Category: Film

REVIEW: Dark Waters

Lucy Leave a comment

If you decide to watch this movie, settle in for a long film and make sure you know your lawyer jargon before watching! Maybe grab some popcorn as well.

The film is based on a New York Times article about a top lawyer for chemical companies who ends up working against his own clients. When he is faced with an ethical dilemma about people and animals being harmed by a mystery chemical in their town’s water supply and rivers, he must make the decision to help the common people and possibly ruin his own career, or to keep on the trodden path and look the other way. This movie hit particularly hard, I think, because of what is still ongoing in Flint, Michigan and their struggles with the contaminated water there.

To begin, this movie certainly has a lot of famous actors, some of whom I had to look up where I knew them from because they were just tip-of-the-tongue familiar. Anne Hathaway played a significant role, as the wife of the main character. She didn’t have a ton of screen time, but when  there were scenes where she was a focus, she certainly shined. She played her very emotional role well, and was also a major badass, as we have seen her do before in previous movies. Mark Ruffalo also conveyed his emotional turmoil and increasing stress well, as the movie followed his character into an unending court case that is still going on today. I was also excited to see some smaller roles with actors I really like, including Bill Pullman, William Jackson Harper and Victor Garber.

One thing I thought was difficult to follow was a lot of the lawyer jargon and information that I did not know, not being someone who works in law or business. My parents (who both work in business) definitely had to answer some of my questions about what was going on. I don’t think that it pulled away too much from my understanding of the film overall, but it was certainly helpful to know a lot of the more professional terms and subject matter that were going on during the movie. I think that they brushed over a lot of these important topics, assuming that people watching the movie would know, when in fact this makes the film less accessible to a wider audience who may want to watch it and be able to follow along with all of the plot points.

At the end of the movie, before the credits, the film included information about the real case that is still being fought, and about the real people involved. Some of them even had cameos in the movie, which was really cool to see. It also made the case all the more real, and made me continue to think about a few of the more standout themes that were outlined in the movie. The fact that major companies are really not working for us, but for their own gain, and will do anything to keep their cash flowing is quite scary, and this movie certainly brought that to light in a very stark and obvious way. It also made me think about what harmful chemicals could be still allowed into our food and everyday household items, that we could be ingesting every day. This movie was certainly thought provoking, and I would recommend it to anyone who is a fan of social advocacy and fighting for the people.

REVIEW: Richard Jewell

ajayw Leave a comment

Richard Jewell is a movie based on a true story of the security guard who found the bomb that was planted  in Centennial Park at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. While the movie endured some criticism regarding its portrayal of reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), I found it to be an entertaining and enjoyable picture overall. The film starts by providing the audience with some background into the mindset of the movie’s namesake and main character, Richard Jewell (Peter Walter Hauser). Richard’s dream is to join law enforcement in some capacity, but he is unable to just dive into a job as a police officer immediately. The movie takes great care to establish his relationship with Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell) early on as well, showing that Richard worked in his office at one point and was such a good employee that he went so far as to stock his drawers with Snickers bars. They then show that Richard left his job at Bryant’s office for security work at a university. While working at this university he “overachieved” in a way and ends up getting fired for overstepping the limits of his power. All of this background is included to set up Richard’s character as someone who dreams of being in law enforcement so much that he actually tries too hard to get there. When the 1996 Olympics come to Atlanta, Richard seizes the opportunity to be hired as a security guard. After a run in with some drunk teens, Richard notices a backpack is left under his security bench. He is the only one who considers it suspicious and insists that they call the “bomb guy” to check it out. Unfortunately for everyone at the concert, Richard’s suspicion proved correct; there was a bomb in the backpack. Thankfully, because he was able to alert the other security personnel, they were able to clear the immediately surrounding area and limit the damage to slightly over 100 injuries and 12 or 13 deaths I believe. Unfortunately for Richard, the FBI is not sold on the legitimacy of his heroics and start investigating him as the bomber. The controversy surrounding the movie comes from its depiction of how the story that the FBI was investigating Jewell got out. The movie shows Kathy Scruggs seducing an FBI agent (Jon Hamm) into telling her who the focus of the investigation is. The newspaper she worked for refute the validity of this portrayal, arguing there is no evidence to suggest that this ever happened. Regardless, word of the investigation got out and Richard Jewell went from hero to public enemy number one very quickly. After realizing he might be a suspect, Richard calls “the only lawyer he knows”, Watson Bryant, to represent him. Mr. Bryant prevents Richard from accidentally incriminating himself as he is so eager to help the law enforcement officers whose ranks he aspires to join that he is willing to do just about anything they ask. Because of his eagerness to cooperate, the FBI take full advantage of him until he realizes what is going on. Finally, upon coming to his senses, the movie shows a heated exchange in an interrogation where Richard asks the officers if they have any evidence against him whatsoever and they are unable to answer. As a result, they have to drop the case, but Richard’s public persona is not out of the woods, even to this day. Some people still think he planted that bomb and treat him as a criminal instead of the hero he truly is. Overall, Richard Jewell is really well done and, regardless of whether or not it is 100% accurate, is an entertaining portrayal of a very interesting case in American history. It takes a traditional story of a person being wrongfully accused of a crime and adds the element of them helping their accusers, making for a really interesting twist.

REVIEW: Cheer

Aria Gerson Leave a comment

Attending a high school that didn’t have its own sports teams, my concept of cheerleaders mostly came from what I saw on TV. White, pretty, mean. They cheered to make themselves popular or to date football players.

The recent Netflix miniseries “Cheer” flips all those stereotypes on their heads.

“Cheer” follows the real-life cheerleading team at Navarro College, a community college in rural Texas. The show’s arc juxtaposes two common sports movie tropes that aren’t normally seen together — the dominant juggernaut with a deep-seated desire to win and the scrappy, diverse underdogs who play above their means. The opening makes it clear that Navarro is a dominant force in the world of cheerleading and that their driven coach, Monica, will accept nothing less than another national title.

But these aren’t your typical teen sitcom cheerleaders. Many of Navarro’s cheerleaders are minorities or from low-income backgrounds. For some of them, cheerleading is literally all they have, and it’s that — the undeniably human stories of these athletes overcoming what life has thrown at them to come together and create something bigger than themselves — that makes the most compelling part of the show.

This show is not always pretty. Monica’s tactics occasionally border on abusive. There are a lot of injuries, and many of them are not handled properly. (It’s unclear if this is due to lack of adequate athletic medicine resources, negligence from coaches or both.) This is the dark underbelly of many sports, and “Cheer” presents it right alongside the feel-good narratives and lets you decide for yourself what you think. That was one of the more fascinating aspects of the show for me, especially as someone who is frequently around sports.

The show centers primarily on five protagonists — Lexi, Morgan, LaDarius, Jerry and Gabi — as they prepare for nationals with their team. All five are easy to root for. They all had different hopes and dreams and as the show reached its conclusion, I found myself cheering for them all to find success in their own ways. Throughout the documentary, you see a lot of footage from practice and information on how Navarro’s routine is coming, but you also get to hear the backstory of these five and see the impact that being part of the team has had in their lives.

I found out two episodes into “Cheer” that Navarro is one of only two teams in its division. Trinity Valley, the school it mentions as Navarro’s biggest rival, is in fact its only rival. The miniseries conceals this fact, but somehow it didn’t bother me as much as I thought it would. As the series went on, I found myself wondering more what would happen to each of the main team members rather than whether Navarro would win its championship. For that reason, I appreciated that “Cheer” doesn’t end with Navarro’s nationals performance. Instead, it goes on to show what happened to everyone after they walked off the stage — and not everything wraps up in a neat little bow.

“Cheer” is sports documentary meets sports movie, a David and Goliath story at the same time. Not everything is as glitzy and glamorous as the cheerleaders I saw on TV as a kid. And those things are what make the show so compelling.

REVIEW: Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker

ajayw Leave a comment

A few days ago in a galaxy far far away, Disney released the 9th installment of the Star Wars sequel trilogy, The Rise of Skywalker, on Disney Plus. After receiving lots of backlash that stemmed from the questionable decisions Rian Johnson made while directing the 8th movie, Disney decided to bring JJ Abrams back in to see if he could salvage what was shaping up to be another failed spin-off series. I think he tried his best, but at the end of the day there was only so much he could do given what had already happened in the newest trilogy. The Rise of Skywalker continues to build on the “force dyad” connection that Kylo Ren and Rey share, including a few more discussions through the force as seen in the 8th movie (but without shirtless Adam Driver this time). This connection was one of the few parts of the 8th movie that was actually interesting in my opinion. As is expected in any JJ Abrams film, the movie also had some of the best action in the entire Star Wars series, featuring thrilling lightsaber battles, epic spacecraft fights, and force lightning. Abrams also did a great job of limiting the roles of annoying characters like Finn and Rose. At first I liked Finn, but after watching the 7th and 8th movies, I started to realize that his character only ever runs and yells. Once I realized that, anytime he did either or both of those things (which was a lot), I couldn’t help but cringe. Rose is an unnecessary character and I’m really not sure why Rian Johnson created her. While these aspects contributed positively to the movie and made it somewhat enjoyable, in my opinion, they were far outweighed by the negatives that accompanied them. While JJ did a good job of limiting Finn’s role, he still left him in enough scenes to have an annoying storyline. While falling through a pit of space quicksand (?) he tells Rey that he needs to tell her something important and then proceeds to never tell her even though they bring it up multiple times later on in the movie. After they fall through the quicksand, they happen to find a dagger with an inscription that tells them where to find the “Sith Wayfinder”. I really dislike the fact that they just luck into the exact information they are looking for. The 6th Star Wars starts with a well thought out plan that Luke and company execute to perfection to save Han. The use of planning as opposed to luck is one of the reasons that the original trilogy is better than all of the prequels and sequels, in my opinion. Another missed opportunity for an impactful moment came with Chewbacca’s fake death. I love Chewy as a character, but in this new sequel series, he is not important . However, because of his role in the earlier films, killing him off would have been a really powerful moment that I think would have been amazing. There were other choices that I didn’t like (such as Rey being a Palpatine, the kiss with Kylo, etc.), but they weren’t as offensive as the ones I discussed above. Overall, I felt like this movie wasn’t as bad as The Last Jedi, but was worse than The Force Awakens. In the grand scheme of Star Wars, I would rank it below the entire original trilogy, the 7th movie, and the 3rd prequel. Hopefully, when Disney tries its next spin off from this universe, a fresh set of characters will inspire them to create some better content.

REVIEW: The Plot Against America

Nellie Shih Leave a comment

The Plot Against America is a new HBO limited series based on the 2004 novel of the same name by Philip Roth. The series is an alternate history following a working-class Jewish family living in New Jersey as Charles Lindbergh wins the Presidency over FDR. Lindbergh is most known for completing the first solo transatlantic flight, his belief in eugenics, as well as his Nazi-reminiscent views on race and religion.

 

The series will consist of six episodes, the first having premiered on Monday. Critics and viewers have already drawn parallels to the current political climate, with celebrities-turned-politicians and America being taken over by hatred. As the source material was initially interpreted as a commentary on the second Bush administration, it’s interesting that the text is still relevant 16 years later. However, the series almost tries too hard to remind viewers that many individuals today can relate to this anxiety and grief. For example, the father of the family says “But we’re American,” in response to a radio broadcast of one of Lindbergh’s speeches. This rhetoric is very on-the-nose, as well as a very present-day thing to say. The line was evidently added in to jump out at viewers, but it comes across as too jarring and trying too hard. Critic Ani Bundel who has seen the series in its entirety has said the show would be more poignant if it were more subtle: “HBO’s refusal to respect the audience’s intelligence to make the connections themselves erodes the impact the series might have had otherwise.”

 

Ultimately, this isn’t to say the series doesn’t have any potential. Although there is a stereotypical tough guy character, many of the other characters provide varying insights and opinions on their situation. For example, the older son of the family, sees Lindbergh as a pilot and hero. His parents provide an interesting dynamic: the mother grew up as a member of the only Jewish family in her area whereas his father had never felt uncomfortable about being Jewish, and denies the rise of fascism in the US.

 

We will see whether the show picks up in the next few episodes, how it will conclude, and if its message gets lost along the way. The Plot Against America airs on HBO every Monday at 9PM.

 

Sources:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/03/plot-against-america-hbos-alternate-history-series-is-too-stuck-on-the-present/

https://www.jns.org/opinion/mining-for-hate-in-the-plot-against-america/

 

REVIEW: The Last Black Man in San Francisco

Joseph Patrick Raney 1 Comment

Available through Amazon Prime Video, I recommend, for the audience’s consideration, Joe Talbot’s directorial masterpiece, The Last Black Man in San Francisco. This gem of a picture places itself in definitive rank with some of the greater films in Studio A24’s arsenal, with a portrayal of hope like that of The Disaster Artist, a restrained desperation to live well like While We’re Young, an awe-filled richness of color palette like that of The Florida Project, and the pain of family brokenness in a fashion similar to Mid90s. The trailer alone accurately represents the craftsmanship poured into this project, with cinematographically-sharp imagery, a speechless array of colors, and a somber yet familiar loyalty to the legacy of San Francisco.

This film centers around two friends, Jimmie and Montgomery, in the wake of this city’s gentrification. Montgomery is a poet working to better his craft, and Jimmie Fails dreams of repossessing a Victorian Mansion once built by his grandfather. Jimmie possesses an assured and quiet vibrancy, while Montgomery is of a sweeter, more analytical spirit; however, the ties that bind these two comrades are their individual and collective hopes for the future. A heart-warming feature of this film is the childlike nature of these two characters, and their graspings towards the good and the beautiful, as those who have seemingly lost a piece of their boyhoods due to homelessness, parentless-ness, or a lack of belonging. A movement of this film represents Jimmie and Montgomery as they struggle with being outcasts from the local group of black males who are portrayed as emotionally-aloof and hyper-masculine. Jimmie and Montgomery do not only fail to feel at home in their family circles, but are ridiculed and excluded by their old friends who belong to this group.

Great tragedy strikes when Kofi, an old friend of Jimmie’s and member of this group, loses his life in a shootout while trying to prove that he is intimidating and worthy of esteem. This tragic loss of life is the implicit product of extreme social pressures against authenticity that are pushed by the leaders of this posse. This seems to call into question the necessity and healthiness of friendships that don’t encourage you to be authentic. From this death, you see several posse members develop into a willingness to express vulnerability and heartbreak over the loss of their friend. This, and more, seems to critique the superficial standards for contemporary friendship, and also acts as a stark contrast to the brother-like, vulnerably-open relationship that is between Jimmie and Montgomery. These two are set apart from the crowd, because they dare to be authentic, and possess the courage that is to embrace suffering that inevitably is hand-in-hand with the raw joys of life.

This film is a burgeoning triumph, not only because it showcases the quietly-accompanying pain that is often present in our day-to-day lives, but paints a picture of the beauty in the mundane, simple hopes for one’s future. The viewer will be in great company as they resonate with the vein-ed question woven into this film: Who am I to be if there is nowhere to belong? Consistently throughout, this picture possesses a bravery in its storytelling as it fervently struggles to settle on a clear sense of “home.” What is home? Could it be the Victorian Mansion with a mysterious past, or simply a reassuring friend who offers companionship for the road ahead? The audience of this film will not only take pleasure in its craft and color, but will be convicted of the need for authenticity, alongside the encouragement that is a shared understanding in that they are not alone in feeling misplaced from time to time.