The Last Duel: When Right is not Right.

Some movies are just hard to put a finger on, and sometimes thats a natural consequence, sometimes it’s a fault within the storytelling, and sometimes it's hard to tell which is which and that is where I came out on Ridley Scott's “The Last Duel”. This is now my 2nd time seeing this film, the first time I was admittedly high, and though that usually aids my experience maybe this time it made me too focused in a singularly myopic way that hurts a movie that you need to be as open as possible about, not only because of its subject matter, but in a tonally different way because of its actors, and those actors are both the joy and misalignment of this movie. They’re casting, their performances tell on where it was I fell off of this movie as they do the bits I liked. Overall..the verdict this time around was “Meh” rather than “Oof” and I discovered details that awakened its brilliant bits, as well as more exactly where and how it went wrong for me. The entire time I watched Scott's latest of his two-fer ( House of Gucci will come soon ) I sometimes sat in this place, and sometimes was moved from this place, into various other modes of either elation or disappointment, but always I returned back to this place of disjointedness, or being off-kilter, and I was engulfed or immersed only in fits. There were too many distractions to keep me fully engaged in not only the place, but the time, and the actors well they did not help…

There is something both fascinating and off putting about the performances of the three major men in this movie, especially when set in contrast to Jodie Comer and the rest of its deep and brilliant cast. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck in this movie are somehow pitch perfect and off key, and Adam Driver has good pitch that rings hollow, and I wish I had better more definitive words, but I will attempt to explain them around these things. Damon, ( Jean de Carrouges) Affleck, ( Count Pierre de'Alencon ) Driver, (Jaques Le Gris ) and Comer ( Marguerite de Carrouges) were all in different ways anywhere from decently to sublimely interesting but only Comer was also consistent and complete. What bothers me, having seen it these two times and watched and listened to the conversations around the movie is to see regard for these performances swell to such a degree and then in that swelling leave Comer of all people sitting on the bench while “Stars” Damon, Affleck, and Driver consume most of the “hoorahs” I hope this is just a result of whom I interact with, because otherwise this conversation is criminal to a degree that literally causes fire to combustibly burn through my insides, BUT before I get into that, I want to digress a bit to lay the foundation by talking about a constant phenomenon that has been happening in the way that we discuss certain certain peoples performances. This phenomenon tends to be activated when people whose main jobs exist outside of those of this industry - Athletes, Comedians, musicians - leave their own respective career fields to try and bear fruit in this one. The act tends to leave them ripe for a specific kind of hyperbole around their performances. For me it was a musician who caused me to first notice. It was back when Justin Timberlake was getting a lot of accolades for his notably good performance in David Fincher's “The Social Network”. The talk around how natural he felt was fine at first, because he was. Timberlake seemed to really feel comfortable in his own skin, in a way very few non actors do in their first performance. Im sure his childhood helped him there, but I'm old enough to remember that all of a sudden a small push started to happen to have Timberlake's name mentioned in Oscar talk, and I had no idea why anyone would say such a thing! It was a bridge MUCH too far for me, and thankfully for most, but I theorized that what was at the core of that phenomenon was the fact that people didn't expect him to be good and when he turned out good, it turned to “great" by way of surprise, and to some extent that is what I suspect is going on here. One or two of these things should've happened in the head of folk upon seeing the trailer; A. “Matt Damon, Adam Driver ( maybe less so ) and Ben Affleck in a period movie?..Hmm.” or B. “They are so crazy for putting these three into this this particular period movie where they clearly stand out, I think is gonna be great!” , which is still at least a cousin of the original prognosis. The truth is there are actors whose faces and spirits evoke a certain timelessness, there are actors who feel as if they come from another time, and then there are actors who feel extremely contemporary. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck both look and feel like definitively contemporary actors, and they’re brand is extremely recognizable, Adam driver is more readily capable of belonging to an era other than his own, but spirit-wise he too is a very contemporary actor, making all of their placement in a period peice from a medieval era an instant form of anachronism. To place them like this feels very deliberate within that and bades the question “why?”, especially when they are the only anachronistic things in a movie that otherwise feels deliberately authentic? Maybe this is on purpose, and the purpose does to some extent lend a bit of strength to the inherent falsehood of these men, but it also leaves a discombobulated effect on this movie. It never seems to have quite the control on tone that it's seminal narrative antecedent “Rashomon” had. It comes out of the wash as a mixture of Sofia Coppola's “Marie Antoinette” and Scott’s own “Kingdom of Heaven” and while to some that may be an appealing mixture I found it troublesome. Now, I am not completely unimpressed with the choices, the allure of what it is the big three bring does come through in part. What they are doing is vital to the themes in play in this story, when you're telling a story about the minutae of male behaviors and interactions with each other and women reinforced by the socio political lens through which womanhood is viewed that is “Rape Culture” - You could find no two actors more suited to present one of the most recognizable archetypes in this culture and style and key of “bro” than Damon and Affleck whose shot to fame was playing a version of these kind of men that at the least expressed their ability to play them, and the parts of their characters that have to do with their "essence" are staggeringly effective. Take Damon for instance, I see how well suited he is to the job of Jean de Carrouges - a man who thinks he’s good but in fact is blinded by his own vanity ( Whether a conscious decision or not) through the lens of Damon’s own career moves and high profile missteps all of which provide a fascinating way into the character whether he gets it or not. Ben Affleck's own playboy lifestyle in his early career provides another (though somewhat less direct) parallel. This is why subsequently out of the male actors in this film it is Affleck who reigned supreme in my mind as the male actor of the three who is most intriguing, most fascinating, most interesting to watch work. Though there might be shades of this kind of character in previous roles he's done whether it be “Armageddon” or “Good Will Hunting”, there is a perfect balance of weight and airy-lightness baked into a more profound understanding of this character that makes this far more appealing than any of those roles, and far more affecting. Despite an accent that mostly goes out and the aforementioned contemporary nature, Affleck embodies the type of man the Count is supposed to be with such a precise and shap incision of glee, audacity, charm, and stupidity that he should also try his hand at surgery. He seems to by far be the one having the most fun with this role and it in return frees him up quite a bit to take some interesting choices in all of his scenes right from the start where a slight twinge in the neck and cutting look of the eyes provide an early look into Pierre's disdain for Jean (Damon) that told me right away “this is going to be entertaining. This wasn't “surprise”. Affleck has been on on a streak of good acting since he started directing himself, and now what he must have picked up from working with himself has made its way into not only his choices of characters but how he works within them, WITH other people. No, this was plain ol “I can tell he’s having a ball, and I can see it works and Im going to enjoy it”, particularly the scenes that take place in a dining room and his bedroom, continued the trend and proved me right, but he is also the cast member of these three that spends by far the least amount of time acting in scenes across from those who feel as if they are tailor made for the time, which is what causes the others to stick out in varying degrees. Matt Damon is secondarily effective as he brings his standard honorable commitment and honesty which in turn help make his perspective believable and just enough to fool more than a few audience members, as well as make them aware of where the cracks, crevices, and pitfalls of Jean's self deception lie, but there were moments where I found his flailing about disingenuous and unnecessary, like “Heaven and Earth!!” followed by a ornate twirl of both his finger and body when Carrouges penchant for ironic drama had more honest depictions in statements like “Can this man do nothing but evil to me!” ( this after he finds out his WIFE was raped and not he ). The parallels in Damon's career are obvious and fascinating to watch in this particular role. It’s not his first time, Damon has leaned into his own internal self dishonesty specifically in movies like “Interstellar” and “The Talented Mr Ripley” where he played something very akin to this kind of man, and it can be argued he did it better then, still it is very compelling work but especially so once we see him from Marguerite's perspective. Here Damon's real life and actorly predisposition towards a certain display of oblivious obtuse-ness, combined with a child like sensibility bring home so many of the brilliant talking points brought forth about “Nice Guys” which I dont think Carrouges fully embodies but definitely touches upon an aspect of in his dedication to chivalry, misogyny, and pouty martyrdom, all while believing hes the righteous one. For both Affleck and Damon ( though in varying degrees ) the notes and the highs of their performances pierce and pass through a stratosphere of exactitude in characterization that very few performances and actors have in the last ten years, and they appear to be having fun doing it, But make no mistake artifice matters too. When acting, the highest goal, the goal that should always be desired is a mastery of both artifice AND spirit/ essence in your character, So that even while Denzel clearly nailed down the essence of Malcolm X in Spike Lee's phenomenonal biopic, the essence is also fundamentally and foundationally aided by the fact that he also mastered much of Malcolm x's artifice, How he carried himself, how he spoke- the cadence, beats, the gestures he tended to be prone to repeating, this all emboldens, shades, and details the outline. It is enough that neither Affleck nor Damon can seem to get ahold of the accent or even decide which one they're doing, but it is even further injurious to add to the fact that there is no real sort of decisions about how these characters might walk or present themselves that says anything to the time, period, or in truth the characters, and that is a flaw that distracts and deters from full immersion. Watch a clip of John Malkovich ( who doesn't even really seem to try and develop an accent even if he did ) but look at the way he walks, the precision in his movement, right down to how he runs and of you watch, this is full bodied and integral to the character Vimcont Valmont as well as the time and space he occupies in Stephen Frear's “Dangerous Laisons”..these details are where Damon and especially Driver come up short..

Adam Driver represents the worst of this even while being arguably the most capable of these three, because he is the reverse of their work, the artifice is more readily available, but interestingly enough the character is not ( Driver worked alot this year and I dont care what anyone tells you, anyone working this many roles round the same time as an actor, it is a guarantee that one of the roles is getting less of themselves consciously or not ) but I can say nothing else about Adam Driver in this film until I state that for me he was miscasted. I understand the temptation and it's not all bad, there are parts of this where you see exactly why someone would fall for Driver in this part. There is something in Driver that makes him juicy in roles that ask or call for seedy, passive aggressive ambition. He has an incredible and uncanny balance of both repulsion and attraction that I think is perfect for this role if based purely on artifice, but he rarely finds the profound in this movie, in fact only once was it that he seemed to find the marrow of this man and that was in his reaction to the accusation. The rest of the movie Driver is just Driver, there's no sense of the sort of deeper objectives that don't come from the script itself, and the very distinctive cadence and tonality to which Driver can’t seem to escape overpowers what seems to be the most concerted effort of the three to sound the part. That too though lives in that space of repulsion and attractiveness, and it's the attractiveness that he as an entire entity occupies with ease. It's powerful, engrossing and compelling in and of itself, a self sustained support system for the rest of his body, But it also limits Drivers range. To this point in his career Adam Driver is being treated like he is a shape shifter, when in reality he’s more presence and emotive power than transformation. More Robert DeNiro than Joaquin Phoenix. The role of Jaques Le Gris requires presence, and charm, and in that Driver hits very capably, his holding court is quite believable becaue of this, as is the superficial nature of his class and meager upbringing, but though it’s not necessarily an emotive role when it does get emotive it calls for a different energy, a more potent version than what Driver offers for the most part and when it seems the moments are rife with it Driver brings no profound insights from his class into the essence of Le Gris. It’s not that his is terrible, it’s just not as powerful as it could be. I would love to have seen what a James McAvoy, Jonathan Rhys- Meyers, or Nicholas Hoult might've done here, especially after seeing the latter's underrated work in “The Favourite”.

Driver may be the more interesting of these men for something that feels just outside of that paradigm type choice, but you already ran that up with Damon and Affleck, and here Driver just feels like more than was necessary. Especially since it was his line readings in this film that I found the most disinteresting. Out of ALL actors in this movie I really didn't walk away with any particular scene that I felt he necessarily carried, even with actors that were supporters, there were many moments where it felt they were more interesting than anything Driver was doing, for instance when hes being spoken to by the man of the cloth (The always good Michael McElhatton) about the nature of his predicament. Le Gris is a social climber, a man who is an outsider only by the default of his birth but for all intensive purposes he functions the same as many of these others in that he feels equally as entitled in this life as any, and from what we’ve seen in films like” Star Wars”, “Logan Lucky”, “Frances Ha” and definitely “Marriage Story” Driver has that energy to pull this off, but he has to be completely committed and here I just don’t see it. He takes most of his scenes to the precipice of discovery and never leaves the cliff, when this role requires some leaping to truly find something subtly but devastatingly dastardly, I shudder to think how a young Jeremy Irons wouldve crushed this into dust. Driver's lack of transcendent intensity leaves me with and to Jodie Comer…

As Marguerite de Carrouges Jodie Comer borders on revelation if not exactly that. She brings that same thorough complicated layering she brought to Villanelle in the outstanding initial seasons of “Killing Eve” opposite Sandra Oh. She is a complete actress giving a complete performance and it puts the boys to shame while also in a funny way exacerbating, or actually better put - bringing to light the inconsistent tonal problems in this movie. Comer plays her role with an adeptness and brilliance that is hard to articulate save to point out where it shows up at. Such that it is she that ends up the most believable not only through narrative details but through the details in her varying performances as she plays each of these men’s fantasy while maintaining the through line and essence of her character. Damon and Driver are inconsistent in this regard and float in-between character and caricature especially in the chapter where they definitely should feel completely authentic..( Affleck is not in the movie enough and his perspective is not a factor ) which is Marguerie's. When they replay what she was actually feeling or how she actually responded, Comer plays it hauntingly authentically, like something that still existed right there even in the men’s fantasy, and this is important so as not to dilute the narrative and overdo your job in fooling the audience. Though mostly minor there has been some discussion about the idea that some people can't tell whether or not Marguerite's perspective is meant to be the definitive one, and while I agree with Scott and others that this is mostly pretty obvious, I don't think it's as obvious as they might have you believe. In a movie that's 3 and a 1/2 hours long with the ongoing theater problem of hearing dialogue, without aid of subtitles, and with alot of details to focus on, I think it’s quite possible when adding the ways in which Driver, and Damon’s acting muddles up the point, for some people… some people to come out of a one time viewing not sure as to if this movie might not be about how perspective can differ and these things can be tricky, rather a clear statement about the precarious nature of womens lives in the cruel thicket of patriarchy and misogyny, especially if the viewer is a man. And because in this male society its possible someone would as director take that political view, especially in light of the way so many have responded to #metoo and in light of similar treatments to race in movies like Martin McDonaughs “Three Billboards” and The Farelly Brothers “The Green Book” - I gotta be honest, though I have pretty good faith in Scott's sensibilities in this regard, his “Muhammad such and such” statement alone is enough to prevent me from having air tight confidence in his inability to be that goofy. No, what let me know that “The Last Duel” was clearly about confirming Marguerite was the fact that it spent that much time on her perspective and more importantly Comer’s acting. To me when you want to know the truth look for the most consistent pattern, especially in a story like this and also in this case the most consistent acting. Because Comer's performance had such a distinctive through line it enabled you ( when paying attention to it) to understand and see clearly and without a doubt that it is Marguerite who is telling the truth. It is communicated in her eyes, in her body, in her line readings, and in all the layers she provides underneath those, many times by way of those wonderfully interpretive eyes. It is Comer's performance so central to not only the movie's quality but the movie's morality that should've set tone for the others, and thus her casting should’ve been the initial, basing the casting of the rest off how to compliment and counter that energy. I find it telling as to those initial missteps I spoke of at the top - that she was casted after Damon and Affleck, and that sums up my issues with this movie. It’s a movie that plays too much of a back and forth game with a subject that needed to be very clear even while the events take place in an opaque manner on purpose. It’s a movie filled with contradictions and they're not all the good kind, and THAT unfortunately becomes the duel at play that knocked me off my horse and left me not necessarily cold but indifferent to a movie that could've been powerful even as it upholds and confirms Jodie Comer ( A FAVE of mines ) as a real..well.. Comer.

Creed II : Exhilarating, but dangerous.

Boxing was the sport I was introduced to the earliest in my life. it's probably the earliest memory I have of any sport. My father put gloves on me and my brother at a very early age, and to this day one of my favorite pastimes is sitting with him and my little brother, watching the fights.  Boxing is one of the last remaining bastions of some of the worst aspects of masculinity, but also it is representative of some of the best. I disagree with those who would merely reduce and dismiss it as a gross, bloodletting, savage event for the entertainment of the masses. but I also understand why they would feel that way. There is though, a science to boxing, there is an art. The training, the honing, sculpting of the body to turn it into an instrument capable of taking damage and inflicting it. An instrument designed to act when it needs to act,  to react when he/she needs it to react. Watching these two men sculpt themselves in order to eventually sculpt each other, interacting with each other in a dance with each other, becoming something wholly new in and of itself is truly art to me. As Bruce Lee once remarked it is a form of expression through the body, and its earliest stages, at its best the indelible Rocky franchises capture the best principles of the sport, of sport itself. Trail and error, baptism through fire, finding, testing, reaching, and then surpassing your limits. What it means to be these modern day gladiators, that put their bodies on the line for the sake of our entertainment. The original Rocky interrogated that place against the backdrop of a forlorn city and the people from within the city who have been forgotten, trying to make a name for themselves. From that point on though the iconic boxer and the franchise began the slow non linear path to losing its way. Sometimes this led to incredulously entertaining results (Rocky 4), sometimes to pure disaster (Rocky 5) and everywhere in-between.

Once it was announced that Ryan Coogler, Michael B. Jordan, and Sylvester Stallone would come together to tel the story of Apollo Creed's son Adonis, I was both intrigued and leery. The first Creed was both what I expected ( an uninteresting re-hash of tired boxing tropes) and some things I didn’t (some interesting exploration of some of those same boxing tropes). The second installment in the franchise without Coogler’s deft touch (Director Steven Caple Jr, takes the helm) turns into a two hour version of a music video. Mind you it’s one of the good ones, but much like a video it delivers its punches in shorthand. Much like Floyd Mayweather, there is very little power behind these cinematic punches, but they come fast and sharp. Mostly at this point the Creed franchise is a solid one, but a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity to discuss the current state of boxing, to subvert the toxic masculinity within the sport, to create an interesting character study of a boxer in the new era trying to navigate his way through the trauma of loss. Interestingly enough, one of those aforementioned punches engages in some of this, but it’s not our titular hero and his world weary trainer (himself formerly our titular hero) but rather his sworn enemy and his progeny Ivan and Viktor Drago.

The under written, but best storyline in this movie is not that of Adonis Creed which sets up (a lesson that Creed will never learn and yet overcomes anyway) but Ivan and Viktor Drago. Their father son dynamic, Drago’s forlorn hopes and dreams gnarled and entangled in a great ball of pent up and toxic anger and frustration that lives within his son who lives and breathes to avenge his fathers defeat, provided both of the most memorable moments to b found in this film. One takes place at a dinner hosted in honor of the rousing beat down Viktor hands Adonis in their initial match. When a surprise guest shows up it becomes all to clear what the source of the Dragos trauma and frustration is. It is also where (for the first time I’ve ever seen on screen) Dolph Lundgren flexes some serious acting muscles. The second takes place in the exhilarating finale. Both are welcome respites from the toxic form of masculinity that goes unchecked in this second offering. These are genuine challenges, displays of affection, and cathartic release of the hurt and pain that brought them this far, that if explored more effectively, rigorously, and consistently throughout this film could’ve made it an Oscar contender.

“Creed II’s lack of desire to interrogate the worst of the sport, cuts short its ability to effectively interrogate and challenge our hero adonis. I remember watching “Star Trek II Into Darkness”, and amongst other things being entirely disappointed that I was played. An intriguing plot line was introduced that suggested the movie was about Kirk learning to be a captain by learning to balance his tendency to fly by the seat of his pants, allowing his emotions and unchecked ego to get the best of him. Kirk spends the rest of the movie doing everything but and being rewarded..(Insert face palm here). I see the same problem in Adonis’s arc in this film. Adonis begins the film as much to toxic a man to ever be a good boxer, husband, friend, and if we we’re being honest in this movie - father. He is selfish, impulsive, and guilty of that all too common tendency of men to suppress their pain. When Adonis utter the words “Im Dangerous!” I though to myself “Yeah to yourself and everyone around you”. All of this plays out to disastrous physical results in his first fight with Viktor. Adonis is pulverized by his own refusal to confront his pain in ay meaningful way and if not for all the razzle and dazzle of this film, it would’ve crushed the movie too.

Creed 2 hits many of the right beats to make it an intoxicatingly cool, if not emotionally manipulative (rarely authentic) but spirited sequel. Sylvester Stallone is still the best actor in these movies, and I’d easily hand him another Oscar nod for his portrayal of Rocky in this film. Stallone takes some really interesting beats, and continues to surprise me with some of the inspired choices he makes on screen. The movie is extremely well paced, which ensures you won’t feel a moment of its over two hour runtime. The fight choreography is some of the best and most realistic Ive seen ever, but the fights themselves are some of the most over-the-top and ridiculous in the entirety of both franchises since Rocky III. Creed II fetishizes pain to the detriment of its other characters, (especially if they are WOMEN ) the story, and the authenticity of its fights. Adonis does not learn anything by confronting both his physical, and more importantly psychological pain, he merely heaps more on and finds his way out after a corny after school special pep talk. The punishment he takes in this film is beyond brutal, and would have real life ramifications that would end at the very least his career, and they are not interrogated in this film nearly enough, instead they are glorified. This coming from a person who has watched boxing for almost the entirety of my life. The movie is still a good time, and manages to leave you buzzing once the final bell rings, but it also left me with a queasy feeling about the poor messaging it might leave for future boxers, and ultimately unsatisfied with the way it sidelined some of its more interesting characters, and plot points (Russell Hornsby’s shady promoter, and subsequently what he does to or for the sport is also thoroughly under explored) like Tessa Thompson’s Bianca and the Drago’s in favor of a retread of a kind of heroism that needs to die.

IN THEATERS NOVEMBER 21. Life has become a balancing act for Adonis Creed. Between personal obligations and training for his next big fight, he is up against the challenge of his life. Facing an opponent with ties to his family's past only intensifies his impending battle in the ring.

Widows: Steve McQueen and Gillian Flynn Keep the Rules, but Change the Game

The heist film is one of my favorite sub genres in movies. The hard boiled (usually male) lead, the crews made up of assorted personalities , with varying skills and crafts, the technical aspect on display both in the story and behind the camera in the good ones. The capers usually involve a high level of difficulty which require the lead have a high degree of intelligence, and thusly an intelligent script. The lead is usually unflappable, although not always (Al Pacino’s Sonny from “A Dog Day Afternoon” comes to mind) there is usually a betrayal, and some element of a “ticking clock. ” These movies are about time, relationships, and craft. When done well, they explore the humbling nature of the former, the importance of the middle, and the beauty of the latter. What these films don’t usually explore (save for F. Gary Gray’s criminally underrated “Set It Off” which is much better than “The Italian Job” remake ) is any perspective not firmly within the realm of a very familiar hyper masculine ethos. What director Steve McQueen and master craftsman Gillian Flynn have done with “Widows,” is take the very masculine heist film and inject it with some much needed feminine perspective and energy.  I've seen a lot of comparisons of this film with Michael Mann's 95 classic “Heat.” On some superficial level I agree that this film does have some elements in common with Mann’s oft-imitated heist caper. However, I don't agree with any oversimplification that would label Widows as a female “Heat.” Most of its similarities are due to the fact that it also a heist caper, but outside of that these films aren't truly that similar. It's not just “Heat” with women in it, or comparable to “Ocean's Eight” (the other comparison I’ve seen).  Widows is truly its own thing.  This is not a buddy caper film, or a cops vs robbers caper film. Most of its key characters don't really know each other and the movie is not really about their coming together, or an intricate game of cat and mouse. “Widows” is not even about the caper coming together, it's about what makes the caper important to these women. Then extending from there, it plays with all sorts of themes and motifs about its titular widows, the men that abandoned them, and the city they live in. It gets to have a conversation with us from within a very well done heist film. A conversation about the institution of marriage, the oppression from within it and the freedom one can find without it. It's about these women reclaiming their lives.  Lives spent living in the shadows of their husbands worlds.  Lives spent building and erecting their dreams on the foundations of their husband’s lies.  Lives spent putting men first who never placed near the same importance on their lives.  The heist is a means to prove to the world and to themselves that they have worth beyond what was predestined and assigned to their gender. Through plotting, crafting, and training, they learn to demand respect from themselves, each other, and ultimately from the world. The same kind of men that are usually at the center of a film like this. That same male world that has ignored them, that has told them to sit it on the sidelines and be content with cheering as these men formed the world into their own without any attention as to what any of these women think or feel. Gillian Flynn's crackling whip smart script in combination with Steve McQueen’s soft touch makes sure to punch that ticket so that the audience can see the ways in which these men deal and interact with women. We understand what it is ultimately these women are fighting for because it is captured in the way Daniel Kaluuya looks at Colin Farrell's aide the entire time they're talking. It's in the way Robert Duvall dismisses this same woman.  I think it's partially the reason the women who catches them in the act of the robbery ( probably some abused aide herself ) closes the door.  It is in a conversation that takes place between Elizabeth Debicki (Alice) and a woman at a gun convention. These women refused to be sidelined anymore. They step out into the game, and with the stakes properly set, this film sets us up for the 4th quarter touchdown, and it scores.

Secondarily there is the politics of the Broken city, and the broken men that run it. The white legacy family, and the working class black men are both criminals extorting the least powerful in this ward of the city. As it slowly decays, its mostly black constituents are treated as pawns in a chess match between men for power.  Much like the husbands of these women, men like Colin Farrell’s Jack Mulligan and Brian Tyree Henry’s Jamal Manning feign being caretakers of their city when in actuality all they seek is their own upward mobility from within the institutions they work for or against. They steal from their city,  they lie to their city, and ultimately they kill in their city to amass more power. Convincing themselves along the way it’s about using that power to help the city.   The film extends out from these women’s lives and paints a portrait of the city in moral and physical decay. Of the haves and the have-nots, of what the designs and machinations of the boys’ club do to all of us, and of the outlaws who decide to take what is theirs. 

Steve McQueen is currently my favorite director working. He understands decay, whether in a man in “Hunger,” or morality in “Shame.” He also understands our will to ascend beyond our current circumstance or an institution. In both “12 Years a Slave,” and “Widows” the leads find themselves in situations not of their own making and it is through sheer will and determination that they find a way out. McQueen sets the stakes, the danger, the emotion, and the desperation though a bevy of interesting shot choices. These shots are never just for the sake of style and any argument to the contrary is incomplete. The shot choices are political, and are not meant to manipulate emotions, because they are emotion. Represented in a whirling shot around Daniel Kaluuya as he intimidates a cohort in the gym. Cemented in the choice to shoot from outside the vehicle straight into a black driver as the white people he drives around for a living (Colin Farrell) engage in a pointless and covertly racist conversation about whether or not his aide has ever slept with a black guy. It’s in point-of-view shots he uses during the heists that reinforce the emotion of his actors when they cant speak. Steve McQueen in collusion with Gillian Flynn’s script crafts one of the great heists thrillers in movie history. “Widows” not only plainly plays out the state of these women's live while setting up its superbly realistic caper, but delivers punch in-between with the sharp, clever, highly intelligent dialogue that has become Gillian Flynn's signature in many of her books. It is superbly acted from top-to-bottom (Viola Davis should be in heavy contention for an Oscar as ell as possibly Elizabeth Debicki) and the wardrobe and costume design is also magnificent. In the doing both McQueen, and Flynn have woven something entirely unique to the story type and I think setting its own standard. Placing itself quite snugly alongside films like Heat, Thief, and even A Dog Day Afternoon.  Centering the women in it, and proving both from within the celluloid and from outside of it why they deserve to be there.

Get Tickets Now: http://www.WidowsTickets.com From Academy Award®-winning director Steve McQueen ("12 Years a Slave") and co-writer and bestselling author Gillian Flynn ("Gone Girl") comes a blistering, modern-day thriller set against the backdrop of crime, passion and corruption. "Widows" is the story of four women with nothing in common except a debt left behind by their dead husbands' criminal activities.

Revisiting: Angelina Jolie's ethereal, enchanting meditation on the ruins of beauty.."BY THE SEA"

“STYLE AS SUBSTANCE”

Call me a Stan, but By the Sea (or moreso the response to by the sea in my own opinion) is proof positive of implicit bias and the uphill battle women and minorities face in art while trying to demonstrate their own ability to create important works.   From Oscar Micheaux to the Hughes Brothers and Kasi Lemmons, Shaft to Friday, and in this particular case Angelina Jolie - we have seen the struggle for them to have their work properly validated, and critiqued. By the Sea as directed by Jolie is a jarringly patient and accurate portrayal of the ways in which a relationship can become an exercise in cruelty and tedium.  But critics lambasted it as merely a “Vanity project” to show off how good she and Brad could look in various couture. Since the beginning of this medium women and minorities have had to suffer the petulant dismissal of their work as inferior under the guise of coded language like pretentious,  crude,  some version of incomplete or in this case the " Vanity project". A term especially reserved for those folk who sought to rise above their station in our collective perception of them and create a body of work independent of the niche carved out for them by the industry or the audience. Like most slights these words tell us more about the mentalities of those writing them than they do their subjects.  With Jolie’s luscious By the Sea, It seemed to upset a great deal of reviewers that these two gorgeous people (Most especially Jolie as director)  dared to try and make something of substance.  As far as I'm concerned it was perhaps even more upsetting that Jolie was successful in her endeavor. The consistent use of a term like vanity as a descriptor involving a woman with whom the public largely considers one of the most beautiful women in the world is just strikingly lazy.   What ever would lead one to make such an assumption considering…I wonder ? There has long been a kind of bias implicit in society that pretty people should and can only be pretty.  That trying to do anything else is merely a pursuit of vanity linked to feelings of invalidity outside the realm of the superficial. Now while on some level this may have SOME truth it ignores the flip side of that coin. That we the bourgeoisie,  and peasant class of white patriarchal standards of beauty also seek validation through the insistence and persistence of this kind of labeling and sorting.  Style without substance is a phrasology itself rooted in this kind of prejudice.  Because when used so ubiquitously without interrogation it denies the fact that as one friend said to me in conversation “in many ways style itself can become a substance - or of substance”. 

“bullitt” , “the warriors”, “drive”, and “mad max” are all examples of style as substance, and of course all directed by white males.

Jolie's film was routinely accused of that very overused and under interrogated sentiment, and then dismissed as vain and self serving because “look at her”. I would ask how much of this is our fault? I think its fair that as critics we admit our own biases, our own prejudices. Admit that even though we have studied film, and criticism for varying amounts of years, and generally act in good faith - that we too can be obstructed from taking in a movie the way we should. Would this common critique be the same with anyone else in the role in this same ostentatious attire? Would we be talking about eye shadow and not the eyes themselves (which I believe Jolie puts to great use throughout much of the film)

By the Sea movie clips: http://j.mp/2eHsB9R BUY THE MOVIE: http://j.mp/2ewGUAy Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr CLIP DESCRIPTION: Vanessa (Angelina Jolie) wakes up Roland (Brad Pitt) in the middle of the night to interrogate him about his feelings towards the girl next door.

Jolie is almost always distracting in some way which is all the more reason for us to get over our preoccupation with her “otherworldly beauty” and focus on her actual performance, as well as her direction. Yes “By the Sea” is a gorgeous,  sumptuous,  mesmerizing, and at times meandering film, but so was Godot’s Breathless. But go beyond all that physical beauty and you will find a film doing quite a lot more than being statuesque and beautiful. You will find something that peers through the veil of otherness from within a couple’s tragedy. A deliberate and pensive visual study into style over substance. The hypnotic allure of the aesthetic.  The austere view from a distance, ostentation as banal, beauty as devastating, and familiarity tediously played out as the exact tragedy between two lovers .    The gross luxury, the scenic fantasy, the long excruciating beats all aided in telling a stirringly bleak story about the ways in which wounds are inflicted, get infected, and then fester in the dead space between desire and possession. The lack of communication is not meant to be merely an stylistic choice,  it's a narrative decision meant to illuminate the amount of damage done. By design, the artifice of beauty takes the edge off the “in your faceness” of the hurt. The depression, the anger,   the discomfort. And if this was some pigeon faceded white male, drenched in self depreciation, and faux "aw shucks- ness"  we might be discussing the intentional space between objects, words, and between the couples. Or the purity of the melodrama and it's effective utilization as a narrative device. Or acknowledge that the set design wasn't just some left over shoot from a forgotten cover story in Architectural Digest,  but an intentional focus meant to make us aware of the sterility, and of what isn't there in the relationship. Instead critics were content lobbing our own insecurity out over the plate and letting our egos drive a shot over the fence for a home run of the same kind of vanity Jolie is accused of. 

Jolie’s film consistently explores the distance between things.

To dismiss By the Sea as simply and only vain is so low hanging a fruit,  so ugly and vapid a take away, it'd boggle my mind if I was given to flights of fantasy about critics being some new group of human impervious to fits of bias and pettiness through baptism of literary integrity.  The story of this couple, of their trauma,  their scarring,  their love and disdain for each other, exists in many of our own relationships,  and yes it tough to watch,  and it might've felt laborious ( if not for some of that very same beauty so vilified by the films many detractors)  but it is one of the more dynamic, authentic portraits of relationships put forth on celluloid in some time.  These kinds of couples exist and chances are you've seen at least one where you've remarked "Geez why don't they just end it!"...But they don't.  The tedium, the repetition, and yes the gloss is part of Jolies examination. Because part of them wants to, has to believe they can call back the ghosts of what they had.  By the Sea is the ultimate love story in that it doesn't manipulate, or lead us as much as it allows us into a relationship. Angelina Jolie gave us an extravagant long form vignette of grief, and voyuerism as a lived in experience.   Its what I imagine goes on behind the curtains of what we might see on an Instagram, or hear in a retelling of a vacation. The lush beauty of  the background hiding the picturesque ruins of not only brick and stone but love and friendship. It’s beautiful subjects the dressing, the gauze covering the scarred and fragile wounds common in human bonding. And what the hell was so vain or superficial about that? 

HALLOWEEN IS A FUN RIDE BACK TO THE ROOTS OF WHAT MADE THE ORIGINAL SO GREAT.

Halloween is just one of those movies that originally and now in this latest iteration knew exactly what it wanted to be, and it’s one of the highest compliments I can pay it. I've recently been discussing with my friends this age where so many people want to do so many things and try to be so many things to so many different people and subsequently how that affects various arts. When you have people making tentpole movies, almost all year round (especially of this sort ) aiming marketing towards trying to be a little something to a great deal of various crowds it creates quite a few films where you can feel the hodgepdge of ideas running into and coagulating into a bloody mess. What I feel like I’m applauding when I'm applauding films like this year’s “Mandy” and Halloween is a kind of laser focus on the crowd that you know you want. On the audience most likely to appreciate your art on its face.   You may end up getting a larger base to come around and appreciate it too, as is the case with Halloween, or you may only reach that exact niche as was the case with Mandy , but either way you find success. 

Halloween has always been one of those movies that can please  multiple audiences.  It's both a cult movie and a movie with a clear mainstream audience.  But I would venture to say one extends from the other. Fully acknowledging that this isn't a new argument at all - I still think great art comes from a place that ultimately seeks to please oneself first and by extension of the self…Others. I think we've made the mistake of dichotomizing the issue of art for arts sake or for entertainment when the answer is both.  Artist like John Carpenter understood themselves firstly and then instinctively understood that others who may see the world in similar ways to them would probably like to share in the delight of seeing this vision come to life. But as expressed by Carpenter in interviews he had no way of knowing it would become as popular as this. And when this sentiment is genuine (as I believe it is in this case) it belies the fact that the artist was most likely not considering a massive audience and what they might like to see, but rather a small circle of friends and imagined like minded folk. As Long as you don't get caught up in the awe of your own imagination. You'll always want the mission to be to use what it is you have, your gift as a tool to connect with others .   But first you have to find your unique voice. That's the way to legacy.  The way to legend, the way to becoming a classic, to becoming something unforgettable. 

John Carpenter interviewed by Mark Kermode for Halloween's 21st Anniversary. 1999. Part 1 of 3.

Carpenter's films, but especially have always been simple, but effective. And I mean to say that there's a precision, and concise power to the kind of horror that galvanizes or acts as the engine behind Halloween and ultimately, Michael Myers. A forcefulness that is big enough, deep enough to create a space for the kind of commentary that you might get around something that has a lot more existential or philosophical questions surrounding it, like this years earlier horror entry Hereditary.  This latest entry - as conceived of by the duo of Danny Mcbride and David Gordon Green - Understands that, and it also understands the power in exploring the dynamic in the relationship between Michael and Laurie Strode. Much like my other beloved horror entry this year - Netflix’s The Haunting of Hill House - this Halloween explored the trauma of the kind of event bound to have a ripple effect on the life of someone like Laurie Strode. And that we see again also represented in hereditary, lingering memories of suffering, pain, and stress that finds itself seeping into the lives of our spouses and our offspring.  The focus is not quite as tight, It's not quite as broad or as in depth, but it is there. And when combined with the core understanding that the power of Michael Myers is not in who he is, or the sight of him, or what might or might not be behind the mask, but instead his anonymity. The idea of him as this almost spectral construct of sheer will and pure evil incarnate, that makes him so scary... That THAT is the driving force behind this series, then you have what makes this movie work so well. Once again it caters to both of its audiences, whereas previous installments like h2o cast too wide a net, and others like Rob Zombies Halloween were far too niche (and in truth lost sight of the actual core tenets for even its core audience) this Halloween delivers to both the crowd that will always be there for it, even when it’s bad, and that more fair weather audience.

This is a well done, sharply executed horror film with a strong central performance (as I think any horror film movie has to have) by Jamie Lee Curtis. Just from a physical aesthetic standpoint Curtis comes prepared. In so may ways Laurie hasn’t changed, her hair, her body in general resembles some semblance of itself. It is only her hair color, the glasses, the wear of years of hurt, a map of her trauma all along the lines of her face - that betray how much has changed. This stagnation, this staticness is represented not only by her mental state, but by the forlorn fortress that she's turned her home into. The decrepit nature of anything in or around it that doesn't have to do with home security. It's represented in her inability to seemingly function at even a dinner party. To allow herself the space to be happy for even just a moment and it's all Curtis - working in conjunction with what ultimately is a great script - that really provides us with the clues as to just how ripped apart, how beaten and weathered Laurie Strode has become, but in the same sentence how she's also turned that energy into a crystallized will of her own.  Laurie strode has become the perfect mirror image for Michael Myers in that she too has now steeled herself to become a force of nature, fashioned herself into a creature made up of anger and rage, who will not be stopped, who will not be beaten, who will not go down. And as such has set herself up for Mano y Mano battle of good and evil. 

Halloween also features some strong supporting performances from the likes of Judy Greer. And will Patton, but ultimately, this is Jamie Lee Curtis's movie and of course Michael Myers. It’s gruesome (apropos to the genre and franchise) its scary, and I found the tension built well over the running time of the movie, which really you do not feel at all. The pacing is extremely well done, and your kind of in there and out of there before you know it. Something akin to a great rollercoaster ride. Much like the Panos Cosmotos indie project “Mandy” I just really enjoyed myself in this film. I settled right in to it and was immediately reconnected with the characters, with the tone, with the town, (which is something that I sort of took issue with In the latest remake of “IT” where I felt like in the town of Derry, I didn't feel how these events had really settled in or affected the town),  but in Halloween I did. Haddonfield and the people who live there some 40 years later still feels like a town that has the residue of these grisly murders on its structural, and cultural conscious, it's on the kids lips, and it's in the police department, it's in the homes and sort of in the air, you just feel it, and I think the filmmakers did a great job of creating that. Ultimately I highly recommend Halloween, I think it's a great movie for the season, I think it's one of the better horror films to come out this year, and ultimately in some weird kind of way as horrifying and terrifying as it is, it's a feel good movie. I came out of there like “Yeah, I got to escape for a little bit”. And thats very valuable as something I think we could use more of right now.  

APOSTLE: NETFLIX'S LATEST REALLY HOLDS THE DARK.

You ever just know a movie is for you?  You watch a few images flash before your eyes and all but know for a scientific fact you're gonna love this film or television show?  This was pretty much the case from the first trailer for Netflix's "Apostle".   I was sold that this movie was going to be one that would engrave itself into my psyche, and it didn't disappoint.  An unnerving, spellbinding, violent,  knot turning in your stomach kind of suspense horror thriller,  that doesn't let go once it gas you in its grip - the film is as unforgiving as it is visually arresting.  Our story begins with the troubled Richardson family and more specifically a brother Thomas (Dan Stevens)  sent off to rescue and bring back his kidnapped  sister from a cult holding her for ransom.  What ensues from there on is the tale of a man who will slowly become reinvigorated with the idea of connecting back with the one tie he has to this world,  and thusly back to the world and eventually his faith but only after confronting the darkness corroding the town from within.  Though the film comes off at first as an attack on faith and religion on the whole rather than fanaticism it is not.  There are very clear signs that this is in fact a film about faith, and maintaining it when surrounded by men and women who have either forgotten, or perverted it's central tenets.  But those are not central to the experience of Apostle as much as they are subtext.   What anyone going into this movie needs to know is that it taxes the hell out of the  senses - through imagery, gore and suspense.  Medieval torture devices,  camera angles,  and brutal depictions of torture and murder are deployed to maximum effect for mood and tone corroborating with the greater themes of the film.  And it can be exhausting though never gratuitous,  and plenty exhilarating while also grating the nerves.

 What tells me that I love this movie is not the fact that I ignored many of its possible flaws, but that I just didn't notice them at all, at least not in this first viewing.  One thing I don't want to lose as a movie viewer, and even as a critic, is that ability to want to enjoy a movie and not necessarily to approach the experience from a sort of clinical position where I am simply looking for what it isn't doing, or how well it adheres to film theory.  I want to first just enjoy it on the level of being a person that enjoys movies,  as a patron who just wants to be taken on a ride.  For me, that is exactly what I got from Gareth Evans dark grisly fable.  I was thrilled,  put on the edge of my seat,  treated to white knuckle tension, gifted characters that I could relate to on some level, but more importantly, characters driven by marvelously committed actors that I didn't have to like to want them to win, or to root for them or hate them.   By the end, when the final events started to unfold, I noticed my shoulders dropping,  the air leaving my chest, the tension held for what seemed like nearly the entirety of the film being relieved, and I noticed how invested I was in the action unfolding before me because of the way my legs shifted,  fidgeting about.  The way my heart dropped in certain parts of the movie where it seemed that the cruelty was unrelenting informed me, I was immersed,  told me I was being engrossed,  and enthralled.

In these dark times I'm not one of these people that wants to be treated to something that makes me feel better, that assures me of my safety, and reminds me of good, I think I naturally have that buffer within.  I like being reminded of just how bad it can get, just how unjust the world can be, how unflinching.   A movie like the apostle is a great reminder, because it keeps a person with my natural temperament  vigilant,  sharp.   I don't think I have to recommend it for everybody but I do recommend it for those that always leaned a bit towards the dark side of themselves, who enjoy the tension and release horror gives maybe even on some masochistic level,  if only but to keep the guard there and keep the dark at bay.

The promise of the divine is but an illusion. From Gareth Evans, writer and director of The Raid franchise, comes Apostle. A Netflix film starring Dan Stevens and Michael Sheen - premieres October 12.