Review: Ex Machina

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

Last weekend, I praised a film for being well made within the confines of its genre. Today, I’d like to tell you that using genre to define a film should probably be thrown out. I hope that doesn’t make me hypocritical, although it probably does. “Ex Machina” is a science fiction film that is brilliant and engaging. It’s one of the finest science fiction films in years, well crafted and strikingly captured. But why must it be singled out solely as a science fiction film? How would it be described if we were to strip away its genre and forget the fact it has anything to do with robots and artificial intelligence? In this case, it would be the same thing. It’s an intelligent and unforgettable all around film, one of the finest we’ve seen so far this year.

Domhnall Gleeson plays Caleb, an employee at a powerful tech company who wins the opportunity to visit the home of the company’s reclusive owner, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Once he arrives, Nathan tells Caleb he’s been brought to test a new project he’s been working on, an advanced piece of artificial intelligence. The lifelike robot goes by the name Ava (Alicia Vikander). She’s so life like, and Caleb can’t keep her out of his mind. Perhaps Nathan has programmed her to be too much like a human, which may or may not be a good thing.

Writer/director Alex Garland (screenwriter of “28 Days Later” and “Sunshine”) sets an immediate unsettling tone the moment the film begins, and then never puts you at ease. He’s never allows you to feel comfortable with any of these characters as you continually question what’s really going on with all of them. And that’s just the tone of the film. The real meat of this film comes from all the questions it raises about artificial intelligence.

It’s not like we’ve never seen a film about artificial intelligence before. There seems to be at least one every year. What makes this one so special? I think it starts with the scale of the picture being so small. We only have three people we’re concerned with: creator, creation and tester. Rather than showing us a world with AI already in it, Garland shows us the world right before it and asks us the big “what if?” question. The conversations between Caleb and Nathan are filled with the right questions we’d want to know about an artificially intelligent being. Nathan even considers himself a god having created Ava. So are these the questions we’d ask our own creator given the opportunity?

The technology featured in the film, outside of the artificially intelligent robot, doesn’t seem too far advanced from the technology we carry around with us today. So the future Garland depicts probably isn’t too far removed from the present day. They never tell us what year it is, and the company Nathan owns sounds very familiar to companies currently operating today. And with the amount of secrecy in which these companies operate, would it be any real shock to you to learn an advanced AI robot would be hitting the market in time for Christmas? Garland uses this element to give us pause about the ethical and moral ideas of creating an artificially intelligent object. And the way that Nathan was able to create this robot brings up a whole host of privacy issues, which wouldn’t be too far from what we’re dealing with today.

The impeccable writing leads to strong and dynamic performances. Glesson is masterful, and his character grows throughout the entire film from being confused and intimidated to being more skeptical and cautious. Vikander is equally mesmerizing as the artificially intelligent being. She’s programmed, so growth isn’t an option in this performance. In the end, she’s exactly who she started out in the beginning. Vikander plays the role so well that we’re still surprised by her character at every turn. Overall, the film belongs to Isaac who is rapidly ascending the Hollywood ladder of superstardom. He has a commanding presence on screen that his co-stars can’t match, only because he’s so much fun to watch. And who knew he could tear up a dance floor? Thanks to one of the zaniest scenes of the year, we all know he can now.

“Ex Machina” is a sensational cinematic achievement. Forget the genre. That would be limiting the movie and lumping it into one category for the sake of comparison. This film is highly entertaining and engaging, beautifully photographed and expertly paced. It’s surprising to think that this is a director’s first feature. It’s an outstanding first effort, a masterful sci-fi thriller and, above all, and exceptional piece of filmmaking.   

Review: It Follows

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

The horror genre has been running stale for years, filled with one of two things, or a combination of both: jump scares and gore. Furthermore, it’s like everyone is just trying to fill their horror films with all the typical clichés. Everyone’s doing all the stuff Wes Craven made fun of in “Scream” It’s been going on for the better part of a decade now, and no one seems to have any intention of moving forward. The whole genre is in need of a strong kick in the rear. And it may have just got it.

David Robert Mitchell’s “It Follows” is one of the most remarkable horror films in years. It never relies on jump scares or gore to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. Instead it relies on fear. It preys on your fear of the unknown and assumes that you’re anticipating something sinister to happen. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. The film assumes you’re smart enough to be aware of the all the surroundings on the screen. Keep watch in the background, not for an eerie bloody hand emerging from the darkness, but for a figure approaching from over a hundred yards away. We see it, they don’t, and we’re frightened for them.

The story centers on Jay (Maika Monroe), a pretty young blonde (which is about as clichéd as this film gets). She’s been casually dating Hugh (Jake Weary) and the two have decided to take their relationship to the next level. But after they have sex in the back of his car, Hugh tells her he’s passed along a curse to her. Pretty soon a supernatural entity is going to start coming for her. It will follow her anywhere she goes. If it reaches her, she’ll die and then the entity will start following Hugh again. The only way to get rid of the curse is to have sex with someone else and then that person will start to be followed. Talk about the worst STD ever!

So now Jay starts seeing creepy looking people slowly walking toward her. No one else can see them. Not her sister Kelly (Lil Sepe), not her childhood friend Paul (Keir Gilchrist), her neighbor Greg (Daniel Zovatto), or her sister’s friend Yara (Olivia Luccardi). All Jay can do is run from it whenever she sees it. Her friends say they believe her, but there is a little bit of doubt. All they know is something is incredibly wrong with Jay. But they do want to help her anyway they can to defeat this even spirit that’s always looking for her.

Yes, the premise is a little weird, but there’s nothing cheesy or gimmicky about “It Follows.” From end to end, this film is filled with genuine moments of levitation. Writer/director Mitchell has taken something that frightens anyone (the feeling we’re being followed) and turns it into one of the most hair raising horror films in many, many years. And he does it without relaying on all the worn out horror film stereotypes. Sure, Jay runs up the stairs when she should head out the door, but you’d do some inexplicable things if some evil ghoul were stalking you too. What the film lacks are the jump scares. As well, it doesn't rely on gore to sustain the freight. There's not any over-the-top fast-paced editing to make the audience sick or to risk inducing a seizure. And many of the thrilling moments take place in either broad daylight or well-lit areas. So why is it frightening? Because of the story. And above all else, the story is the most important aspect of any and all films.

The intensity is accentuated by a very chilling film score by the composer Disasterpeace, who has worked in the video game industry before. Parts of his score sounds like it came from a video game and has a very 1980's/John Carpenter feel to it. But when they want you on the edge of your seat, the music helps to get you there. It’s very effective, especially in the moments that elevate your blood pressure.

And since “It Follows” doesn't have any Hollywood megastars here, you never really know what’s going to happen to them. If this film had Jennifer Lawrence in a supporting role, you knew she’d be safe. They wouldn't kill her off. But without any well-known star in the bunch, there’s an definite uncertainty as to what will happen next. This young cast deserves a ton of credit. Movies like this can’t be easy to make but they all work very well together on screen.

Mitchell also sees to it that none of the cast slide into portraying these characters as horror-film clichés. Again, it’s very refreshing. Monroe leads the film in what amounts to a phenomenal horror performance. It’s the type of horror performance we’ll talk about years from now as being classic. I've never seen her in anything before, but she’s got all the makings of a big time star if she wants it. And what’s one cliché she doesn't bring to the table? The tired “back against the wall screaming whenever she sees something scary." That’s something no one will miss. She wasn't cast for her ability to scream, she was cast because she’s the right person for this role.

“It Follows” isn't just an original and refreshing horror film, it’s an original and entertaining all-around film. There are so many positive things to say about it that I've lost sight of the flaws. It’s not a perfect film by any stretch, but it sure is a lot of fun. There’s some corny dialogue here and there where you can even see the actor cringe for having to utter the line, but I’m not going to bring an entire film down over some dialogue. This is a genuinely frightening movie going experience. You need to allow yourself to be immersed in a story that’s designed to thrill you, rather than expecting a director to turn up to volume every time a door closes, or to suddenly cut to a new angle like he’s trying to say, “Okay, audience, now I want you to scream.” That’s not a true horror film. But “It Follows” has all the right ingredients, and it knows exactly how to use them.

Review: Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

One of my all time favorite movies is the Coen Brother’s 1996 masterpiece “Fargo.” Naturally, a movie coming out today that uses specific elements of “Fargo” as its own MacGuffin definitely piques my interest. And to do so in an inventive way helps further the idea that a wealth of original creative thought still exists if we, as moviegoers, take the time out to actually look for it. Unfortunately in this case, “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” stalls a little bit in the creativity department, but still ends up being a mostly enjoyable experience.

Rinko Kikuchi (“Babel,” “Pacific Rim”) stars as the title character Kumiko, a woman in her late twenties living in Tokyo where she works in a monotonous dead end job. That’s easily identifiable with about 80% of us, right? You don’t need to be fluent in Japanese to understand that, I’m sure. Kumiko is also enormously obsessed with finding buried treasure in the United States. She believes that the money buried in the snow by Steve Buscemi near the end of “Fargo” really happened and is just waiting for her to come find it. After all, “Fargo” does open with a disclaimer saying the film is a true story (even though it isn’t).

Kumiko refuses to believe that the story is fabricated and really wants to find this money. It’s an obsession that has ruined her social life and her work ethic. She says she’s like a Spanish Conquistador and will stop at nothing to find the treasure. As she travels to Minneapolis, no one wants to help her get to Fargo, where she believes her riches await. The depressing irony in watching this movie is that we all know the money hidden in the snow is as real as the bloody stump of a foot sticking out of the wood chipper in that infamous scene. Only Kumiko believes its there.

It’s actually a very depressing premise when you think about it. This same story probably could have been told under lighter tones and would have been just as effective and maybe a little more enjoyable. Instead, the script is written to be about as dark as humanly possible. It’s still fun to watch, but it’s a hard film to love.

Written by the Zellner Brothers – David and Nathan, and directed by David – “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” could be seen as a cautionary tale about what happens when our obsessions get the better of us. Kumiko’s work performance suffers, her social life is non-existent, and her mother barely speaks to her, all because she spends her evenings analyzing the scene where Buscemi buries the money.

It’s an interesting idea to address, and one we could all probably reflect on in our own lives. The biggest issue with the film is that Kuminko slowly becomes much more sympathetic than she is empathetic. She’s easily identifiable as the film opens, but as the film continues, she becomes more and more determined to the point where it’s almost insane. This makes you feel just plain bad for her. If a scene here or there had been cut down, the story may have ended before all empathy had been depleted.

The Zellner’s are also a bit heavy handed when it comes to their metaphoric imagery, especially in the film’s finale. There’s nothing wrong with a good metaphor here or there, but it should continually berate you to make sure you understood what they were trying to convey.

Kikuchi is spectacular in this role. She may have even topped her Academy Award nominated performance in the 2006 film “Babel.” She’s the only one on screen throughout the entire film and is able to command your attention in every scene. She holds herself in a timid and reserved posture, speaks softly and broken most of the time but stares her co-stars down with a focused intensity that says she doesn't care what they think about her dream. It is ,most definitely a thrilling performance to behold.

“Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” is well done and well executed. I even appreciated all the small subtle nods toward the Coen Brothers cult classic as well. It’s just a hard movie to fully embrace as a stand alone film. It’s an interesting premise developed into a very interesting theme, yet somehow the translation into film is very much dark and brooding even while the landscape surrounding our hero is blindingly bright with the snowy Minnesota landscapes.

Review: Child 44

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

Everyone’s always after that next big book franchise. With so many successful book series turned into hit movies, studios are trying to jump on the next big thing. They’re wise to be looking at the teen and young adult novels, since those are the ones that seem to do so well. A series on the MGB in Stalin-era Soviet Union? That might be a little hard to sell. Such is the case with “Child 44," which is based on a the first novel in a series by Tom Rob Smith.

Rapidly rising star Tom Hardy stars a Leo Demidov, a Soviet war hero during World War II and member of the Soviet MGB (the Ministry for State Security, precursor of the more infamous KGB). During this Cold War era, the Soviet Union prided itself on having no crime within its Communist state. “There’s no murder in paradise,” they say quite often. Even with a serial killer on the loose, the state chooses to ignore it and not publicly address it. Yet day after day, dead boys appear along train tracks throughout the county, and they keep getting listed as accidental deaths.

Leo doesn't believe this, though; especially after the son of his friend Alexei (Fares Fares) is found dead. But no one in the state wants to admit that these deaths are because of murder. Meanwhile, Leo is told that his wife Raisa (Noomi Rapace) may be  a spy for the west. Leo has the opportunity to turn on her, but instead stands by her side. They’re run out of town by Leo’s protégé Vasili (Joel Kinnaman) and sent to the abysmal Volsk where he works alongside General Nesterov (Gary Oldman). There, Leo continues to track down the perpetrator of these grisly murders behind the back of the MGB’s ever-watchful eye and Nesterov, who doesn't want to have any part in this crazy investigation.

The overly dense plot of “Child 44” is probably much better served as prose rather than a film. To cut down all the details pertaining to the inner workings of the Soviet secret police and put it into a film that’s just shy of two-and-a-half hours is pretty much impossible. And given how poorly put together this film is, that point is proven correct. Could you imagine if each book in the popular “A Song of Ice and Fire” series was made into one movie?

There’s a lot wrong with “Child 44,” but the lack of regard toward the film’s direction is the most sinful. What is this film trying to be? At times it seems to want to be a serial killer procedural. Other times, it feels like an anti-Soviet film. That, of course, makes it feel horrendously outdated since the Soviet Union doesn't actually exist anymore. Director Daniel Espinosa (“Safe House”) doesn't seem to know the script is weighted down by dead weight. This may be a faithful adaptation of the novel, but I’m sure each and every scene didn't have to be in here like this. The film is way too long as it is. A few simple cuts here and there wouldn't have hurt.

Hardy’s Leo is the only positive thing worth mentioning, if you can get over his goofy Russian accent. The book no doubt provides an enormous amount of character development to this character. Being the exceptionally polished performer that he is, I’m sure Hardy read the novel and based his character around that rather than what was written in the script. He’s fine here and I have no problems with him; however, the supporting roles are so undefined that the actors have resorted to all the stereotypical clichés that infect so many other films. Especially Kinnaman, who parades around his co-stars with same arrogant strut he had on the TV series “The Killing,” coupled with an atrocious accent as well. Vasili is a flat character encompassing every cop-drama villain cliché imaginable. Just a little more attention to character development would have gone a long way. Again, I’m sure the novel addresses this, but the film does not.

“Child 44” could very well be a faithful page-to-screen adaptation, but the movie by itself can barely stand on its own. I’m sure something this complex would be better suited for a television season rather than a movie. If the goal was to appease the fans of the book with a faithful adaptation, then they may have accomplished the goal. But pandering to one small demographic like that isn't enough to build the foundation a film franchise. There are two more books in this series. If they do make them, maybe it will be a Netflix Original Series. That’s probably the best possible medium for a story like this. But this doesn't have any business being in a theater.

Review: While We're Young

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

Very few filmmakers are able to correctly capture the essence of living in modern Middle America. Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers. And while the main characters of his latest feature “While We’re Young” are living comfortably well in New York City, they still face all the same issue everyone of us – rich and poor – must face: getting older.

Ben Stiller stars as Josh, a middle-aged documentary filmmaker married without children to Cornelia (Naomi Watts). Despite not having any kids, Josh and Cornelia have fallen into a slump of only going to one event whenever they have a night out and a general lack of spontaneity. Josh has taken almost 10 years to complete his latest movie and it’s still not done. But all this changes when Josh meets a young couple while giving a less-than-stellar lecture about film at one of the local universities. Jamie (Adam Driver) and Darby (Amanda Seyfried) are a couple of hipsters living life as simple – or maybe as ironic – as possible. Jamie is a wannabe filmmaker while Darby makes her own ice cream. In a social setting, they’d rather just not know the answer to a question that comes up during conversation rather than Google the answer on their phone.

Suddenly, Josh and Cornelia are energized hanging around these two. They see how much fun life can be when you just live life without worrying about a need to find success. Of course, everyone does have desires in life, and Jamie’s desire is to be a documentarian much like Josh, and even more so like Josh’s legendary documentarian father-in-law Leslie (Charles Grodin). Jamie wants Josh’s help putting together a very ill-conceived idea for a film. Josh has never been a great collaborator before, but he’s willing to give it shot for once in his life. For the first time in a long time, Josh feels young and untouchable again.

Of course, not everyone in Josh and Cornelia’s life sees their new found youthfulness as attractive. Longtime friends and first time parents Marina (Maria Dizzia) and Fletcher (Adam Horovitz aka Ad-Rock of Beastie Boys fame) don’t understand this newfound interest in people in their early-to-mid twenties. Why can’t Josh and Cornelia just have a kid and act their age? Because walking the abandoned tracks of a subway line for no purpose whatsoever is much more fun.

“While We’re Young” is an honest look at the lives people of two different generations are living now. There may be a certain level of jealousy from each group toward the other, but none of it should be detrimental. The film chooses to not explore the realities of getting older, but rather the purpose of evaluating where you are in your life every now and then.

Baumbach sets up his story perfectly in the beginning, and keeps his short and fast paced script on theme for the remainder of the film. We should come to expect no less from him at this stage in his career. He continues to turn out well-written films time and time again. It would also appear that “While We’re Young” could be slightly autobiographical for him to an extent. After all, he always surrounds himself with talent younger than he is, like the impeccable Greta Gerwig in his 2013 feature “Frances Ha.” She’s absent in this film, but he makes do without her.

Here, Baumbach casts exceptional younger talent in Driver and Seyfried and pairs them with veterans like Watts and Stiller. (I’ll still refer to Seyfried as “young talent” despite her being in mega productions for over a decade now.) Stiller especially shines here. He turned in one of the best performances of his career with another Baumbach film “Greenberg” but tops that here. The scenes and moments that Driver and Stiller share are exceptional, especially in moments where Stiller provides terrific reaction to the interesting situations he finds himself in with his younger counterpart.

“While We’re Young” has a moving message, but it’s cleverly buried inside a story that is filled with so much genuine humor that it never feels forced. And of course Baumbach’s brilliance is on full display as usual. It’s a film that moves along quick, complete with characters full of empathy. Each viewer should find something familiar in at least one of the main roles. It’s a very enjoyable film and is truly funny. It may lack the masterful stroke as some of Baumbach’s previous work (see “Frances Ha”) but it’s still a very smart comedy about people trying to live their lives in the face of growing old. We may grow older everyday, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have to slow down our lives just because of an arbitrary number known as age.

Review: Furious 7

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

I’m finished being nice to movies that are “just supposed to be mindless fun.” Filmmakers get a free pass when that phrase is uttered. Just because it’s supposed to be fun doesn’t mean it has to be stupid. And that’s exactly what all of these “just for fun” movies coming out of Hollywood over the last several years have been and I’m over it. I’m not going to critique movies based on what they're “supposed to be,” rather I’m going to judge them based on what I want every movie to be, which I don’t think is too much to ask for.

First under my new standards is one of those aforementioned films, “Furious 7.” Should I be nice because it’s the latest installment of a franchise that’s grossed a billion dollars? I know a lot of people like these films, and they are indeed entertaining, but just because it holds my attention doesn’t make it a good movie.

“Furious 7” is about more high stakes missions, fast cars, impossible stunts, close ups of bikini clad women walking slowly through the streets/beach, impossible stunts, product placements in every other shot, impossible stunts, rapid pace editing so fast you can’t tell what the hell is going on, and, of course, impossible stunts. Literally. In no other universe could these people survive the falls, crashes and explosions our heroes take.

In this seventh installment, the crew is being targeted by the evil Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), brother of the villain from the previous film. He sends a bomb to the home of Toretto (Vin Diesel), which almost kills him, Brian (Paul Walker) and Brian’s wife Mia (Jordana Brewster) who also happens to be Toretto’s sister. Shaw also goes after Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and ends up throwing him out of a five-story building onto the roof of a car, which Hobbs survives (but does suffer from a broken arm and collarbone) of course.

Toretto and Brian get the crew back together (Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris and Michelle Rodriguez) to go after Shaw, but a mysterious government agent who calls himself Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell) picks them up first. He offers them the job of recovering a computer program that could help the US government track anyone on the planet to their location in a matter of minutes. Mr. Nobody promises they can use the device to track down Shaw once they recover it.

I don’t have a whole lot to say about “Furious 7.” If you’ve seen any of the other six films in this far-too-long running franchise, then you know exactly what you’re getting into with this. It is mindless fun, but it’s very hard to swallow. Based on what we’ve seen in these films, I’m pretty sure our main characters could survive a nuclear blast from 10 yards away. Honestly, where’s the thrill when the people we’re supposed to care about are completely invincible?

There are only two things I’d like to address, but they’re two big problems with about 90% of the Hollywood movies today. The first is the screenplay. It’s hardly a screenplay. I guess it’s technically called that since it is a stack of papers with camera direction and dialogue, but there’s nothing good about it. Written by Chris Morgan (who’s had a hand in most of the previous sequels), the script is a disconnected mess with no flow and clichéd backstories meant to further develop the characters. That’s the problem with a franchise with so many sequels: we already know these characters and don’t need to bog down the run time with that unnecessary filler. The script also breaks its own rules time and time again. Don’t tell us a location is impossible to get to and then have the primary villain just appear out of thin air to increase the tension of the action. That’s just as hard for me to swallow as The Rock surviving a five story fall into the roof of a car.

Second, the editing. This is a problem running rampant in Hollywood these days that no one seems to be talking about. “Furious 7” has four credited editors on this movie. All action scenes are cut together so fast that each shot seems to be less than a second each. It’s dizzying and could possibly cause seizures. Is the attention span of the international movie-going public so short that there has to be a cut every split second? I find that hard to believe, but they must think people want to see stuff like this. Either that or these four editors received the footage and saw how poorly acted it was and saw how poor of a direction job James Wan did that they had to cut it like this in order to cover-up all the crap.

I will say one positive thing about “Furious 7,” and that is how well the filmmakers handled the sudden and tragic loss of series star Paul Walker. Walker was killed in the middle of filming on November 30, 2013 in a single car accident at the age of 40. The filmmakers enlisted the help of his brothers to finish the film. The touching tribute this franchise paid him was about as perfect as it could have been. I’m sure the final scenes of this script were different than what was given to us in the film, but it just seems right and is the most acceptable scene in the film. The franchise won’t end with Walker’s way-too-early death, but it won’t be the same without him.

From a filmmaking standpoint, these movies aren’t good at all. As a paid advertisement for Corona and Maserati, I guess they are in good fun. There are far worse franchises out there than this one, but I’m tired of critiquing them differently. I’m going to call it as I see it, even if I do have a soft spot for these stupid films. And they are stupid. They’re also fun. But they’re also terrible.