Denial

First Hit:  A strong and heart felt story about a truth.

Has anyone ever denied something you and everyone else you know to be true? For me it is deflating and hurtful to have the truth be ignored by ignorance or ego driven insensitivity. I can only imagine what it might have felt like when Deborah Lipstadt (the real person), a noted historian and writer, was challenged by a denier that the Holocaust had actually happened. Being Jewish historian, she wrote a book called “Denying the Holocaust” in which she indicate that Irving was a liar by denying the holocaust had happened.

This film attempts to share this powerful story when Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) was confronted by David Irving (Timothy Spall), a holocaust denier, while she was teaching a class. Irving said that he'd give anyone $1,000 if they could prove that holocaust had taken place. She was so incensed that she called him a liar in public along with a few other assorted things which gave Irving the forum he needed to have Lipstadt sued for libel thereby having his cause heard. By having his cause heard, he would become more famous, validated, and rich. The forum he chose was the English court system. In this system, the defendant (Lipstadt) had to prove that Irving was a liar, which is different than the US court system where the prosecutor has to prove they were libeled. Living in the US Lipstadt didn’t know this and took the case straight on.

Her English Barrister (the person doing the lead research) was Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) and her Advocate (the person arguing the case) was Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson). Together they spent years and millions of pounds detailing out a case, in front of a judge, to hopefully show that Irving was lying.

The arguments on both sides were interesting. One of Irving’s beliefs that stood out reminded me of the OJ Simpson trial. In the Simpson trial Johnnie Cochran came up with a catch phrase that swayed the trial, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. In this film, Irving and the press came up with, “No holes, no holocaust”. What it referenced was the issue that no one had been able to show that were holes in the ceilings of the gas chambers where the poisonous gas materials were dropped into the chambers. If there were no evidence of holes in the ceilings, then how could have gas pellets been dropped into the chamber?

On the other side arguments brought forth by Rampton were aimed at having Irving box himself into a corner showing that he knowingly lied about his research. By doing this, he would be admitting that he was a liar on his own accord which would then support Lipstadt’s original statement, that he was a liar. This was a difficult challenge and Rampton, who threw himself fully into the task. But one thing he insisted on was to ensure that the arguments were not emotional. Therefore, he insisted that neither Lipstadt nor any survivors take the stand to make an emotional case. He wanted the case decided on logic and true information so that this issue wouldn't ever again be questioned.

With this set-up , the film deftly brings this story to light. The English Court system, the pain of the holocaust, and a way to commit to the truth without the display of emotions.

Weiss was very good as Lipstadt. Her drive and dignity of the character were well delivered. Wilkinson was wonderful as the Advocate. His humanness and logical drive were strongly present through the entire process. Spall was amazing in this unlikeable role. The ability to take on a role like this despite your beliefs is challenging and he did it extremely well. Scott was good as the Barrister who wanted to right the wrong. David Hare created a wonderful and intense screenplay. The dialogue exchanges between Lipstadt and Rampton were wonderfully written. Mick Jackson did a wonderful job of directing this courtroom thriller. Some of the scenes at Auschwitz were amazingly and deftly shot.

Overall:  This was a strong film about a deeply emotional piece of history.

A Birth of a Nation

First Hit:  A great story that was overproduced, excessively long, and poorly directed.

This is a great story but as often happens, when someone writes, directs, and acts in their own film; their perspective and the film's pacing results in a muddled story. The long languished scenes were meant to develop his and other characters but only left me marginally engaged in this wonderful story of how one slave helped to birth a nation.

Nate Parker plays Nat Turner a slave to Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) in the South when the freedom tide began to turn and cotton growing was waning partially due to a drought. As far as plantation and slave owners goes, Turner was relatively kind and wasn’t constantly sadistic towards his slaves as we witness in this film. His sister Elizabeth (Penelope Ann Miller) saw Nat’s native intelligence and taught him to read, but only the Bible because “…these other books are for white folk.”

By learning to read from the Bible, Nat becomes a natural preacher and begins to hold religious services for other slaves. His ability to read and evoke passion was respected by both the white and black communities.

To give the audience a sense of the injustice, there are scenes with slave hunters led by Raymond Cobb (Jackie Earle Haley) who roamed the land raping, hurting, or killing slaves caught without a written pass from their owner. As this story develops, the more injustice Nat sees. And with the rape and beating of his own wife Cherry (Aja Naomi King) by Cobb, Nat gathers a few slaves to begin a revolt.

Many of the scenes are graphic and difficult to watch. During one scene in particular when a plantation owner uses a chisel to knock out the teeth of a slave because he won’t eat, I just about walked out. I understand the reason to make scenes like this, however it could have been done with less visual and maintained the important message. Although, I’m very distressed about the racism that remains in our country today, I’m not sure the film did itself service by showing graphic scenes of torture to make a point.

The parts of the film where the audience waits for something to develop which were followed by an action, were difficult to sit through. I don’t like the feeling of waiting in a film. Some of the highlights of the film were the wonderful support and love shared by his mother Nancy (Aunjanue Ellis) and grandmother Bridget (Esther Scott). One amazing scene was the calm clear tranquility Bridget showed as she sewed stitches in Nat’s back from a recent whipping.

Parker was very strong as Nat, however his meandering direction of the screenplay he wrote didn’t do this story justice. Hammer was OK as the bachelor plantation owner. Miller was good in her minor role of Hammer’s sister and someone who seemed to care about the slaves. Haley was very good in a role that just reeked of being despicable. Ellis was very good as Nat’s mother and woman who had to hold the family together when her husband was forced to flee the plantation. Scott was sublime and in her minor role and delivered a very strong and amazing performance.

Overall:  I was disappointed in this film because the real story is excellent.

Queen of Katwe

First Hit:  Although this is a wonderful story, the film's representation did not do it justice.

Confusion is what I felt through much of the early part of this film because we go through 8 years of time, as noted by the overlays on the screen announcing each new year, without any discernible physical changes in the characters. The subject, Phiona Mutesi (Madina Nawanga), is followed from before her teens to her mid-teens with virtually no change in her looks. We all know that these are years in which a person changes a lot physically, but here there is nothing and therefore confusion in each scene because we really don't know how old she is until context is given. The story is wonderful. It is about Phiona, who comes from the poorest of the poor in Uganda, where her mother is raising 4 children by herself, finds herself in Robert Katende’s (David Oyelowo) church where he’s teaching chess to young children. She sits down and becomes fascinated by the movement of the chess pieces and soon she is spellbound by the game. Quickly she learns that she naturally understands the complexities and challenges of the game, which also allows her to escape her limited and difficult life. From this point of view, the film and story was inspirational. I loved her first plane ride scene when the camera pans to her fingers moving and griping the seat's armrests. Her mother Nakku Harriet’s (Lupita Nyong’o) surprised happiness at seeing her new home for the first time, embraced the amazing joy residing in this film. Besides the lack of clear time references with the main character, the film was too long. There were three times, I came out of being engaged in the story to wondering why it was taking so long to tell the story. It needed to be more crisp.

Nawanga was wonderful as Phiona. Although I wish they would have used a second person for the younger years, Nawanga was perfect for the later character. Oyelowo was amazing as the patient minister and chess teacher. I loved the stories he told his kids to help them with the pressures of being in chess tournaments. Nyong’o was sublime as Phiona’s mother. Her strength and intelligence shined through as she fought to keep her children fed, with a roof over their heads and safe. William Wheeler wrote a script that tried to tell too much. It made the running time of 124 minutes laborious. Mira Nair did an OK job of directing the characters, however as previously noted, the film did a disservice by having Nawanga try to play through so much time, and to not cut aspects of the story to make the film crisper.

Overall:  This is a wonderful story, but the execution, by the director and screenwriter, didn’t live up to the power of the story.

Snowden

First Hit:  Oliver Stone is on his game – excellent film about a man who wanted to let us know that the US Government has been spying on us without our permission.

I won’t often get political in film reviews, however, nearly two years ago I saw a film called “Citizenfour” which was a Laura Poitras documentary film about Edward Snowden. I indicated then that I thought everyone needs to see how the US Government could use their existing technology to spy on anyone they wanted to.

This new Stone film uses the filming of the Poitras’ documentary as it’s center point plot device to fill in the picture in a fuller way. Stone tells the story leading up to Snowden (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) making the choice to copy data files from the NSA’s database and share them with the media (Briton’s "The Guardian" newspaper was the first) from his hotel room in Hong Kong. This hotel room is where most of Citizenfour was shot and those events were effectively reproduced here by Stone.

Playing Poitras in Oliver's film was Melissa Leo, “The Guardian” correspondent, Ewen MacAskill, is played by Tom Wilkinson and Zachary Quinto played Snowden’s lawyer Glenn Greenwald. These were the people Snowden entrusted with the absconded data.

The film traces Edward’s path from a young man trying to get into the “Special Forces" because he wanted to do something for his country after 9/11. However, because of his weak and broken leg bones, he receives an Administrative Discharge from the Army. He then interviews with and joins the CIA. After joining the agency, he begins to date Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley) who teaches a creative dance, is a photographer and is very liberal.

This relationship is important to Snowden and it is a key to his seeing the everything more openly. The film has to tell a convincing story and, in my book, effectively does so. It provides enough information about how the data collection systems work. It gives you Snowden slowly realizing that what he’s doing, in his mind, is wrong. It gives you the struggle Edward and Lindsay have about his secret work, and how their love helped him make his decisions.

The sets of where Snowden worked were wonderfully constructed and gave the sense of the power behind computer data gathering. And although this film is 134 minutes long, I cannot think of where one scene could be cut to reduce the running time. Yes, this film is weighted towards Snowden’s view of the world and the rightness of the data he collected and distributed. And in my view it needs to push this view because the US Government is one hell of a spying machine and you do not know if you’ve been in their sites.

Gordon-Levitt was a perfect Snowden. And during the end and in the credits, where the real Snowden appears on the screen, you can see why Gordon-Levitt was selected. He not only looks like him, but he got Snowden’s speech pattern down as well. Leo, Wilkinson and Quinto were wonderful as the team supporting Snowden in the Hong Kong hotel room. Woodley was sublime. It was her that created the chemistry that made the relationship and much of the film work. I also appreciated Nicholas Cage as Hank Forrester an older, one-time coder, instructor to Snowden and one who fell out of grace with the CIA and was left to manage their cyber museum. Kieran Fitzgerald and Oliver Stone wrote an effective screenplay which wonderfully bounced from period to period without losing momentum. Stone did a fantastic job of bring this story to life in a way that made it interesting. Scenes were set up beautifully. I suggest that everyone see this film and Poitras’ film "Citizenfour".

Overall:  This was a fully engaging film about someone who has bucked our government and made them think (and blink).

Sully

First Hit:  An amazing, crisp, and well-acted film about a remarkable event showing how this pilot made an extraordinary set of decisions under extreme pressure.

I was profoundly affected by how much Tom Hanks (as U.S. Airways pilot Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger) embodied the deeply rooted sense of responsibility for the 155 people on the plane he had to land in the Hudson River.

Like Sully, I was fully engrossed in wondering about everyone on the plane. The concern is demonstrated in so many ways:  1) Sully going up and down the aisle ensuring everyone is out of the plane. His last look towards the back of the plane before he exited was telling.  2) When he asked one of the officers of the pilot’s union to help him find out if everyone got off the plane.  3) the release of the subtle out-breath while being given a physical when he’s told, the survivor's count was 155.

We get multiple views of the event. We get a glimpse of what the air traffic controller went through, his heart being in the job. We get to see how the airline's insurance company and investigators aimed to have the water landing be pilot error. We see the closeness and distance Sully has with his wife Lorraine (Laura Linney).

We get to embrace the pilot and co-pilot (Aaron Eckhart as Jeff Skiles) relationship and how this event brought them closer together. Lastly, we the audience, see a public hearing about the event. All of this in a crisp well executed 96 minutes.

The dream sequences were powerful and were reminders of how a commercial airline plane can create enormous damage to a city. The film editing of the differing views of this event, was perfect. The conclusion, even though it is already public knowledge, is wonderfully suspenseful and gratifying.

Hanks is superb. He embodies the weight of the role of pilot and all the decisions Sully has made over the years. I would want all my pilots to be this man. Linney is good as Sully’s wife. While we never see them together, and her relationship with Sully during this film is solely by phone, it works, she’s able to bridge the gap. Eckhart is wonderful and strong as co-pilot Skiles. He was perfect. Todd Komarnicki wrote an very strong engaging script. Clint Eastwood’s direction was sublime. He captured so many aspects of the event and did this in a clear concise manner.

Overall:  This is a wonderfully executed film depicting a set of life saving decisions made clearly and with concise conviction.