, because she knew sweet moments would accompany it. How is that not empowering?

In one scene, she explains to her daughter that her name, Hannah, is a palindrome. This is also the key to the film structure. At the beginning, what we think is the past, is also the ending. It's a paradox and also very confusing but very powerful.

The acting lacked in some areas. Jeremy Renner didn't do much for me. I have never found him a very versatile or empathetic actor and he doesn't stand out in any way in this film either. He's a physicist but doesn't seem to do any physics or contribute anything at all. Forrest Whitaker also had a supporting role and seemed nothing more than a stereotype to fit.

None of that bothered me, though, with how fantastic Amy Adams was. She is a wonderfully diverse actress and this subtle, empathetic performance is one of her best. In many ways, this movie is all her. There are more close ups of her face than close examinations of the extra terrestrials; her reactions and wide eyes provide the insights we need to these other worldly visitors. The Academy sorely missed a nomination for her.

The best science fiction movies are deeply human at their core. This is a movie that gives its main character a powerful sense of free will and love and though "Arrival" struggles with some confusion in the second act the rest is so intriguing and mystifying that it doesn't matter. 8/10

Moonlight (2016)

In this intense coming of age story, "Moonlight" takes the story of Chiron in three stages. We watch him grow from "Little," a shy child neglected by his crack-addict mother, to a teenager struggling to find his sexual identity who is picked on and bullied, to a post-juvie drug dealer called "Black." Living on the streets of Miami can be hard and unforgiving. He is influenced throughout it his life by his mom Paula (Naomie Harris), a neighbor drug dealer named Juan (Mahershala Ali) and Kevin - with whom he shares his first kiss.

This is a small film. It's not very long. It's got a very simple plot. It's low-budget. There aren't any top-billed stars to rack in the attention. It's impossible to depict in just one film what it's like to be black (or gay, or black and gay) in America today but this attempts to provide a window on one particular experience in this character study. It's a movie that functions on observations, not words or action. 

To be honest, it's just kind of okay. I know it's been critically acclaimed but I feel like it's an emperor's new clothes type of situation. I didn't really enjoy watching it, and this isn't an uplifting story. I didn't feel moved or emotionally spent, just tired and a little bored.

Now, there were some good things.

The supporting characters leave lasting impressions despite their short screen-time. This is particularly true of Mahershala Ali. I was a big fan of his character on "House of Cards" and he stands out as the drug-dealer-with-a-heart-of-gold role. We've seen this kind of character before, but there was something striking about his eyes and expression when Chiron confronts him about dealing drugs to his mom - you could sense his hurt and disappointment and shame in himself.

At first it bothered me that I couldn't relate to this at all but I guess that gives "Moonlight" its own unique, gritty edge. "Boyhood" similarly told a coming of age story with different splices of a boy's life displayed in sequences and while I enjoyed that more (and find it a superior movie), this film still has something honest, and raw to offer.

I'm not sure how they managed to find three actors to play Chiron with consistency but color me impressed. Unlike "Boyhood" where the same kid literally grew up on the screen, "Moonlight" features three separate actors: Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, and Trevante Rhodes. All three have the same level of shyness, wonder, and also hardness. 

However, though the three actors were consistent, the character itself just isn't anything very memorable. My qualm with his arc is that I feel like there's nothing more to his story than the summation of his interactions with others. There was hardly anything to suggest what he really thought of himself, what he thought of his life, what he loved or hated or what his hobbies were or who he really was on the inside. He's gay, he's black, he's got it rough, but who really is he?

The third act takes on a two-person narrative that, though emotional in part is weak and concludes abruptly. It feels a little unfinished, and sad with no catharsis. Chapter One's abrupt conclusion to Juan's story also feels incomplete and want of questions. 

Director Barry Jenkins' sophomore film seems like it wants to be more than it is: a simple story without a compelling hook. It's nothing to write home about.  5/10

Spotlight (2015)

In 2001 the "spotlight" team at The Boston Globe comprised of editor Walter "Robby" Robinson (Michael Keaton), and reporters Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) and Matt Carroll (Brian d'Arcy James). This small group of investigative reporters would usually spend over a year on stories which require extra digging, in depth analysis, or extensive research. They work together like detectives putting together puzzles and bouncing ideas off of each other while tossing a tennis ball against the wall and eating leftover pizza. These are the kinds of stories that win awards, the kinds that change the world.

They begin investigating sexual abuse trends from Catholic priests in Boston. They interview a few victims, meet with a few experts and soon what starts as a seemingly small albeit horrific issue turns into a much bigger problem. There could be as many as 87 priests in Boston alone. They see that the roots go deeper than just a few bad seeds. It's a booming psychological phenomenon that spreads from the Vatican to all across the world.

But, like any good mystery, when they start getting closer they are met with more and more obstacles to overcome. They face pushback from the church, uncooperative sources, and run-ins with lawyers. And then there is a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the spotlight reporters are pulled to work on 9/11 reports. It takes a long time for them to get the story right because they know if they don't get it ~right then it will just be buried or overlooked.

They deal with this sensitive material with kindness but also straightforwardness. Their interviews are done as any journalist would - to get to the bottom line. In one interview one of them asks "Did you ever think about telling anyone?" He responds, "Like who, a priest?" These are awful, painful stories about people who were taken advantage of and deeply affected. In the end, it gets to the reporters too. There are some striking emotional scenes where they express the unfairness of the situation and the dire need to tell the public what was going on.

Through the tenacity, the long hours, and the brilliance of this team of reporters, one of the biggest scandals was uncovered and released to the public. The last scene is so emotionally overwhelming and yet also wonderfully understated. When the story is released, the phones at Spotlight are ringing off the hook almost exclusively with victims wanting their story to be told and heard. This is important.

It's a film that ranks alongside the gold standard of journalism films, "All the President's Men." It depicts the journalistic process without glamorizing: it's tough work. Those journalists are out on the streets, going door to door, rummaging through old boxes in libraries and courthouses day in and day out. But through their rigorous work, people who were afraid can have a voice. Their story can be told.

It's a movie about a team and a team made this movie. If the Oscars were to give an award for best performance from a group, this movie would deserve it. No one actor stands out, but they all do their job and get the job done. Other performances include Stanley Tucci, John Slattery, and Liev Shreiber. The many supporting acts come together to build this masterpiece.

Perhaps even more credit is due to director Tom McCarthy who didn't glorify the abuse but didn't minimize the damage. He paced it perfectly and created an intense drama even when the audience knows the outcome. This is one of the best - if not the very best - films of the year. 10/10

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011)

"I would find the lock because that was the only way to extend my 8 minutes with him. Maybe I could extend them forever." This quote accurately describes what it's like to grieve. You hold onto small things and memories and ideas in hopes that the person you lost will never fade entirely. It's a journey. A death, for the surviving friends and family, is not a one-time event. It doesn't end at the funeral. It is always just there.

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" is an acute examination of grief. 11-year-old Oskar Schell (played by the talented Thomas Horn) lost his father, Thomas (Tom Hanks) to the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. Now a day that lives in infamy to all Americans also lives on as a constant reminder to all those who lost family members on that tragic day.

Oskar finds a key amongst his father's old belongings a year after his death. Through a series of notes, newspaper clippings and clues he wanders around New York into the homes of several strangers (all with the last name Black - a clue) searching for answers. He goesJohn Goodman), lying about the various holidays throughout the school year to accomplish his task. He visits many people and learns many things and makes some new friends. The notion that an 11-year-old boy can wander into the homes of strangers all over New York City safely is incredulous, but some of these visits are impressionable nonetheless. His first visit with an Abby Black (Viola Davis) stands out and sets his journey off on the right emotional foot.
past his doorman (

It is widely understood and recognized that there are five stages to grief. Of course every experience is different but these stages provide a framework for what many people experience when someone they love dies. This story examines those stages through Oskar.

Denial
The day of the attacks, Thomas calls home and leaves messages on the answering machine. Oskar was the only one who heard them and he hides under the bed and lies when his mom asks him about it. He later rips out the answering machine and hides it somewhere and says "it was like it never happened."

Anger
Oskar yells at his mom (Sandra Bullock) in a fury and says he wishes it were her in the building.

Bargaining
When he meets the mysterious renter living in his grandma's basement (Max von Sydow), he explains his story to him as quickly as he can get the words out. "And I don't know a single thing that I didn't know when I started! It's these times I miss my dad more than ever even if this whole thing is to stop missing him at all! It hurts too much." He would do anything to stop missing his dad - to have the pain go away, and so he obsesses over this fool's errand to do something about it.

Depression
Oskar throws a big box of keys in a flurry and runs along a bright red wall. He begins to realize that their search may be futile, and then he listens to those messages again and cries."

Acceptance
In one of the few scenes Oskar shares with his mom, they sit together on the bed and cry together. They (finally) connect with each other and share memories and ~talk. It is the beginning of the road to acceptance.

Director Stephen Daldry is no stranger to stories centered around tragic events ("The Reader" happens during the Holocaust). Though a good storyteller, this movie doesn't leave a hopeful or happy impression, but a depressed one.

This movie is hard to watch. No one wants to know, remember, or feel what it feels like to lose someone. For those who did lose someone at 9/11, I'm so sorry. No film or story can provide the catharsis for such a tragedy and in many ways this film is far too simplistic to make the attempt. Over 4,000 people died that day, and yet these contrived stories try to help us feel happy about the one person who made peace. Those real-life people didn't have a puzzle to solve, they have a family member who is gone. Sometimes it all feels too forced and manipulative with an unclear picture at the end for what the ~point is.

While an interesting analysis on grief with two good performances from Von Sydow and Horn, the film is empty of any solid resolution. 5/10

The Hundred-Foot Journey (2014)

“The Hundred-Foot Journey” is largely a movie about food. It tries to romanticize the kitchen but sadly can’t quite get the audience to get emotional over their dinner like “Ratatouille” or “Babette’s Feast” can. The story of an Indian family opening a restaurant across the street from the French restaurant owned by Madame Mallory - a very, well, chauvinistic French chef stuck in her Frenchiness - tells of intertwining culture and overcoming bias. It is as familiar as it is stereotypical. A re-told story, however, rarely means a bad movie for me. A re-told story with one-note characters and boring, surface-y conflict does.

Helen Mirren and Om Puri are the veteran actors of the ensemble and also the most enjoyable thing to watch on-screen. The casting choice for Madame Mallory is interesting, of course, in that Mirren is not actually French. The weight of Mallory’s domineering character, however, would not have been the same were a lesser-known French actress cast in her stead. Mirren established herself as a regal presence worthy of respect in her Oscar-winning portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in “The Queen.” In “The Hundred-Foot Journey” Papa Kadam even addresses her at one point by saying, “You sit up there like a queen” to point out her self-satisfied, controlling, and entitled demeanor. To help establish Madame Mallory’s character as the standoffish and insensitive neighbor to the Kadam family, the choice to cast Helen Mirren – a well-established, automatic attention-grabbing actress, as well as offering a stark contrast to Puri – was only appropriate.

Likewise, the choice to cast Om Puri was well suited (though perhaps more obvious due to being an Indian actor). He has a great ability to play off the characters around him – particularly Madame Mallory. In one scene, when Madame Mallory grows upset at the loud Indian music, Puri nonchalantly tosses the tablecloth and calmly thanks her for barging into their home. In response to her condescending behavior, he promptly turns the music back up and starts dancing joyfully. This shows pride in his culture and feisty defiance to mistreatment. Their early scenes show the cultural difference with amusing conflict, but unfortunately these scenes are few.

These two performances are great and show an interesting side to the convergence and celebration of culture in the way I wish the food or the story had been able to. I'm sure this theme could have been better illustrated were these two talented actors given more time to interact and carry the story instead of allowing the younger actors and struggling plot filled with clichés to dominate. Manish Dayal plays Papa Kadam's son - the cooking prodigy who goes on to advance his career in other fancy Frenchy restaurants - and Charlotte le Bon plays the sous-chef of Madame Mallory's restaurant. The attempts at a romantic side-story seem half-hearted and unbelievable and both characters seem devoid of passion. It seems the son, Hassan, is the protagonist, but his character is underdeveloped and without much dramatic arc. I was left unsatisfied.

It's a tale as old as time where you know the end as soon as the beginning ensues. But "The Hundred-Foot Journey" brings nothing new to an old story. Any element with potential to enthrall is thrown in with laziness: the humor is brief and mediocre; the story takes no risks. Each actor's talent seems wasted and each potential conflict comes without tension. Of course, mediocre feel-good movies have their place. Nothing particular, though, stands out enough to make me remember it or desire to watch it again.

Ultimately, everything about the movie felt hollow. With Lasse Hallström as director, I expected "Chocolat" 2.0 and with Oprah as an executive producer, I expected something sentimental with a high probability of soap and cheese. I will admit, the time spent watching wasn't unpleasant. I just hoped that a movie with any kind of food subtext would leave me craving and hungry rather than checking my watch. 4/10

The Theory of Everything (2014)

So how well do two biopics about famous British intellects hold well in the same season? Well, as the Oscars have come and gone it seems Eddie Redmayne bested Benedict Cumberbatch for the best actor race, though the "The Imitation Game" was a more satisfying movie. "The Theory of Everything," nevertheless, tells a compelling story of man versus disease and the brilliant performance of Redmayne makes it worth every penny (even if the movie fails to live up to its own title and explore deep into theories on the universe or to portray a satisfying romance).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is a one-trick movie, but Eddie Redmayne is certainly the main reason it's worth the time. Redmayne tackles the daunting task of playing Stephen Hawking - a brilliant physicist with Lou Gehrig's disease - with care and precision. It's not easy to play a man with such a limiting physical condition and he seems to not only struggle under the physical limitations but also think and feel as though he were so limited. This is particularly manifest in his astounding and flawless depiction of the degeneration of the disease despite the film not being shot chronologically. His twinkling eyes, however, never falter to show his youthful, intelligent spirit in search of answers about the universe.

Redmayne's performance is reminiscent of Daniel Day Lewis in his famed portrayal of a man with cerebral palsy in "My Left Foot" (1989). This performance, which won Lewis his first Oscar, was only the beginning of an impressive career and there is no doubt that Redmayne's resumé will soon include other noteworthy performances. I am not venturing to say that Redmayne is the next Daniel Day Lewis, but I am anxious to see what comes next in his career.

"The Theory of Everything" shines because of his performance, but there is something dissatisfying about the film primarily focusing on the romance between Hawking and Jane Wilde (gracefully, quietly played by Felicity Jones). It should be noted that the screenplay is based off Wilde's memoirs "Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen" and not Hawking's own book "A Brief History of Time." That makes this a historical romance rather than a philosophical exploration of cosmology. This isn't a bait and switch situation, the trailers clearly marketed it to be such a film. Though his scientific work is much more inspiring than their disheartening romance, the film takes us through their relationship - spanning from their college years, to their marriage, to the birth of their three children, and to their eventual separation. It certainly wasn't a love story to sweep you off your feet or make you feel confident in romance. None of this is inherently bad - the film's honest and poignant take on Jane and Stephen's struggling marriage is as refreshing as it is exhausting. But perhaps I was hoping for a different film.

Hawking's scientific theories are groundbreaking and revolutionary. Though director James Marsh addresses the ideas of black holes, science vs. religion, and quantum mechanics, these themes are only touched upon at surface level. Limited to the romance formula that it subscribes to, it dares not explore beyond the top layer or tap into these theories that significantly impact the human existence. With spiraling camerawork up staircases or following the milk swirl in the coffee, the film teases at dappling into deeper questioning of infinity and space. Though it is possible to convey science for the layman, the film fails to reach its full potential to edify, inspire or provoke critical thinking by sticking to a more conventional story. We catch a glimpse of who Stephen Hawking was, but don't get the full story behind his fame.

"The Theory of Everything" is still an emotional, sophisticated, well-balanced film. The supporting cast was well-chosen, including David Thewlis, Charlie Cox, and Maxine Peake. The lovely Felicity Jones especially stands out with her graceful, yet intense portrayal of a conflicted wife. The cinematography and music also brilliantly come together to cultivate Hawking's quest for a  “simple unifying equation that explains everything in the universe.” So while the movie may not have moved me as a whole, there are elements that did, especially Redmayne. It's a performance piece that, by winning its acting awards, accomplished what it set out to do. However, it is far more preoccupied with its performances than it is with telling a compelling story. 6/10