Sing Street

John Carney, 2016

IMDB

4/5

I have to confess that Sing Street was one of those movies that I watched the trailer for the first time and felt a little annoyed. It was clearly the headspace that I was in at the time. Because the movie surfaced one night through a brief Netflix browsing session with my wife who was looking for something with some heart and not blood. Sing Street would prove to be one of the better 2016 films to watch with my wife.

One of the redeeming qualities about Sing Street is the fact that when the group of high school strangers assemble, their first attempts of making music don't actually suck much. In fact even their first tune that they make is actually pretty catchy. By doing this it eliminates a lot of technical build up like in School of Rock where students literally have to learn from the ground up in terms of form. A device used is to sort of skip over the rudimentary obstacles is to plug in character Eamon (Mark McKenna) who not only is a multi-instrumentalist but he is even able to provide practice space because his father is in a cover band. School of Rock is a fitting movie to bring into this conversation because there are obvious parallels. Young school kids making music together, all bringing their own life experiences and using music as a form of expression. But the differences between the two are stark. Admittedly a lot of it is cultural. With Sing Street being an Irish production, the story is set in the rigid and strict confines of the UK educational system in the 1980's. The landscape is gloomy. There is an obvious sense of authoritarian rule. Bullying is rampant. School of Rock was more about a wild teacher finding a way to connect with a classroom. Sing Street is more about a young man dealing with all of the normal angst-ridden things that teenagers have to deal with and finding a way to deal with it. While a lot of what lead character Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo) are common teenage problems, they are all illustrated in a way that makes it compelling on screen.

Perhaps the only negative that exists with Sing Street is the fact that its filled with the conventional teenage movie tropes. Frustration toward your parents. Not having a lot of friends. Not liking your teachers. The crush on the unattainable girl. Escape through music. But Carney finds a way to put blend these elements on screen that make it feel fresh and charming. This is likely to do with it with being an Irish production and having fresh faces on screen. It speaks well for international film, telling stories that might not be completely unique but telling the story in a place that doesn't get as much attention as it probably should. Its obvious that Sing Street would be a much different movie if it were set in New York City with American actors. But it wasn't. Instead it's a sweet little Irish film that will have "Drive it like you stole it" in your head for a few days after viewing.

Frailty

Bill Paxton, 2001

IMDB

3/5

Bill Paxton is an actor who wouldn't make a good straight up villain because of his charm / likeability factor. That is why his "Dad Meiks" character succeeds in this 2001 directorial debut (screenplay by by Brent Hanley) by Paxton.

Almost immediately you like the Dad character. Hard-working, eats dinner with his boys every night and warmly sends them off to bed before retiring himself. It's when he is awoken by a vision that it all changes. He tells his boys how God will be making a kill list for him, demons that he must rid the world of. Your suspicion of Dad grows, and you find yourself finding a certain comfort in Fenton's character, who is seemingly the only sane character left. His impressionable younger brother Adam is going to do anything his father wishes so there's virtually no hope for him to snap out of it.

What transpires is a dark southern gothic story with some real twists. The way that the film shifts your vision of who is good and bad is impressively executed. It's a good opportunity to see some of McConaughey's early acting chops which are evident in the film. He's kind of in his wheelhouse as the Texas-based drifter type that mutters slowly and thought-out. But overall it's a unique film that grabs you, and there's definitely some black comedy elements at work even if they are a bit buried beneath the surface. Paxton is really so perfect for the role as the eccentric father who really feels like he's God hand and doing something important. A straight up scary guy would never work. And it's his ability to be the benign father early on and get you invested in him as the good guy that is the springboard for all of the alternating that continues throughout the film.

Spotlight

Tom McCarthy, 2015

IMDB

4/5

There are some films that have a sole purpose. A sole purpose to highlight a particular moment in time, a notable event of sequence of events. Spotlight is one of these films, fulfilling a duty to highlight the Catholic sex abuse scandal of the (year) that was uncovered by the Boston Globe. When new editor Marty Baron is hired from Miami, he immediately starts to put pressure on the staff to maintain core readership. He urges the Spotlight investigative team to focus on some accusations of local priests abusing boys. When they start to realize that there is some validity to the accusations, he urges them to follow it higher and higher - not really concerned about which powerful figures he angers along the way. The fact that this is going on in the city of Boston adds even more weight to the scandal, as half of the city is Irish Catholic and holds their Priest's in very high regard. 

The Spotlight team itself is a showcase of solid acting by Rachel McAdams, Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, John Slattery and Brian D'Arcy James. There is such balanced chemistry between them all, it's just alluring to watch them all just work their craft. Perfect casting decisions in that regard. Stanley Tucci is also remarkable as attorney Mitchell Garabedian. They are all laser focused on the task. Some of them working longer hours than others. Some of them having families to go home to, some of them choosing career over family. But they are all thorough. 

They manage to maintain their journalistic professionalism while also taking the abuse claims to heart. When Matt Carroll's (D'Arcy James) character is scouring through the pages of the Catholic directory and discovers that one of the "treatment centers" is around the corner from his house, he realizes how close to home this problem really is. It is not wrong to draw comparisons of Spotlight to All the President's Men. They are both serious films, impactful in nature, covering scandals that everyone was already knowledgeable of. Both films feel academic to a certain extent. They both remind us of the importance of whistle-blowers in American culture. But sometimes its a film's duty to simply highlight a negative event in history. This way it will have it's place in cinematic history. And as the Spotlight staff realizes, some things should not go unnoticed. No matter how big the cages are that are about to get rattled. Spotlight isn't a movie filled with stylistic flair. It's a movie, completely serious in tone, with a job to do. And just like the Spotlight team, it maintains that steady pace until the job is done. 

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief

Alex Gibney, 2015

IMDB

4/5

Anyone familiar with The Church of Scientology likely has preconceived notions about it. It’s certainly been a force, at times a prominent one, in our modern American culture. Some don’t want to call it a religion, immediately dismissing it as a cult. Most people associate it with Tom Cruise, one of the more outspoken celebrity members. Some people may recall Isaac Hayes quitting his role as Chef on South Park after they decided to create an episode ripping it apart. With Cruise specifically, his involvement with the church has caused many to judge him differently, to question him. And would they be wrong to look at him differently? To question his judgement? After all, it is a “religion” created by the late L. Ron Hubbard, a controversial science fiction writer who spent a portion of his life hiding from the U.S. government because of tax debt. The religion discounts the field of psychology. It promotes the belief that we are all immortal beings, forced to carry the weight of past life trauma. 

We learn in this documentary, it’s an organization with a lot of secrets. A lot of secrets that were concealed quite well for a long period of time. That may be the surprising element with this documentary, the magnitude of dark shit that has gone on for so long without being exposed to the public. The film interviews past members. These past members, which include screenwriter Paul Haggis and Sylvia Taylor, are not just low people on the totem pole of the Church. The interviewees are former high ranking members. Some of them even worked alongside Hubbard before his passing and even worked alongside now-leader David Miscavige. Because of this, you assume much of this is the truth. Child abuse, neglect, abusive labor, tax dodging, threats, larceny, harassment, greed, the list goes on. Even if you go into this film having a low opinion of Scientology, it’s sure to sink even lower. Even if you have heard some horror stories in the past, you are going to discover something you hadn’t known already. What does this film say about us as humans? Are we weak? Are we vulnerable? At times, most definitely. History shows that that the cults of the world prey upon the weak. There is always a charismatic, idealistic leader that tells everyone things that they want to hear and through elaborate and well-orchestrated manipulation he is able to gain followers. It's very difficult to discern The Church of Scientology from a cult. If they weren't able to weasel their way into tax-exempt status, where would it be now? If they weren't clever enough to pick up a few of the high-profile celebrity pitch-men would it even be in the dialogue? Is the organization now filled with members who, sort of like Christians, don't subscribe to all of the ideology but choose to just trudge ahead and turn the skepticism off in their minds? 

It will be interesting to see if this film has the same damaging effect on the organization that Blackfish had to Seaworld. It wouldn’t be surprising. This is the power of documentary film-making, when an expose can show you unforgettable things. Much kudos to HBO, it was certainly a bold decision to get behind this film. They must have been flooded with phone calls and legal threats from the church. Instead of hiding under their desks, they decided to green light a doc under their name that says a lot of things that people had been afraid to talk about for a long time. 

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, and Spring

Ki-Duk Kim, 2004

IMDB

4/5

Situated in a remote valley in the middle of dense forest, an old monk raises a young boy on his floating monastery.

Ki-Duk Kim's Spring is kind of a difficult film to write about. Various people will likely interpret it in different ways. It relies on more visual cues to tell the story rather than a lot of dialogue. But in its most simple description, it's a story about a boy growing up in a secluded Buddhist monastery with his master who took him in as an infant. Or you could make the argument that the film is really about the monk. Isolated from society, he tries to insulate his kin from the outside forces that are destined to corrupt him. He warns that lust leads to the intent to murder others. Seems a bit extreme, but we soon learn that although his methods of instruction may be unconventional, he is much wiser than he lets on. There are many different sects in the Buddhist religion. Like the Trappist monks in the Roman Catholic church who do not speak, there are Buddhist monasteries where the monks and students take vows of silence and spend their days meditating or praying. That is basically the daily routine for the master and the boy, who spend most of the day in the vicinity of the floating monastery. They either pray, meditate, or collect resources in the surrounding forest. The outside world plays a very small role in the film, serving as sort of an exterior realm. People leave that exterior realm and enter the free-standing doors (alluringly built without walls) that open to the monastery's pond. Or, as we see in the film, the master has to occasionally go to the outside world to gather some supplies that he is unable to obtain on his own. But the film is limited in setting, staying in and around the floating cloister. It's like a self-contained floating temple of peace and wisdom.

The seasons bring not only physical change to the surrounding area but the emotional tone of the story. It also brings passing time, adjustment, growth, knowledge, new lessons, new experiences. The film reinforces the notion that just like the seasons, life itself is recurring. Every new year brings the new natural cycle. The plans are born, they grow, they die, and there is a rebirth in different form. The same could be said about life itself, or as anyone who subscribes to the Buddhist faith believes. The movie is a meditation of the cyclical nature of life. It makes the simple story feel much more important, and really gives you a lot to come away with.

Calvary

John Michael McDonagh, 2014

Can I Stream it?

4/5

Father James (Brendan Gleeson) is taking confessions at his small-town church when a voice tells him that he plans on killing him in a week, revenge for the sexual abuse that the mysterious man was subjected to as a child.

The small-town Irish setting is gloomy, lonely. The visual aesthetic spills over to the overall tone of the film. The town consists of quiet encounters of it’s inhabitants during the day, and the consumption of spirits at the local bar come nighttime. Father James lost his wife years before he entered the priesthood, and you get a sense that it’s a grief that he carries with him through his daily life. He’s surrounded by many morally compromised people in his small Irish community. Adulterers, abusers, drunks, sex addicts, the greedy. They all float around him as if he’s some kind of central force that they can descend upon every Sunday to clear their conscience. When his daughter comes to visit him, it’s a reminder of his past life and his inability to completely escape the memories. After all Father is an enduring figure. Willing to drink a beer with his congregation members, but reluctant to consume whiskey (for an unspoken reason, presumably justified). When he hears the familiar voice through the grated window of the confession booth, he struggles to understand why he would be chosen to be the human sacrifice for some unknown priest’s sins. He has put in good time becoming a good man. But he is forced to spend the following week reflecting on his life, on humanity in general. He ultimately realizes that he is no different than the people of his community. They all breathe the same air, have the same blood in their veins. It’s all taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to show up on that beach the following week.

Noah

Darren Aronofsky, 2014

Can I Stream It?

2/5

Loosely based on the classic Biblical tale, Aronofsky's Noah tells the story of Noah (Russell Crowe) - a loyal father and husband suddenly served with visions of impending destruction. The earth's creator has grown disheartened with the current state of the human race which has become destructive and violent. Noah realizes that there is an intention to cleanse the Earth of the toxic human race that has spread through the lands. He realizes that it's his duty to salvage Earth's animal creatures and re-establish the human population after the storms have settled.

There are a lot of expectations going into an Aronofsky film. You know that there is going to be a real built-in dim disposition to any of his pictures. Examinations of human morality. Self-serving impulses. Self doubt, regret, weakness. Inner conflict. Interpersonal conflicts. Orchestral scores to assist in manipulating the dramatic tones. There's clearly a lot of these elements in his take on the story of Noah's Ark. But Aronofsky has one leg out of the door from his usual pure-twisted murk and in a more Guillermo Del Toro-imaginary mindset. It's curious as to why filmmakers want to touch religious material to begin with. The amount of scrutiny and inherent controversy raise the expectations so high that it's nearly impossible for the picture to please the masses. This is especially the case when you take on a story like this, a story that's already quite limited in depth in it's original form. Because of this the whole artistic licensing must be used. Aronofsky does this by attempting to make a thorough examination of Noah the character while also employing a considerable amount of CGI and a large cast of familiar faces. A story about a man carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Noah is certainly a flawed character, forced to watch the majority of the world quickly die off so he can save his own family and some indifferent beings. He ventures through the crowds of people during the final stages of construction of the Ark. They are greedy, self-serving, malevolent. Willing to kill one another off for a quick meal. They have cheapened the value of human life. But he also sees himself in them, which ultimately causes him to suffer with a sense of survivor's guilt as they all drown in the flooding. Their pleas for refuge are heard through the wooden walls that he has spent so much time building. He struggles with questions of why was he chosen? What is he supposed to do next? Are his convictions correct? The film certainly does a good job of examining Noah the character, with much help from the always-good Crowe. The two standout features of the picture are certainly Crowe's performance and the rather impressive CGI. Quite surprising to discover that not one real-life animal was used in the production, and the digitally-manufactured creations are really as good as Richard Parker in the Life of Pi. The rock-monster-like Watchers may be THE most memorable visual element of the entire picture, assisting Noah in his construction of the sanctuary so that they themselves may be redeemed and return to Heaven.

But where Aronofsky succeeds in creating a character study he fails at creating a thoroughly engaging story. There is some captivating build-up as Noah works to construct the clock as not only the clock is ticking when it comes to Mother Nature's impending doom but also Tubal-cain's people are knocking at the door. As the clock ticks and the pressure is on Noah, you're right there with the story and engaged. But as soon as the Ark begins to float away the story basically gets lost at sea. It begins to meander, to falter, soon becoming a predictable bore. Aronofsky has to take the blame. Perhaps it was the PG-13 rating, creating too much of a confinement for him. Perhaps it was the studio breathing down his neck, putting too much pressure on the production. It seems quite clear that Aronofsky is better equipped to handle smaller films with more unsettling elements like the unforgettable Requiem for a Dream or the very-compelling The Wrestler. 

Kumare

Vikram Gandhi, 2011

Netflix

4/5

Vikram Gandhi is a filmmaker who wants to study Americans' obsession with the concept of a Guru. As an experiment he attempts to impersonate a yoga guru hoping to generate some humor. What he ends up getting is something he did not expect; real followers. Loyal, committed followers. He's suddenly faced with the challenge of being honest with these people who suddenly look up to him for spiritual leadership. Can he come clean?

Kumare is the kind of documentary that sneaks up on you. Vikram Gandhi is quite honest about his intentions. He wants to out the false prophets of the world with a well-crafted social experiment. Snake oil salesmen. Smoke in mirrors. And he does this. But he gets more than he bargained for. When you start to hear the stories of the people that begin following him, your heart aches. These are real people. These are people with real issues, who struggle with real issues. People who have a certain pain that makes them particularly vulnerable. The fascinating thing is that they all have different flavors of vulnerability. But it's all very authentic. There's certainly a message here. People are insecure. People are desperate for guidance. Sometimes it's as simple as companionship. Sometimes it's validation. And because of that desperation, there is a certain accessibility that forms.

The cleverly constructed doc defies you to hold back the tears when you see the pictures on the wall of the family members who have moved away from their mother. When you hear about past drug abuse, and a new-found sense of purity. Broken promises to oneself, and the intention to finally fulfill them. Kumare accidentally becomes a real guru to them, a pseudo-father figure. The joke gets lost in the humanity. Without the humanity, the film would be a cheap laugh in the same vein as Borat. Without the humanity, the film would come off as deviously predatory as Punk'd. But that's the thing. The humanity is there. On both sides. Kumare's placebo effect has a lasting impact. The emotions are laid right out there. Brace yourself for the reveal.

Electrick Children

Rebecca Thomas, 2013


3/5

Rachel (Julia Garner) is a young girl living in a remote Mormon community, separated from the outside world. When she discovers a tape recorder in the basement of her home, she plays a rock and roll tape she finds. Soon after, she begins displaying symptoms of pregnancy and is convinced the music impregnated her. When she hears that she will soon be forced into an arranged marriage with an elder member of the community she runs away. She travels to Las Vegas where she meets a boy her age named Clyde (Rory Culkin) who shows her a world she's never seen before.

The film blends in some of the beats of Almost Famous with some Christian symbolism such as the Virgin Mary and her Immaculate Conception. Rachel is so hungry for stimuli outside of her small community that the second the music plays on the old tape recorder she is starving for more, like tasting the forbidden fruit. She departs the small community in the desert Utah landscape and discovers a new world. Departing her faith like she is partaking in a Rumspringa-tradition. She arrives in the obviously ironic Sin City which might as well be an alternate dimension to her. Cell phones, neon lights, pizza, skateboarding. It's all new to her. Rachel's mother Gay Lynn clearly relates to Rachel. You get the feeling early on that she has a past outside of the Mormon faith, as she tells her tale of the unicorn-like Red Mustang. Early on the Mustang feels like a symbol of freedom, or perhaps represents something that has passed and that you can't get back. It later reveals itself, and it's more than that. It's a well put together fish out of water story. Love, purity, innocence. The world she enters is friendly and inviting. When entered, everything changes. Like seeing the world in black and white your whole life and finally getting a taste of color.

Devil's Playground

Lucy Walker, 2002


2/5

When an Amish teenager reaches the age of 16, they are able to participate in a rite of passage tradition called "Rumspringa". Because the Amish faith believes that one must willingly decide to be baptized as an adult, they are never baptized as babies. Instead, when they turn 16, they are allowed to temporally vacate the Amish lifestyle and return when they are ready to be fully committed to their faith. Some teenagers leave for a month, for some it is years. Lucy Walker directs this documentary that films a group of teenagers indulging in the "English" freedoms in the middle of their Rumspringa.

Before discovering this film I had no knowledge whatsoever of this tradition. Being familiar with how conservative the Amish faith was, it seemed so surprising that they would approve of such a tradition that my own parents would have never condoned when I was 16.

Walker focuses on a small group of teenagers, all of whom participate in similar Rumspringa behavior.  They basically indulge in the same activities that most 16 year old's participate in. Keg parties, cigarettes, "English" clothing, music, dating, driving cars. They are raised in a very strict environment, and of course when they get old enough to spread their wings a bit, they are going to want to do so. It seems as if no matter how much you try to repress natural adolescent impulses, they are eventually going to manifest themselves in one way or another. It's healthy in a sense that the youth are able to express themselves, even if for a short period of time. I suppose it's a very effective tradition, because every person of the Amish faith I have ever met has been nothing short of friendly and welcoming. It also appears to be a very successful tradition - ninety percent of Amish teenagers eventually choose to be baptized. What makes me feel sympathetic is that they lay such a profound sense of guilt on themselves during their Rumspringa. They feel that because of their indulgences in what I personally feel is very normal developmental behavior, they will be punished for it in the afterlife. One of the subjects of the film, Faron Yoder, struggles with drugs and alcohol. He is reluctant to return to the Amish lifestyle, but has a noticeable sense of conscience and innocence to him. He is a heavy-hearted boy who may join the church at some point, but in the meantime he just wants to experience life OUTSIDE of his community.

Walker is effective at moderately examining the subjects of the documentary, but the film lacks organization. There seemed to be an over-emphasis on the methamphetamine use. Instead of focusing so much on the parties and the mind-altering aspects of Rumspringa, it would have been nice if she dove deeper into the mind-set of the teenager. There should have been more of a multi-perspective approach. It would have been interesting to interview a recent returnee to the Amish faith, rather than just focus on outsiders treating them as if they were escapees. The film is noticeably low-budget, looking as if it were all shot with a cheap camcorder. The scenic transition shots are devoid of color, bland... a blank landscape. The fields may be barren, but the lifestyle is not. It's a fascinating way of life, and I wish Walker would have done a more intensive examination of it.

[REC] 2

Jaume Balaguero & Paco Plaza, 2009


4/5

Balaguero and Plaza take you back to the same apartment building where the first film is set. A few SWAT team officers accompany a health minister into the building in an effort to find survivors. When they enter the building, they realize that they are not in the company of a health minister. He's a completely different type of minister, one who is very aware of what's inside the building and how to stop the infection from spreading.

[REC] 2 picks up immediately after the end of the first film, and does so seamlessly. The film immediately takes an interesting turn. It starts off as a Zombie found-footage film very much like the first, but soon morphs into this religious-possession-zombie hybrid. The viewer sees the film through the lenses of helmet cams and handhelds, and the unreliable cam-light guides the way through the narrow corridors of the building. The jittery shots add to the feeling of sudden panic. Shadow play, zombie babies, technical difficulties with the camera that lead to abrupt blackness create this spectrum of terror that easily rivals any horror classic. In fact, just the ceiling trembling from the pitter-patter of baby zombies crawling is enough to scare the hell out of anyone. The found footage element also puts you in the company of the officers as they reinforce the feeling of being trapped in this decaying apartment building. Balaguero and Plaza perform this camera trick a few times where there is a skipping to the video image, almost 3D like. The image freezes, skips a bit, all lined up with the audio track. It felt unique and only added to the tension already present in the scene. Of course sometimes its also what you DON'T see, and the filmmakers effectively let your imagination go to work on the unknown elements that are on the other side of the door, or lurking in the shadows. The film succeeds in its minimal story, effective pacing, and solid scares. [REC] 2 is an evolved, more multifarious version of the first film. But it never tries to separate or out-do itself from the first, and that's why it stays consistent.

Plot Hole? It's surprising how obedient the SWAT officers are to the minister. He continues to tell them they cannot leave the building until they complete the mission, but what is stopping them from just turning around and walking out? He doesn't appear to be in a position to reprimand them or threaten their careers. Besides, their careers would be the last thing they would be thinking about after enduring a night like this. I would imagine when they leave the building they would be job-hunting the next day.