Wonder Woman

First Hit: I was put off at the beginning and the movie didn’t get much better from there. Unfortunately, this spring there has been a lack of quality and interesting films. This film is another one of those failed films that attempted to make a point of some sort and fails to deliver. What I thought the points that this film wanted to make were: Women are powerful and that love is the only way we can all live in peace. To do this the movie spends its time in titanic wars between entities that are not real.

On the first point, yes it shows a woman as a physically strong woman, but I think Hidden Figures and Zero Dark Thirty model stronger women with mental fortitude in more realistic settings. On the second point, our history from WWI is self explanatory.

The odd thing about this film and an obvious failure, is that after Wonder Woman/Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) defeats Ares/Sir Patrick Morgan (David Thewlis) in a battle during WW I, which is suppose to bring peace to the world but doesn't because a few years later the world experiences WW II. So the point or mission of Wonder Woman to kill the God of Death, Ares, doesn't really do anything.

The early background scenes of the hidden island of Themyscira, which is home to the Amazon race and Diana Prince, were horrible. The waterfalls were obviously not real and against the live background really looked fake. Additionally the dialogue between Hippolyta (Connie Nelson) and Antiope (Robin Wright) was stilted and seemed forced. The other item that struck me as amateurish was the beginning voice overs telling us the story so that we would buy into the premise. I didn’t.

Although everyone who doesn't live on the hidden island is skeptical of a God of Death and War, Ares, Wonder Woman knows he exists and leaves the island to kill him and make the world safe for all. When a young spy accidentally travels through the hidden island’s cloak (not a very good cloak) she follows him back out of the cloaked island ready to find and kill Ares.

There are numerous scenes where Wonder Woman is an anomaly to this WWI story and that’s part of the point. However, the film does not do this well and therefore I ended up wondering if this was a poor action film or a very poor tongue-in-cheek comedy.

The fight scenes were attempting to be grand gestures, however it just seemed too fake. Wonder Woman rarely got dirty and the long slow buildup to the supreme war between her and Ares just wasn’t very good. It lacked excitement and well-designed choreography.

Gadot was okay as Wonder Woman, but the storyline and direction let her down. I think there is more to her than she was able to give us here. Thewlis was mediocre as Ares. Didn’t think the casting was right for this. Chris Pine as the spy Captain Steve Trevor was appropriately amusing if this film were more aimed to be a tongue-in-cheek comedy. There are a host of other people playing parts but I don’t think it is appropriate to review their performances. I disliked Allan Heinberg’s screenplay as I thought it was lost and without a clear genre. Patty Jenkins seemed as lost as the screenplay and if the point of this film was to make an impact, it failed.

Overall: Cannot recommend anyone sitting through over 140 minutes of this celluloid.

Anomalisa

First Hit:  A dynamically interesting film with many layers of meaning the more I think about it.

Are the layers I see in this film of my development or was the intent of the film to have these layers or was the intent to just have us being thinking?

I don’t know and I’ll share a couple of the layers I’ve considered and neither of these are necessarily predominate in my thinking about the film. One layer is that Michael Stone (voice by David Thewlis) seems to become indifferent with any woman after he’s been intimate with them. He’s fascinated with them in the beginning and once physical intimacy happens, he begins to see and become critical of the person. I think that both men and women have had the experience of seeing someone different after sexual intimacy, I know I have.

Another layer is that Michael sees everyone as the same. This is juxtaposed with his character being the leader in how to deliver customer service by seeing each person as a unique individual. This juxtaposition is effectively created by having Tom Noonan be all the other character's voices (except Michael and Lisa’s).

Regardless, man or woman the voice is pretty much the same and while animated faces are also very close to looking like each other as well. Then from a "look" point of view, we have Michael with a strong unique look (is this how we see ourselves?), and everyone else is seen as having a more generic look. Lastly, with everyone in this film having their faces made of separate pieces/segments (no other body parts are drawn/animated this way) it is interesting that the only the faces are developed/drawn in this way.

This concept transitions to an interesting scene when Michael is hurrying down the hall of the hotel and the lower half of his face falls off. When it comes off, I wondered about everyone's faces being interchangeable. Anyway this is a fully animated film that is definitely of an adult orientation. The love making scene with Lisa (voice by Jennifer Jason Leigh) is very powerful and real.

This film is amazing in its presentation of the details of the body. Watching hair slightly move, the way Michael throws his hotel key down, the way the red lights as the door key doesn’t work – fascinating. The script for Lisa’s character was superb. Vulnerable and self-effacing, she becomes a voice of strength.

Thewlis carried Michael’s struggle well and was a great choice. Leigh was sublime as Lisa’ voice. It perfectly honest in its characterization. Tom Noonan created wonderful characterizations of the other voices. Charlie Kaufman wrote an amazing script. It captured human emotion and feelings extremely well. Duke Johnson joins Kaufman in directing this amazing story in an animated film.

Overall:  This is a complex film with many layers and levels and will leave you wondering for days afterward.

The Theory of Everything

First Hit: Extremely well-acted and a very engaging story.

Stephen Hawking (played here by Eddie Redmayne) is a brilliant man. His way of viewing our world is ever changing because he continues to open his mind to concepts while having the tenacity to prove things mathematically. Sharing with us, his thoughts through a body that has basically shut down is a story of perseverance and unending support and love from his wife Jane (Felicity Jones).

The film follows the story of Hawking meeting Jane, his learning that he has a motor neuron disease which will slowly disable his physical movement, how Jane’s support allowed him to continue, flourish in the science community, and finally through the end of Jane and Stephen’s marriage and their continued support each other past their divorce.

This film is beautifully shot as the scenes in the house show both havoc and love - amazing.

Redmayne gives an Oscar nomination worthy performance – enough said. Jones is fantastic. I thought she was equally the heart and soul of this film. David Thewlis as Dennis Sciama was great and embodied the man who helped Steven grow and explore his inner universe. Anthony McCarten wrote an excellent screen play from Jane Hawking’s own book “Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen”. James Marsh did a fantastic job of giving us a view into this great man’s life. He did an even better job of giving us a view of how Jane was the base that empowered Stephen.

Overall: This was a wonderful film to watch.

War Horse

First Hit:  Graphic pictures good and bad but this film was too manicured to suspend belief.

If you are old enough to recall “Duel” (1971 and his first feature) you saw Steven Spielberg not worrying so much about how manicured the scenes were, but his real concerned was about creating tension and drama and making sure the audience could feel what was going on.

War Horse is so far away from this ability that it hurts. Every picture in this film is pretty. Even “No Man’s Land” is a great visual. One scene where the horse gallops quickly through the trenches was overly done with effects and it was obvious.

On the plus side, I thought some of these pictures and scenes were elegant. But when I’m sitting in the theater thinking about the scene or picture and wondering how long it took to shoot a particular scene, I’m not engaged with the story or enjoying the picture.

It is like when entrepreneurs become too successful, they lose their edge at creating products. Or a fighter who becomes great because he’s hungry and once he wins and sits at the table and over feeds himself he can't fight any longer.

Here it is the edge of driving towards creating drama and suspense and caring less about the perfect picture. The most nonsensical scene was when the horse escapes from his German guard and traps himself in an area blocked on three sides with berms. A tank (for no reason at all) turns right, follows the horse into this enclosed area and we are given the thought by Spielberg, that this tank is going to shoot the horse.

Nowhere would this be a real or realistic event. The made up pretty picture scene I disliked most was the ending scene where there was the overly yellow-orange sky with the silhouettes of the family smacked in the middle of this overly colored sky.

Jeremy Irvine plays Albert Joey’s (War Horse) owner. Unfortunately this guy was pretty much a bust and I’m not sure why he was cast as Albert. He felt goofy, unreal and with little grit that would be part of of his working stock life. Peter Mullan, as Albert’s father Ted, was much better than Irvine and one could feel his hidden anguish. Emily Watson, as Albert’s mother Rose, was the best actor in the film. She made each scene she was in worth watching. David Thewlis as Lyons the landowner was overdone. Lee Hall and Richard Curtis wrote the screenplay which was better than the actual film. Spielberg was not at his best hungry self. This film felt bloated and setup from the beginning to elicit specific emotions and it was way too obvious.

Overall:  Watch this at home on a big screen if you must see horses suffer and conquer.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

First Hit: This is a strong, powerful, and sad film. The view of the world from a boy’s point of view is accurate and relevant.

Mark Herman, the director, brings the right touch and level from which he wants you to view this film in the opening sequence.

It is of Bruno (played by Asa Butterfield) and three of his companions running through the streets of a German city with their arms out as if they were airplanes shooting down other airplanes or on bombing runs.

The powerful innocence of boys playing out this fantasy during war time is a reminder about how we teach children through our actions. Bruno learns that evening that they must move because his dad, a German officer played by David Thewlis, is being transferred.

The boy is sad at leaving his friends and the next morning the boys come over to say goodbye and they spend their time pretending to shoot and kill each other. The transfer takes him to the country where his father is the head of a prison charged with holding and exterminating Jews.

The boy stumbles upon the prison one day and meets Shmuel (played by Jack Scanlon) an 8 year old boy himself. What Bruno doesn’t get is why Shmuel wears striped pajamas and can’t leave the fenced community to come play with him.

The friendship grows and so does Bruno’s understanding of what is really going on.

For me Scanlon gave an incredible performance and the moment he was on the screen I was hooked. Butterfield was very strong as the main character and the intensity of his eyes, especially the first time he gazes out his window at “the farm” shows you his depth. Vera Farmiga was perfect as Butterfield’s mother as we watch her move from being a supportive wife to one who slowly wakes up to the madness her husband is creating inside the camp.

Overall: This is an extremely well crafted film and catches a boy’s point of view with clarity, crispness, and intelligence.