Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares134 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Juror #2’ Review: Clint Eastwood Hands Down a Tough Verdict

      by

      In his latest (and perhaps last) movie as a director, Eastwood casts a skeptical eye at the criminal justice system in a mystery starring Nicholas Hoult.Clint Eastwood has been such a familiar force in American cinema for so long that it’s easy to think you’ve got him figured out. Yet here he is again, at 94, with a low-key, genuine shocker, “Juror #2,” the 42nd movie that he’s directed and a lean-to-the-bone, tough-minded ethical showdown that says something about the law, personal morality, the state of the country and, I’m guessing, how he feels about the whole shebang. He seems riled up, to judge from the anger that simmers through the movie, which centers on a struggle to find justice within — though perhaps despite — an imperfect system and in the face of towering self-interest.Justin (a very fine Nicholas Hoult) has just finished fixing up a baby nursery at home when he walks into a Savannah, Ga., courtroom to report for jury duty. He and his wife, Allison (Zoey Deutch), are expecting, and tying themselves into knots of worry because several years earlier, their last pregnancy ended tragically. For them, his civic duties couldn’t have come at a worse time. Even so, Justin shows up, eager and attentive, and before long is seated on a jury in a criminal case that takes an abrupt, unexpected turn: The defendant has been charged with murder, and Justin quickly realizes that he himself might be the real killer.Did he or didn’t he is one question, and the start of a mystery, both procedural and existential, that soon finds Justin playing at once a freaked-out juror, potential culprit and dogged detective. The defendant on trial, James (Gabriel Basso), has been accused of murdering his girlfriend, Kendell (Francesa Eastwood, the director’s daughter). They’d been drinking at a local dive when they began arguing. They went outside, where it was dark and pouring rain, and continued to fight in front of a smattering of customers who had followed them. She walked off alone, he trailed after her in his truck, and before long she was dead.It’s a deliciously twisted setup, like something out of an old film noir in which the hero becomes the main suspect and, by desperate default, also slips into the role of a detective working the case. In this movie, voir dire has scarcely ended — Eastwood, who famously likes to work fast, races through the typical preliminaries — when Justin is sweating in the jury box and listening to the prosecutor, Faith (Toni Collette), and the defense lawyer, Eric (Chris Messina), make their cases. Before long, the lawyers have made their closing arguments, and Justin is sequestered in a room with 11 people who are also on the case.Eastwood takes a bit of time to find his groove. The opener is, by turns, pokey and rushed, and you can almost feel his impatience as he lines up the story’s pieces. He doesn’t seem to have spent much time thinking about the movie’s visuals; they look fine, I wish they looked better. He seems especially uninterested in Justin’s home life, and given how dreary and claustrophobic it looks, you can hardly blame him. Once the trial begins and the lawyers start prodding and probing, Eastwood settles in nicely. Justin realizes that he was at the bar the same night as the defendant and victim, triggering a series of jagged flashbacks that, as the trial continues, grow longer, more detailed and, in time, help fill in the larger picture.Written by Jonathan A. Abrams, “Juror #2” is a whodunit in which justice turns out to be as much on trial as the defendant. Both sides seem to have a weak case. The defendant is shady, the autopsy inconclusive, the only witness questionable, and there’s an enigma among the jurors, most of whom just want to go home. And while Eric nevertheless delivers a righteously indignant defense, Faith seems overly eager to wrap things up, partly because she’s running for district attorney and already fake-smiling like a glad-handing politician. Their arguments are shrewdly handled, pared down and delivered in a dynamic volley of edits that turn their speeches into a he-said, she-said duel, with a stricken Justin caught in the middle.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares143 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Graduates’ Review: How to Move On

      by

      In this delicate drama set in Utah, three individuals deal with survivor’s guilt a year after a school shooting takes the life of a loved one.In “The Graduates,” a delicate high-school drama by the writer-director Hannah Peterson, students, teachers and parents grapple with survivor’s guilt a year after a shooting transforms their lives.We never see the violence. Instead, Peterson’s camera lingers on locker-lined hallways and newly-installed metal detectors, places and objects that bear traces of a tragic past.This haunted restraint is also what makes the performances so affecting. The film centers on three characters united by their connection to Tyler, one of the shooting’s victims: Genevieve (a stirring Mina Sundwall) was Tyler’s girlfriend; Ben (Alex Hibbert from “Moonlight”), his best friend; and John (John Cho), his father as well as the school’s basketball coach.Genevieve, a senior, is preparing to graduate, but she feels little excitement for the future. At the same time, Ben has recently moved back to the area after transferring schools, and John is waiting to move to Houston (where his wife and daughter have relocated) until Tyler’s class, specifically his basketball teammates, walk the stage.“No one knows how to talk about it,” Genevieve says of the shooting and Tyler’s death to her concerned mother (Maria Dizzia). This mental blockage is underscored by a mood of quiet agitation. Naturalistic scenes of typically cheerful teen activities — diner hangouts, lake swims and bike rides through peaceful suburban streets — carry a melancholic undercurrent. And Sundwall, Hibbert and Cho inhabit their parts with a coiled grief while slowly, reassuringly, opening themselves to find hope in camaraderie.Set in Utah and subtly attentive to its community’s religious values and economic conditions, the film is ultimately narrow in purview, limited to the trauma of losing a loved one without exploring other reasonable shades of emotion: What about the rage victims feel about the seemingly unstoppable recurrence of gun violence in this country? The fear and anxiety of re-entering public life?Peterson’s script is frustratingly single-note and occasionally bends toward unearned sentimentality. Still, “The Graduates” feels true to its milieu; its emotional clarity impressive given the loaded subject matter and the film’s subdued style.The GraduatesNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 27 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 75 Shares152 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Blitz’ Review: Love in the Ruins

      by

      Steve McQueen’s World War II drama may appear conventional on the surface, but don’t miss what it’s really doing.World War II is almost certainly the big screen’s most immortalized conflict, and for good reason. It broke just as cinema was beginning to mature as a form of entertainment, and footage from the front narrated by peppy tales of victory was part of many people’s moviegoing experience. What’s more, though, the outlines of World War II could be boiled down to clean tales of good versus evil, bravery versus cruelty — the sort of stories that make good two-hour feature films.As the historian Elizabeth Samet argues in her excellent 2021 book “Looking for the Good War,” the heroism performed in Hollywood’s World War II movies soon became the filter through which all American involvement in foreign wars was seen and encouraged. In the aftermath of war, she writes, “causes are retrofitted,” and “participants fondly recall heroic gestures.” The tendency extends far beyond America, because the tale of valor richly rewarded and goodness winning the day is the kind of World War II movie we want to see — and the kind we mostly have.Yet most stories during the war didn’t end in glory and goodness. They ended in death and dismemberment, heartache and trauma, lives destroyed, families ripped apart. Yes, the good guys won. But winning a war still means losing.The British film industry is hardly immune to the triumphalist tales, and watching “Blitz,” I began to have a strong suspicion that those are precisely the movie’s target. The filmmaker Steve McQueen, whose film “12 Years a Slave” won the Oscar for best picture in 2014, works with the eye of a protesting artist, as aware of form as he is of content.In his 2018 film “Widows,” about women pulling off a heist, the form is that of a crime thriller. But the real subject is the class and economic contradictions of Chicago, which McQueen paints into the background except in one subtle, unforgettable scene: As characters have a conversation of some note in a car, the camera stays resolutely pointed out through the windshield, and we watch the setting starkly change from run-down projects to exquisite mansions in a matter of minutes. It’s a gutting accompaniment to the machinations of power being discussed in the car. You can’t really take one without the other.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares134 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Gutter’ Review: A Phenom Is Born

      by

      This bowling comedy, co-directed by the standup comedian Yassir Lester and his brother Isaiah, has absurdity to spare.The pantheon of Great Bowling Comedies is a small one. You’ve got the terribly rude 1996 “Kingpin,” directed by the Farrelly brothers and featuring an over-the-top, vulgar performance by Bill Murray as a maniacal strikes competitor. Then there’s the Coen brothers’ 1998 “The Big Lebowski,” in which Jeff Bridges, in the sort-of title role, looks like a slightly buzzed beacon of sanity compared with his fellow frame enthusiasts. “The Gutter,” written and co-directed by the standup comedian Yassir Lester and his brother Isaiah, is even more overtly absurdist than those earlier offerings.“The Gutter” tells the story of a Black phenom, Walt (Shameik Moore), achieving stardom in a sport dominated, if not defined, by white men. Walt — his elusive last name is a running joke — has a way with a strike that is discovered while he is tending bar at his aunt’s alley, which of course is in imminent danger of going out of business. Walt is not an ambitious man. His unlikely friend Skunk (D’Arcy Carden), a bowling observer, advises him to start putting away some money after he has won a few tournaments. “Don’t you have any dreams or anything?” she asks him. He considers this for a couple of blinks, and answers, “A threesome?”In addition to ridiculous — think the Wayans brothers’ parody pictures, or “Napoleon Dynamite” (that movie’s director, Jared Hess, is an executive producer here) — the humor is almost uniformly broad. The organization sponsoring the contests here is the “Super League of Bowling,” known as SLOB. And Susan Sarandon, as a champion bowler compelled out of retirement by Walt’s success, smokes and mugs with confident abandon, recalling Cecilia Monroe, the egomaniacal soap star she played on “Friends.”The GutterNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 32 minutes. In theaters and available to rent or buy on most major platforms. More

    • 50 Shares152 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Absolution’ Review: Brain Drain

      by

      Liam Neeson plays a regretful gangster with a serious medical condition in this drab, downbeat action movie.In 2019, Liam Neeson teamed up with the Norwegian director Hans Petter Moland to make the action thriller “Cold Pursuit.” It did not go well.Nevertheless, the two are back in harness for “Absolution,” a dreary gangster tale as depressing as Neeson’s repeat portrayals of aging tough guys-turned-reluctant avengers. This time, he’s a rumpled, rueful alcoholic and an enforcer for a Boston crime boss played by Ron Perlman. (Tony Gayton’s script is so lazy it declines to even name most of its characters.) The hook here is that Neeson’s leg-breaking character, let’s call him Punchy, is starting to forget important details like where he lives and the names of his criminal cohort. If he hurries, he’ll have just enough time to reconnect with his long-estranged daughter (Frankie Shaw), bed a feisty barfly (Yolonda Ross) and maybe rescue a sex-trafficking victim or two before succumbing to his disease. Or an associate’s bullet.Wrapped in drab visuals and a doomy atmosphere, “Absolution” paints a world where lowlifes rule and neither doctors nor priests can be trusted. Yet there are moments when the beatdowns pause and a misty melancholy shines through: Punchy, hands shaking, writing reminders in a little notebook, or having hallucinatory chats in a fishing boat with his long-dead, abusive father. The movie seeps sentimentality; but Neeson’s scenes with Shaw, who created and starred in the scrappy Showtime series “SMILF” (2017-19), have a touching authenticity, and Ross’s character is so spiky and warm she offers relief from Punchy’s soggy self-centeredness.Watching “Absolution,” I was reminded that Neeson is now 72 and his possible weariness with this kind of role might be lending credence to his character’s frailties. The problem with movies about declining antiheroes is that their arcs can only bend in one direction.AbsolutionRated R for violent men and damaged women.. Running time: 1 hour 52 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 113 Shares91 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Lost on a Mountain in Maine’ Review: Peak Experience

      by

      The true story of a 12-year-old’s survival in a vast mountain wilderness for nine days in the 1930s.The family adventure film “Lost on a Mountain in Maine” — based on the 1939 memoir of the same name by Donn Fendler with Joseph Egan — recounts the story of a 12-year-old boy alone in the wilderness of Mount Katahdin, Maine’s highest peak.An opening intertitle declares, if a tad defensively, “This Is a True Story.” Sure, the movie is inspired by actual events, but the truth the film yearns for is to be a story unencumbered by the insights or demands of our current moment. Even the film’s director, Andrew Bood Kightlinger, characterizes it lovingly as a “throwback.” (Sylvester Stallone is one of the producers.)After angrily arguing with his father, Donn (Luke David Blumm) gets separated from his twin brother and their energetic hiking guide amid a slashing summer storm. The movie alternates between the headstrong protagonist’s battles with bugs, leeches, hunger and disorientation, and his parents’ fraught limbo of guilt, hope and despair. Interspersed throughout is documentary footage filmed decades later of friends, family and others who witnessed those nine days that captured much of the nation’s attention.Caitlin FitzGerald portrays Donn’s steadfast mother, Ruth. Paul Sparks is the stern father whose brow is furrowed by muted but palpable economic woes. Before he took his boys on the hike, he’d been eyeing headlines and listening to radio reports of a slow, post-Depression recovery and of brewing international unrest.Theirs may not be a wonderful life — and “Lost on a Mountain” never fully achieves its complicated halcyon aims — but an early scene of Ruth on the phone, rallying help in the search for Donn, is pure Mary Bailey.Lost on a Mountain in MaineRated PG for thematic elements, peril, language and some injury images. Running time: 1 hour 38 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 125 Shares110 Views

      in Movies

      ‘A Real Pain’ Review: Mourning as an Act of Survival

      by

      Jesse Eisenberg directs and stars in a melancholic yet funny exploration of Jewish loss and belonging, with an outstanding Kieran Culkin.American movies about grief tend to end with sniffles and pasted-on smiles that reassure audiences that whatever horrors have come before — however brutal the tragedy, no matter how severe the torment — everything is going to be OK. It’s a crock, but that’s the Hollywood way, even in indies. No matter how distinct their subjects, their scale and scope, they insist on drying the tears that they’ve pumped. The pursuit of happiness was an inalienable right for the founding fathers, one that our movies have made a maddeningly enduring article of faith.Jesse Eisenberg races straight into life’s stubborn untidiness in “A Real Pain,” a finely tuned, melancholic and at times startlingly funny exploration of loss and belonging that he wrote and directed. He plays David, a fidgety, outwardly ordinary guy who, with his very complicated cousin, Benji (Kieran Culkin), sets off on a so-called heritage tour of Poland. Their grandmother survived the Holocaust because of “a thousand miracles,” as David puts it, and they’ve decided to visit the house where she grew up. Theirs is an unexpectedly emotionally fraught journey, and a piercing, tragicomic lament from the Jewish diaspora.The journey begins and ends in the United States, but mostly unfolds during a compressed road trip through Poland that they set off on with a British tour guide, James (Will Sharpe), and five other travelers. Together, the group tours Warsaw, crosses pastoral countryside, peers into picturesque corners and makes a relatively brief, heart-heavy visit to the Majdanek concentration camp a few miles from the medieval city of Lublin. Eisenberg doesn’t delve into the history of the camp (also known as Lublin), but it became a killing center and was instrumental in a 1941 Nazi plan to murder the Jewish population of German-occupied Poland. An estimated 1.7 million Polish Jews were killed during this operation alone.That’s a profound history for any movie to grapple with intelligently, especially one that’s as modest and laugh-laced as “A Real Pain.” Eisenberg, though, deftly handles its weight, in part because it is a given for his characters. The Holocaust doesn’t need to be summarized for David, Benji and the rest of the tour group; they’re in Poland specifically because, in one attenuated way or another, it has been with them all their lives. It’s history, but for David and Benji it is, fundamentally, a history that’s inseparable from the existential reality of their grandmother, from the woman and the mother she became, and from the family that she had. It is, as this gentle movie plaintively suggests, an anguished generational bequest.Eisenberg brings you right into the story with a burst of jump cuts and the sight of an agitated David, who’s in a car en route to the airport in New York, leaving one anxious message after another for Benji. Eisenberg excels at playing live wires, characters who can seem so tightly wound you wonder if or when they will break. Like him, they tend to be fast talkers — Eisenberg’s clipped enunciation means that their words generally jab rather than flow — and David is no exception. He’s still leaving messages by the time he rushes into the terminal, where a widely smiling Benji is waiting. They embrace, Benji all but throwing himself at David, and by the time they’ve settled in their plane seats, it feels like you already know them.This sense of awareness, that these are guys you like and maybe even know, is crucial to the movie and how it uses intimacy to fortify its realism. “A Real Pain” is a fluidly blended amalgam of pleasing, approachable subgenres, including an odd-couple buddy flick, a consciousness-raising road movie and a charged family melodrama. These story forms add to the overall sense of familiarity as does the focus on David and Benji, who emerge more through the complexities of their relationship than through individual quirks of personality. We are who we are, Eisenberg says, because of the people in our lives, a truism that becomes more stark and affecting as his characters travel through a country haunted by Jewish ghosts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares147 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Here’ Review: Life Is Like a Box of Regrets

      by

      Tom Hanks and Robin Wright reunite onscreen for a drama that showcases generations of existence.“Here” is an aeon-spanning experimental collage by Robert Zemeckis that plants the camera in one spot for give-or-take three billion years. The lens is static; the span, epic. An acre of New Jersey braves meteors, an ice age and dinosaurs. Sometime between the Pleistocene and Columbus, a deer tiptoes past. Alan Silvestri’s score swells triumphantly. Evolution!Mostly, however, we’re staring at two houses. The first was erected before the American Revolution and belongs to William Franklin (Daniel Betts), a British loyalist who calls his kite-flying father Benjamin Franklin (Keith Bartlett) a terrorist. Secure in its place in history, the colonial mansion lords its importance over the second house, the lesser house, that you’d never drive out of your way to visit. But these humble digs are the star. Around 1900, the home’s walls get built around the camera, and in turn, the film builds itself around the mundane goings-on inside. Hovering midway between the sofa and the kitchen, we witness a century-plus of holidays, lazy days, kisses, arguments. Nothing worth a commemorative plaque. It’s a tribute to banality.Richard McGuire’s groundbreaking graphic novel of the same name and conceit used comic panels as a special effect, overlapping anonymous figures into a blurry rumination on time. One page illustrates the chronic popularity of Twister. Another captures the progression of swears: “Nincompoop.” “Dweeb.” “Dirt bag.”Zemeckis can be more interested in pixels than people. But this time, he wants recognizable people, too — heck, he wants movie stars — so he and Eric Roth tighten the screenplay’s focus to one family across six decades. There are glimpses of other characters: two Indigenous lovers (Joel Oulette and Dannie McCallum), a snippy suffragist (Michelle Dockery), a jazzy inventor and his wife (David Fynn and Ophelia Lovibond), and a modern family (Nicholas Pinnock and Nikki Amuka-Bird) who exist so close to our era that they come across bland.The design team does a fantastic job delineating the years. Yet, the film treats everyone else like parentheses around the baby boomers Richard and Margaret (played by a de-aged Tom Hanks and Robin Wright), who fall in love as teenagers. Infatuated and naïve, Margaret coos, “I could spend the rest of my life here.” Cut to the young couple pregnant and married (in that order) and inheriting both the furniture and the mistakes of the groom’s parents (Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly).We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More