Luce

First Hit: I left the theater slightly confused about this film, and today, the following day, I’m still confused.

The confusion about this film is around the question; what was the coalesced point?

To set the stage, Luce is a young black senior in High School. His parents Amy and Peter Edger (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth respectively) adopted Luce as a seven-year-old orphan boy from a war-torn country. Amy couldn’t pronounce his name, so Peter suggested giving him a new name, they came up with Luce, which means light.

Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) is smart, and from the beginning of the film, he’s shown in this light by always doing his homework, getting excellent grades, being head of the debate team, and giving amazing speeches. Despite this, there is a sense and feeling that all this is a show by Luce, that there is an underlying agenda. So what is it?

This film touches on multiple issues, but because it doesn’t focus on one, the point is never crystallized.

Is the film about Harriet Wilson’s (Octavia Spencer) perceived dislike for Luce and others? After completing a writing assignment where the students were to take on a character and create a story, Luce chose to write about revolution and violence. Upon reading this, Wilson goes into his locker, finds and removes a bag filled with illegal fireworks. Attempting a discussion with Luce turns into an antagonistic argument. Discussing this with Amy, Wilson shares her concern that something may be going on with Luce and that they need to pay attention.

Amy and Peter’s discussion of this issue leads to highlighting some of the difficulties in their relationship through how they each attempt to elicit the truth from Luce but fail. His response is that he loves the subject of the class but Wilson is out to get and demean people.

That Wilson is black, Luce is black, and Luce’s closest friends are of mixed races. Was the film about racism? Yes and no. The film talks about racism, and in a scene when Luce enters his teacher’s home, Wilson gives him a sure fired lecture on what it means to be black and black in today’s society. So is this what the film is about?

Is the film about the truth? The film addresses fact in multiple ways, from the absence of telling or sharing information to outright lies. When Amy and Peter attempt to get information about the paper, and even the fireworks from Luce, there is a dance of misguided parries of questions. That Amy and Peter speak being truthful, the not sharing of the information they know with Luce is deceitful in its own way. When Amy and Peter lie in front of Wilson and the school principal, truth flies out the window.

Is the film about manipulation and control? Towards the end of the film, Wilson brings this subject out into the open by stating that Luce might be manipulating all of their behaviors. This is a good step in the movie because I, and maybe others in the audience, suspect this from the very beginning. However, Luce, when needing to seem sincere and apologetic, he makes his behavior very believable.

There are examples (or instances) of manipulation, one being with Luce’s possible girlfriend Stephanie Kim (Andrea Bang). At one point, Amy seeks to speak with Stephanie about what happened to her that caused Wilson to demean her in class. Stephanie begins telling a story about an event at a party. Her telling the story is powerfully believable. But was it real or was this really manipulation of Amy by Stephanie? Or, was all of this created by Luce? Was any of this genuine, part of it correct, or was the subject a way of manipulating people?

When Wilson queues up Stephanie to share the truth of a sexual incident at a meeting with Amy, Peter, Luce, and the school principal, what happens appears to be manipulated. And is it manipulation by Luce when he calls Amy “mother” or “Amy” based on what is going on at that moment?

The whole film is always on the edge of sharing the truth about Luce, the strain between Amy and Peter about adopting versus having their own child. The law around the searching personal property, how some people seem to have a light shined on them naturally, or is it really earned? How race factors into perceptions of people.

The ending gives little clue to the real intent of the film and only slightly more about Luce.

Harrison Jr. is very successful at creating an enigma of a person. His smooth transitions in a single scene from accepted kindness to a penetrating stare and back again were excellent. Watts was solid in this role as a mother, protector, and caring, engaged parent. Roth was fascinating as the father who carried resentment of not having his own child but also loving his adopted son, Luce. Spencer was almost as enigmatic as Luce. At times, I believed she had a slight grudge, and at other times, she felt thoroughly sincere. Bang was convincing in her telling the story of an incident to Amy, yet also elusive in what her true feelings were. J.C. Lee wrote the screenplay from his play. I’m not sure why I ended up with confusion after seeing this film. Was the basis of my confusion the screenplay or the direction by Julius Onah.

Overall: The film had promise, and I’m not sure what it delivered.

The Hateful Eight

First Hit:  A very well shot film that had out loud moments of laughs punctuated on all sides with gore.

Violence is one thing you can depend on in a Quentin Tarantino (Writer and Director) film.

There is no disappoint in this film on that note. Everyone in this film gets a bullet or two. There are also moments of out loud laughs. Some of those laughs come at the expense of absurdity (John “The Hangman” Ruth speaking with Daisy Domergue) while others driven by outlandishly pointed dialogue (Major Marquis Warren speaking with General Sandy Smithers). However, my favorite set of laughs were the issues with closing the door – laughed each time even when I knew it was coming.

There are moments in the dialogue where it seemed that it was being pushed out by the actors and therefore I lost engagement, however those moments were few and far between. Most of the time, the dialogue was so strong, good, and well executed that I was totally immersed in the play of the words.

There is no faulting in any way, shape, or form, the absolutely beauty of the pictures presented on the screen. Even if you don’t like seeing violence, one cannot fault the beautiful way it was shot.

The outside shots of Wyoming, spectacular. The cabin’s close quarters could have felt small and confining, however the film’s format allowed for the real feeling of one large open room for eight people to the interact in and you were there voyeuristically. The storyline around the use of the word "nigger" was OK, not great, as I keep hoping we’ve moved beyond the derogatory use of this term.

Here is it used emphatically to make a point and to paint the connotation of its ugliness when used. The story didn’t hide itself well because both Ruth (Kurt Russell) and Major Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) telegraphed the problem about why all these people were in the cabin without the cabin’s owner being present.

Although there were a number of “Acts”, I’m not sure why the 3rd was so long in comparison. There was an obvious break part way through the third.

Lastly, I’d heard that the film was designed to be shown with a 10 – 15 minute intermission. Our theater did not do this and ran the 187 minute film straight through. Not that I needed or wanted an intermission – I personally don’t like them – despite its length, time went quickly while allowing each scene to breathe and develop.

As Major Warren said at one point:  “… let’s slow it down… let’s slow it way down.”

Jackson was bombastically present in this role as if it was made for him. When he’s laying out a lengthy discourse about his being on the right side of justice, he’s perfect. His eyes telegraph his intense nature. Russell was effortlessly and gruffly suspicious. Wrapped up in a large coat, hat lowered on his forehead, and a face full of hair he was an impeccable rendition of a lone bounty hunter. Jennifer Jason Leigh was oddly amazing as a wanted woman being brought to justice by Ruth. Like a caged cat, her defiance of her keeper, and her hatred towards blacks spewed forth in hisses. Truly a remarkable performance (Oscar worthy). Walter Goggins as newly appointed Sheriff Chris Mannix was very strong as he vacillated between being weak to get an advantage or strong when he was in control of varying situations in the cabin. Demian Bichir as Bob, the suspicious Mexican holding down Minnie’s, was very good stirring the soup of dialogue from time to time. Tim Roth as Oswaldo Mobray the man who hangs people dispassionately was very strong. Interesting that his take so reminded me of Christoph Waltz, that it was a bit eerie. The part could have been done by Waltz but his power would have been too much for the film. Michael Madsen as Joe Gage the quite brooding man with semi-hidden agenda was wonderful. Bruce Dern was great as the old Southern General Sandy Smithers. James Parks as stage coach driver O.B. Jackson was very good especially in the scene when he comes back from the outhouse after dumping the guns in the hole.  Channing Tatum as Jody was great to see. It isn’t often that Tatum plays a heavy and he did this well. Tarantino wrote a mostly wonderful fleshed out script. There were a couple of times where it felt forced or a little stilted coming from the actors, but overall it was very strong. The direction was superb. The camera angles, the broad vista shots, mixed with the wide 70mm lens showing the dance of each of the characters was perfect. The dark humor mixed in with intense situational dialogue was great.

Overall:  This is a strong 8th film by Tarantino and helps his resume.

Selma

First Hit:  Not as engaging as I had hoped.

The Selma, Alabama march was a seminal moment in our nation’s history.

The film follows Martin Luther King (David Oyelowo) through the process, thoughts and actions leading to the successful decision by President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) to push an equal vote for all while King led a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama securing the rights for blacks to vote.

Although I loved the story and remember it fondly, the portrayal of this story was only good at times. I thought there were long moments of waiting and indecision by the director which created a slowness in this film that wasn’t needed.

To set up the issue, the film begins with Annie Lee Cooper (Oprah Winfrey) trying to register to vote. The voter registrar clerk, finds ways to reject Cooper’s form. The point is the unreasonableness of the registrar’s office against blacks.

The film spends a little time with King being at home with his family. Coretta Scott King (Carmen Ejogo) is strong willed, supportive of her husband, and also keeps the family together with her strength. There are a number of historical characters in this film from Andrew Young (Andre Holland), Presidential Advisor Lee White (Giovanni Ribisi) to Gov. George Wallace (Tim Roth) which give a fair amount of context to the story – especially Wallace.

Pacing of this film was methodically slow and, to me, it made this film much longer (by 20 – 30 minutes) than needed.

Oyelowo was good as King, but I never felt moved by the documented speeches as spoken by David. Wilkinson was good as LBJ, however I’m wondering about the dialogue used to represent him. For some reason it didn’t ring true with the same person who pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Winfrey was solid as Cooper, however in two of the closing still pictures, she seemed to be the focal point by being in the center – seemed a bit egotistical. Ejogo, as Coretta, provided the strongest acting of the bunch. Holland was good as the young Andrew Young. Ribisi was OK as White. Roth was powerful as Wallace. Paul Webb wrote a good script, but needed some trimming. Ava DuVernay directed this film which had pacing problems. However, the look and feel of the time was wonderfully represented.

Overall:  I was disappointed in the result of this film.

Funny Games

First Hit: There is nothing funny about this dark descending film.

I’ve never been in a theater where one-fifth of the audience walked out of a film.

Granted, there were only 20 people in the audience to begin with, but 4 people walked out before it finished.

I don’t blame them as this was a dark violent film with little or no redeeming value. I’m not sure why this film was made or if there was an overriding point to the film, but if it was a commentary on the violence in the United States (or the world) it didn’t make this statement very well because on three occasions

Michael Pitt looks straight at the camera and talks to the audience. This alone puts the film in a different category than simple statement about violence.

If it was a commentary that people like me would pay money to see a family brutalized, then I hope people read this review and don’t go. Were there positive aspects of this film? Yes, there were some extended shots that were revealing, exposing real tragedy, and well directed plus there was a momentary bright spot when Naomi Watts shoots one of the perpetrators.

However because his accomplice doesn’t like that his partner got shot, he picks up the television remote control, rewinds the entire scene and then plays it back differently. But these few bright spots don’t make a good film.

The simple story line is two young men, of which we know nothing of their background, go from house to house killing the residents in this upscale lakeside community. Why? We don’t really know except that they are hungry, especially for eggs.

The story primarily focuses on the killing of one family consisting of Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart. Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet play the deranged young men who look and feel upscale but set out to find victims, punish them with their games, kill them, and then move on to another family.

Overall: I found virtually no redeeming value to this film and wouldn’t recommend it at any level to anyone.