Narcos (Season 1 & 2)

Carlo Bernard, Chris Brancato, Doug Miro, 2015-2016

IMDB

5/5

When I think about really detailed gritty crime dramas, I think of Jean-Francois Richet's Mesrine: Killer Instinct films. Split into two films, it's a biopic of "Public Enemy 1" Jacques Mesrine. Mesrine was a French gangster responsible for several bank robberies and kidnappings in France and Canada. He managed to elude the law and even escaped from prison. Jacques Mesrine and Pablo Escobar have a lot in common. They are both solitary figures both considered to be highly dangerous & sought after to their respective countries. They were both incredibly elusive and constantly in hiding. They both managed to escape from prison. They were both considered to be "Robin Hood" figures to the common people.

But Wagner Moura's Pablo Escobar will have more of a lasting impact on the cinematic landscape than Cassel's Mesrine. This is probably because through a television series, he's really able to cultivate the Pablo character and let it build rather than try to let it build through 4-6 hours of two movies. But the similarties between the two don't stop at the leading performances. They both have an elaborate backdrop. Mesrine in urban France. Narcos in urban Colombia. Through fly over shots of Colombia, tracking shots through the streets, it creates an detail rich world that pulls you in. As dangerous as the city may be there is still something that draws you back to it.

As each episode continues in Narcos, the stakes continue to elevate as does Escobar's wealth and influence. As his empire grows, his moral concessions do as well. Almost like Breaking Bad, he's a figure in slow deteriortion. Someone that has concrete morals at the beginning turns into a comprimised villain with blurred vision. Escobar is undoubtedly an interesting figure. Someone who has unimaginable wealth and power. Yet there is a hunger for more. More of what? Well, that's what the series is all about. Legacy, respect, family. These are all important things to Pablo. In a sense the money is just secondary. It really becomes a disposable thing. We are constantly seeing stacks and stacks of money thrown around like napkins through the series. Buried underground, thrown in bags, throwns in boxes. There's so much of it they don't even know what to do with it all.

I gave Mesrine 5 stars back when I reviewed the two films. I feel the same for Narcos. It's hard to find any noticeable flaws with this series. It's just so well filmed, so well acted, so well put together. Everything from the production design to the intricate sound design - it's all top notch. It's all just top notch. Call me a sucker for gritty crime dramas, I deserve it. Cutting my teeth with Scorcese's great body of work has set a certain standard. Narcos meets and exceeds these standards.

Season 2 manages to keep raising the stakes, the only difference being that we finally get to see some pieces of Escobar's empire finally breaking down. But the mystique around him builds. There are times that, even if you are aware of the historical facts, it feels like he's never going to be caught. One of the constant thoughts I have while watching Narcos is what if Pablo had never run for that political office early on? By doing that he put the spotlight on him, a spotlight that never went away. It seems possible that if continued to lurk in the shadows of Colombian society rather than trying to become such a mainstream figure that he could have gone on growing his empire and wouldn't have to spend his life on the run.

Tangerine

Sean Baker, 2015

IMDB

3/5

Somewhere between the grittiness of Larry Clark's 1995 Kids and the unrestrained three-trans-female comedy To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything lies Tangerine - a micro-budget indie picture, produced by the always ambitious Duplass brothers, shot on 3 iPhone 5’s. Visually, it’s a luminous piece that has you immediately forgetting that it was created on something that’s in your own pocket. But it’s a character unraveling piece combined with a revenge drama, all taking place over the course of a single day. Sin-Dee (played by scene-stealer Kiki Rodriguez), is fresh out of jail and eager to unleash her fury on pimp Chester after discovering he had been sleeping with someone else while she was locked up. Aided by companion Alexandra, she promises her “no drama” and goes on to give her nothing but drama as she scours the back-alleys and decaying streets of Los Angeles looking for the guy. You get a sense that nothing very violent will happen when Sin-Dee reunites with Chester, that it’s more about the journey and not the destination.

It’s really a film about the lost souls of L.A. Most of the characters depicted are misfits just trying to find their place in the world. Some of them are not even looking for much either, maybe just some stability and a roof over their head. Sin-Dee, clearly the most short-tempered, is looking for security in a life filled with nothing but turbulence. Alexandra aspires to be on the stage with genuinely engaged faces watching from the crowd. Armenian Taxi Driver Razmik is stuck in a marriage that he is not interested in and looks elsewhere. But because of their jumbled place in society, they end up continuing to live their lonely lives that involve them roaming through the dirty streets. They are people that want to be acknowledged. Acknowledged by someone more than a random traveler willing to throw them a few dollars.

As mentioned before, Rodriguez is the stand-out performance of the movie. But there is much to remember about this film that can be accused of being aimless but is undeniably honest. It’s a well-crafted film that balances comedy with sadness. Focusing on some interesting people that have some real struggles in the world. Where having a dollar for the bus and having another dollar for a donut is a good day. The fact that it was all done on such readily available equipment just shows that anyone can make a film, and hopefully Tangerine inspires a generation of young filmmakers to do just that.

Starred Up

David Mackenzie, 2014

GoWatchit

4/5

Eric Love (Jack O'Connell) is moved to an adult prison where he realizes his father Neville (Ben Mendelsohn) is also serving time.

Starred Up is the term for when a young criminal is relocated from a juvenile facility to an adult one. Mackenzie's prison drama is less of an epic drama like The Shawshank Redemption and more of a focus on a singular figure behind bars like 2009's A Prophet. It has that same grit, the same candor. At times it's tough to watch, some disturbing imagery and language. But it feels authentic. And if it weren't for movies like this, how would we ever visit what's behind those cold stone walls? Starred is bound to trigger memories of fellow British prisoner Charles Bronson, who Tom Hardy played in Nicholas Winding-Refn's 2008 Bronson film. Like Bronson, Eric Love is an uncontrollable force constantly at odds with the guards or anyone in any kind of position of authority. You are fed bits of his upbringing, which are obviously contributory to his life of crime that landed him in the situation he's in. Child abuse, an absent father, no guidance. He never really had a chance. And if it weren't for counselor/psychologist Oliver Baumer (Rupert Friend), the system would just consume Eric and he would be another causality of the English justice system or would at the very least be a permanent prisoner number for the rest of his long life. The fact that he encounters his own father in the prison reinforces the need to confront his anger if he's going to move forward in any way. Eric's rage has snowballed to the point that it's at a boiling point. Oliver serves as the only relief valve, and if he doesn't at least try to mitigate the rage Deputy Governor Haynes is going to exterminate Eric to eliminate any more headache. It seems like there is always that one ambiguously neutral force like Baumer. They always stand as the critical liaison of the prisoners and the guards. It's likely the guards have become so jaded over the years that their expectations are incredibly low of the prisoners. They seemingly have no confidence that any of the prisoners can truly be rehabilitated. They would rather get through their daily shifts with the least amount of conflict, and they can reduce the conflict by inflicting their own force upon the prisoners. Fighting violence with violence, how much sense that makes.

The dialogue in this film is so quick and at times difficult to understand. You might want to watch it with the subtitles turned on (like me). Mackenzie manages to solicit a moderate amount of sympathy for Eric Love. If he doesn't manage to do this, the movie likely fails because it's difficult to get invested in a deplorable criminal. Eric is obviously a guilty person, rightfully serving his time. But at least there is some glimmer of hope that he will be able to be rehabilitated in some shape or form. You don't need a complete transformation with a story like this. You just need a slight arch, and this movie succeeds in bringing that.

Chained

Jennifer Chambers Lynch, 2012


3/5

Lynch directs this torture-horror picture about a serial killer who traps his victims with his taxi cab and brings them to his house to kill them. He uses a boy, son of a past victim, as a slave in his home to help clean up his messes and work on his scrapbook which details his slayings.

Lynch's work is probably the creative equivalent of bringing Eli Roth home on a date to meet her father David. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Just different from a film that her father would make, and of course she is going to be forced to endure countless comparisons from the film community given the impact that David Lynch has had on modern cinema. She has certainly picked up some of the chops, while the film is quite disturbing at times it still maintains an artful quality to it. D'Onofrio disappears into his role as Bob, proving that he can become an even more involved killer than his character in The Cell. His victim, Rabbit (Eamon Farren), maintains a very obvious sympathetic edge throughout the film, as he sits in the run down shack malnourished eating the scraps left behind by Bob. When it comes to the attention to set design, the serial killer's house is so chilling the Fedex guy would be afraid to place a package on the front steps. The visual canvas of the film is laid out using a lot of bleak colors, and when you are in the presence of some light it's usually a circa 1970's lamp providing a disconcerting glow throughout the filthy shack. The windows are boarded up. The basement, which is home to the remains of the many victims, is lit only and ironically by Christmas lights. Night falls, and the glow of fluorescent-lit "Comfort" written on the top of the Taxi Cab provides the same tension you feel when trapped in the house with the monster. Lynch not only plays off of visual cues but also with sound as well. There is a very present bass-driven hum throughout the film, maintaining a sense of impending horror. To sum it all up... it's a film that will appeal to the horror fan, but anyone that's planning a re-watch really needs a psychological evaluation.

Mud

Jeff Nichols, 2013


4/5

Two boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), venture on to a nearby island with their motor boat. They are looking for a boat that has been rumored to be suspended in the trees after past flooding. They find it, but soon discover that a homeless man named Mud (Matthew McConaughey) has been living in it. They befriend Mud and soon get pulled into his rather complicated life story.

It's a 130 minute drama, rich in story, that combines the southern grit of Nichols' past film Shotgun Stories with a youthful dynamic reminiscent of Stand By Me. At times you are seeing things through the eyes of children, with the curiosity of Super 8 combined with the grit of The Sandlot. Other times you are pulled into adult-oriented drama, where Nichols once again examines the concept of revenge and the cost in seeking it. McConaughey delivers what's probably the most fitting role of his career. It's hard to picture anyone else in the Mud role. He possesses that southern charisma, a friendly twang that doesn't threaten Ellis or Neckbone. His character is almost immediately sympathetic, where he's quick to consume a can of beans that Ellis provides for him. He quickly becomes a father figure to the two boys, who are desperate for the attention with Neckbone never having met his father and Ellis' distant from his cold disciplinarian father. The film is well acted on all fronts. It's nice to see Nichols using Michael Shannon again, if even in a more limited role as Neckbone's uncle Galen. Sarah Paulson is convincing as Ellis' downtrodden mother, sick of living her destitute life on the river in the houseboat and eager for a change of scenery.

There's some notable shots of the Arkansas landscape. As the camera rides in the back of the pickup truck with Ellis, you get the view of the blue-collar town with shots of the aged ice cream stand or the run down Piggly Wiggly. Constant shots of mother nature at work, critters crawling up rocky cliffs and water moccasins wandering through the murky waters of the Mississippi River. Nichols gives the film time to really let the story breathe, and let's his characters develop. By the final act of the film you are well invested in them and some of the final moments of the film are quite gripping.

Goodfellas

(REWATCHED)

Martin Scorcese, 1990


5/5

Scorcese's adaptation of the non-fiction book "Wiseguy" by Nicholas Pileggi. The story follows the rise of Henry Hill, from kid to adult, working for the Lucchese crime family.

Finding someone who has not seen Goodfellas would creative feelings of jealousy. I would want to immediately sit them down and play it for them. I would likely become hypnotized, like I usually am, and watch the entire film again. It's Scorcese's true masterpiece. His mafia symphony. His flawless gritty gangster epic. The single take scene with the camera panning through the restaurant. Ray Liotta breaking down the fourth wall. The resonating soundtrack that spans time, from The Moonglows to The Rolling Stones. The elevating strings of cigarette smoke, the bubbling meat gravy, the puffy lines of cocaine. After watching it for the tenth time, you still find little gems here and there that previously went unnoticed. Not only that, the surprise moments in the film that you've become to expect are still magnetic. Ray Liotta has never been better. Liotta, like James Gandolfini in his role as Tony Soprano, - provides such an impeccable performance that he is permanently type cast. The progression and deterioration of Henry Hill is so well detailed. The 146 minutes move so fast, you forget that you had to flip the DVD over to side B. I used to have dreams about this film. The number one rule for making a mob film is you have to create anti-heroes that have some kind of endearing quality that makes you invest in their character. Scorcese creates these characters that embed themselves into the fabric of your mind. The actors are so good in this film that they are cherry picked for future mob roles. The film currently sits at #15 on IMDb's Top 250 and is preserved in the National Film Registry in the Library of Congress.

End of Watch

David Ayer, 2012


4/5

          Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena) are partners for the LAPD and have to cover the rough terrain of South Central Los Angeles. Young, confident and headstrong - they find that they can quickly get buried in a mess that becomes hard to dig themselves out of.
          The first feature that is evident in the film are the noticeable similarities to Training Day. The comparisons are appropriate not only because of the setting and subject matter, but also because Ayer produced Training Day back in 2001. Ayer must love his bullets, according to IMDB he wrote a script for a remake of The Wild Bunch. Similar to Training Day, you are a witness to the gang violence and unpredictable nature of the L.A. streets. But while the setting is similar, the methods used in making the film are much different. There is a found-footage feel to End of Watch that really augments the adrenaline-fueled situations. Through clever placement of handheld cameras, and a lot of it held by the actors themselves, you really feel like you're in the middle of the action. The film is not entirely found-footage from handhelds. Studio cameras supplement the erratic camera work with stunning urban landscapes at sunset. Gyllenhaal delivers the best performance seen from him in years, perhaps since Donnie Darko. Credit is due to all actors in the film, as everyone feels very authentic. Michael Pena is very effective as Gyllenhaal's partner. The witty in-car dialogue between the two never gets stale and only helps to develop the audiences' investment in their alliance. They are constantly pulling pranks on each other, and their fellow officers. One of the officers and constant recipient of their high jinks, Van Hauser (David Harbour), serves as the elder, jaded cop who has become and numb to the criminal elements and in-house betrayal over time. His Xanax-fueled demeanor serves as a good contrast to the young partners, who still have a fire in their belly when hitting the litter-covered streets on a daily basis. The comradery between the officers feels genuine, as does the affection for their loved ones. The scene with Brian and Janet (Anna Kendrick) singing along to Cam'Ron's "Hey Ma" in the car really hit the mark in displaying the intimate moments between a young couple falling in love.
          There are so many impressive elements to the film from perfect casting, keen writing, clever editing, to adept use of sound. I had a feeling within the last few moments of the film that the ending was going to disappoint, and then it took another surprising turn and in the end became very satisfying. History has been kind to Training Day and I believe it will be even kinder to End of Watch.

Léon: The Professional

Luc Besson, 1994


4/5

          Leon (Jean Reno) is a reclusive hit-man that lives his life with a disciplined, strict routine. He doesn't let any living thing get close, other than his simple apartment plant that he waters meticulously. When his young neighbor (Natalie Portman) gets caught up in the middle of her drug dealing father's police raid, she comes knocking at Leon's door looking for refuge.
          The film opens with helicopter shots of the old New York. The post-Taxi Driver, pre-Giuliani New York. There is a grittiness to the streets, and a grime to the aged apartment walls. Leon's professionalism and attention to detail is apparent. You realize early on that you're not going to be in the company of the typical New York stockbrokers and sky gazing tourists but in the seedy underbelly of the Big Apple.
          Jean Reno is perfect in his role as Leon. You feel intimidated at first but you sympathize with him and soon as you see him sit in isolation in his dirty apartment with the glass of milk. Gary Oldman plays Stansfield, an idiosyncratic crooked cop that pops these mysterious pills moments before a situation is about to turn ugly. Oldman is chameleonic in this film like he is in EVERY role, but this role made me particularly nostalgic of some of his old performances - such as Jackie Flannery in State of Grace or as Drexl Spivey in True Romance. Natalie Portman really displays some young talent, adding another great credit to her early years as she did in Heat. Her character Matilda, inspired by Jodie Foster's character Iris in Taxi Driver, is a disturbed young girl who has endured years of domestic abuse. She is developmentally confused, inappropriately wise beyond her years, and ready to open another dark chapter when she meets Leon.
          The lonely apartment plant provides some noticeable symbolism. Leon dutifully waters this plant and even tells Matilda it's his "best friend". She tells him that he should place the plant in soil and let it grow roots. Leon himself struggles to grow roots, having to often vacate these run-down apartments on a moments notice and move on to the next one. He is also bound to the service of his crime-boss who also serves as his under-the-table bank teller. Ironically, one could argue that Leon will not be completely free until the plant is placed in the ground.
          Leon is guilty of falling into that Scorcesian template, which is not necessarily a bad thing but seems to be a road often traveled. I suppose that it's hard to avoid when filming a crime drama in New York City. In the end you're treated to another well-directed, bullet-fueled story that clearly carves out its own niche. It deserves the praise it receives and sits well in the company of the other films in this category.

Killing Them Softly

Andrew Dominik, 2012


2/5

          Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is hired to come in and clean up after three amateurish criminals decide to rob a local back-room poker game. Until that mess is cleaned up, the criminal economy cannot thrive out of fears of another hold-up. Dominik wrote and directed this style-over-substance crime drama, and it's a departure from his previous film The Assassination of Jesse James. Its basically an observational crime piece with no real "good guys". You sit back to watch criminals interact in their rain-drenched underworld. You get to see good performances by Ray Liotta (very Liotta-like which is always fine), James Gandolfini (who is basically Tony Soprano with a drinking problem), and Scoot McNairy who provides the best acting performance in the film with his evident street-grime and dead-on suburban Boston accent. I must credit Dominik on his use of Brad Pitt's character. Although Jesse James has become one of my favorite films, my ONE reservation with it was buying into Pitt as Jesse James. While he covered James' complicated character structure and unpredictable nature, I felt Jesse James would have been more of an intimidating force. In this film, I felt he had breached that gap. He was believable as a sociopathic hit-man who has no hesitation pulling the trigger to get the job done quickly. The downside of the film is that you are pulled into the tension of the Poker game robbery very early on, but after that it never really gains much ground. The lack of story forces you to admire beautiful camera-work but leaves you wanting more from the power-list of actors involved. The political narrative that echoes in the background is intended to reinforce how the economic downturn has affected even the criminals of America, but I found that message repetitive and it served as more of a reminder of the film's setting. With more subtlety and sub-plot structure, this film would have been more memorable and have a bigger impact.

Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino, 2012

2/5

          Django is a slave surprised to find himself suddenly freed by a bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Chistoph Waltz). He joins up with Schultz to assist in pursuing outstanding warrants, specifically a familiar trio, while also on a quest to find and free his shackled wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). 

          After watching this I was wondering two things. One, am I outgrowing Tarantino? Is the gore, violence, verbose dialogue becoming too passe for me? Two, is Tarantino himself trying too hard now? At age 50, is he still trying to be cool? This is a departure from Inglourious Basterds, which I now believe is Tarantino's BEST FILM. Basterds gave me the feeling that Tarantino had grown-up. That film seemed so refined while still maintaining the themes of violence, tension and gore that you've grown accustomed to seeing in Tarantino's films. In fact, the tension in Basterds was applied perfectly. But in Django it feels like he took a step back. Tarantino wanted to put his name on the spaghetti-western, with enough blood and gore to make Sam Peckinpah smile in his grave. And he probably did. But what happened to the tension? I can't think of one scene in Django where I was on the edge of my seat like I was in that farmhouse scene in Basterds. The close-up of the beer in the Saloon had the level of intimacy that a Budweiser commercial would, while the closeup of the dessert in Basterds had me so in the moment that I felt I could taste it. Is history going to prove me wrong? Are we going to look back on the dinner scene at Candieland like we do with the Big Kahuna Burger eating scene in Pulp Fiction? I don't think so.
           There aren't several sub-plots or much back-story like Tarantino usually serves you in his films. The story felt basic. There were cutaways to past events that took me out of the moment. The sudden hallucinations of Broomhilda (taking a bath, on the roadside) were supposed to reinforce some kind of abstract thought but I found it to be empty. The best part of the film was certainly in the final hour, but even that had its flaws. Tarantino had to have his cameo, which I never would have a problem with. I loved his cameo in Pulp Fiction and in Reservoir Dogs. But what was that accent? I suppose it was supposed to be Australian? 

          I don't think its fair to be negative about every aspect about this film. There were certainly some admirable qualities to it. Great cinematography. Beautiful shots of the southern landscape... willow trees, beautiful mountains, authentic western towns. Great sound - the score added some flare and took risks. I liked the use of hip-hop during a couple of the scenes. History should be kind to that decision. Most of the acting was great. Cristoph Waltz, Quentin Tarantino's biggest gift to cinema, clearly deserved his Oscar for this performance. The only criticism I'll make about his role is the template itself seemed awfully similar to his role in Basterds. The second best performance, in my opinion, was by Samuel L. Jackson. I didn't even see him coming. It took me a couple minutes to realize it was him. Jackson, who usually plays a caricature of himself, delivered the best performance I've seen from him in years. Dicaprio was fine in his role as Calvin Candie, but I was left wondering if someone else could have better served the role as the younger plantation owner. Someone, like Tom Hardy, perhaps?
          Django Unchained is a Tarantino film that FEELS like a Tarantino film. I suppose my expectations were high, and they weren't met. I haven't given up on him, and I'll be sitting here excited for what he's going to do next.