Carol ****
Short Take: Beautifully mounted period piece, set in the 1950s, about a married woman’s relationship with a shop girl and the fallout it causes.
REEL TAKE: There has been a lot of buzz surrounding Carol and I’m sure that come Oscar time both Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara will be nominated in their respective categories. In lieu of that and other aspects of the movie which I’ll go into later, I wish I could say that I liked Carol more than I did.
Carol is the third major movie this year to be set in America during the 1950s. There’s also Brooklyn and Trumbo both of which are better films because they feature characters that you care about. Frankly, I was surprised by how uninvolving Carol was. Once you look past the novelty of the lesbian relationship between the two characters, the film is a pale copy of a glossy Hollywood soap opera.
Of course if you enjoy that genre and aren’t bothered by the lesbian angle, then Carol could be right up your alley. It is beautifully photographed, classically lit, full of vintage 1950s fashions, and spot on with its period detail (all the car windshields are double plated) but for me that wasn’t enough.
The year is 1952. The title character, played by Cate Blanchett, is rich and glamorous with a beautiful daughter and a loveless marriage. At Christmastime she meets working class shop girl Rooney Mara who dreams of being a photographer and the two begin an unlikely friendship that slowly blossoms into love. This will ultimately have a profound effect on Blanchett’s character.
Rooney Mara gives the best performance of her career (at least among the films of hers that I have seen). It’s a lot more difficult to underplay a role and make an impression but she manages and manages quite well. I cared about her shop girl, but I didn’t care as much for Blanchett’s well-to-do housewife so ultimately her fate didn’t move me.
This has less to do with Blanchett’s performance than with her character. Carol is reportedly a thinly disguised portrait of the book’s author. Patricia Highsmith, who used a pseudonym when the book was first published as The Price of Salt, was a great writer (Strangers on a Train, The Talented Mr. Ripley) but a notorious misanthrope. Carol isn’t misanthropic but I just couldn’t warm to her.
On the surface it appears that director Todd Haynes wanted to come up with a companion piece to Far From Heaven (2002) which is also set in the 1950s and focuses on a reverse situation where a closeted gay man wants out of his marriage. That film also focuses on racial inequality giving it a greater depth than Carol.
Haynes has expressed a great admiration for the splashy big budgeted 1950s melodramas of director Douglas Sirk (Imitation of Life, All That Heaven Allows) and has copied their look perfectly. What Carol lacks is the melodramatic quality of those films that makes them endlessly fascinating. In other words, Carol is too emotionally reserved for its own good and this rather reserved nature keeps it from having the overall impact that it should.
Rated R for a scene of sexuality/nudity and brief language.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
Concussion ****
Short Take: Topical film on football related brain injuries is slickly produced with a strong supporting cast and a remarkably sincere performance from Will Smith.
REEL TAKE: The source material for Concussion is an article published in GQ about the efforts of the NFL to suppress the research of a Nigerian born forensic pathologist Bennet Omalu who discovered a neurological condition (CTE) that showed up in the brains of NFL players who had suffered repeated blows to the head.
The film was originally to have been directed by Ridley Scott who did the initial background research and project preparation but he then passed in order to concentrate on The Martian (a wise move) although he did produce Concussion. The film wound up being directed by Peter Landesman who had previously directed Parkland (2013).
Things begin in 2002 when an autopsy on Pittsburgh Steeler lineman Mike Webster (movingly played in flashbacks by David Morse) reveals that his loss of memory and erratic behavior were caused not by early onset Alzheimer’s but by a new condition which Omalu named CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).
When he attempted to publish this research it was quickly and effectively quashed by the NFL who provided much better known doctors to categorically deny it. Omalu was then threatened and subjected to a smear campaign (with racist overtones) but he did have his champions and with their help and his own determination, he perseveres.
Concussion is a throwback to the type of social relevance films such as The Defiant Ones and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner made by Stanley Kramer in the 1950s and 1960s. I’m sure that writer-director Landesman having written crusading exposes’ for the New York Times had something to do with this.
It is on this level that Concussion works best. The story of one man taking a stand against a giant corporation has been done many times but the football angle puts a new and highly relevant spin on it. The glass jar demonstration (I’ll leave it at that) may be an oversimplification but there’s no denying its effectiveness.
The ultimate problem with Concussion and what makes it only a good film as opposed to a great one like Spotlight, is that it attempts to do too many things. It wants to be all things to all people and so, in addition to the central story, we delve into Omalu’s personal life and into the implied mistrust of immigrants and casual racism surrounding someone from Nigeria.
Not that these aren’t valid concerns but it winds up devaluing Concussion in the long run. The ending where a vindicated Omalu speaks before an audience is pure Hallmark and pure old school Hollywood. However, I’m bound to say that mainstream audiences probably won’t feel that way. Many will be shocked and deeply moved by the end.
The supporting players including Alec Baldwin, Albert Brooks, Luke Wilson and Gugu Mbatha-Raw (as Omalu’s wife) all give solid performances but this is ultimately a change-of-pace for Will Smith and he is more than up to the challenge. In fact it may be his best performance ever.
Rated PG-13 for thematic material, disturbing images, and language.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
The Danish Girl ****
Short Take: A fictionalized love story based on real life transgender pioneer Einar Wegener (Lili Elbe) and Gerde Wegener.
REEL TAKE: The Danish Girl is a fictionalized love story inspired by the true story of artist Einar Wegener (Lili Elbe), a Danish transgender woman who was the first documented person to have gender reassignment surgery in 1930. Based on the novel by David Ebershoff, Tom Hooper’s film adaptation follows Einar from his first glimpses of Lili to her fruition.
At the film’s start, Einar (Eddie Redmayne) and his wife Gerde (Alicia Vikander) are young artists in love, trying for a baby. They seem happy, even as we see the first glimmers of Lili. Once Lili begins to really emerge, we realize that Einar is being discarded. Even as her husband disappears from their life, Gerde is supportive. As it’s portrayed here, it’s an unconditional love that transcends the conventions of every day life. That element plays out well but, even more interesting to me was that, as Lili comes to life, Gerde also finds her artistic voice.
Redmayne and Vikander share a good chemistry. Both will no doubt receive Oscar nominations for their roles. Redmayne treats Lili with a delicacy that few actors could handle so elegantly. However, on occasion, during Lili’s more gawkish, simpering moments, he delivers a crooked smile that is ever so reminiscent of last year’s performance as Steven Hawking. For me, Vikander, who has had a breakout year, is the real revelation, the real stand out. Her performance is stunningly nuanced. I would go so far as to say she elevates the film to something more than it actually is.
Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) deftly directs the piece. Their cosmopolitan life in 1920’s Copenhagen and Paris is beautifully depicted. Almost every element conveys a warmth and richness, even the well lit surgical rooms. On my first viewing of the film, I was swept by its beauty and photography, but upon a second viewing it fell a bit flat for me. It felt just a little too tidy.
Hooper has created a gorgeous and very palatable [read sanitized] film. Perhaps it’s a savvy move on his part; far more people will see this film and feel good about it than if he had told an earthier transgender story. But why fictionalize this story? Why not tell the real story of Einar/Lili and Gerde? I was disappointed to learn that two key sub characters, played pitch perfectly by Ben Wishaw and Matthias Schoenaerts, were also fictitious. But to take umbrage with this is to take umbrage with the source material. Bottom line, if this beautiful fiction, inspired by true events, can help society better understand transgender issues, I’m ok with it.
The timing of The Danish Girl couldn’t be better. Transgender issues have never been more in the forefront of the cultural mainstream (the man we knew as Bruce Jenner is now gone and Caitlin Jenner is ‘Woman of the Year’). The Danish Girl is certainly worth your time, but if you’re left wanting something with a little more tooth, I recommend you check out Tangerine, an offbeat little film that was out a few months ago with far less accolade and notice.
Rated R for some sexuality and full nudity.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Legend ***1/2
Short Take: Tom Hardy stars in a dual role as Ronnie and Reggie Kray, the notorious twin brothers who ruled London’s organized crime scene for much of the 1960s.
REEL TAKE: After seeing Legend I’m starting to wonder if Tom Hardy really isn’t just one person. The actor, whose most recent film casts him in the dual role as London’s nefarious gangster twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray, has starred in four major films this year and shows no signs of slowing down. From a secret police agent in the Soviet-era post-WWII thriller Child 44, the titular character in Mad Max: Fury Road, a mercenary cut throat in The Revenant and now Legend, Tom Hardy proves yet again that he is a journeyman’s actor and a true chameleon.
As always, he delivers impressive performances throughout, but his turn as Ronnie and Reggie Kray is truly remarkable. Even with competition being stiff this year in the Best Actor category, I’m surprised Hardy is not getting a little more notice among critic’s circles for his work in Legend. It’s probably because, while he is a stand out, the film itself is not.
Legend tells the story of the rise and fall of Ronnie and Reggie Kray, the notorious twin brothers who ruled London’s organized crime scene for much of the 1960s. There’s a certain irony to the proceedings: the violence is brutal, even savage at times, but the story at times seems to be more concerned with the emotional and psychological journey of the brothers.
Ronnie is an openly gay paranoid schizophrenic who thoroughly enjoys the violence associated with their occupation. Reggie is charming and smooth, the more level headed and business savvy of the two. Hardy, who inhabits each of the brothers completely, is fascinating to watch. You may have to lean in to decipher his cockney utterances, especially Ronnie’s, but the effort is worth it. There is dark comedy and subtle wit to both characters.
Unfortunately writer director Brian Helgeland relies too heavily on his star to carry the load. With Hardy already pulling double duty (unless Tom really does have a secret brother Ted), one cannot expect his tour de force performance to also transcend underdeveloped subplots and characters. This was a major disappointment to me; Helgeland wrote one of my favorite screenplays of all time, LA Confidential.
One of the reasons I so admire that screenplay is that the story beat is pitch perfect. Each beat of the film serves the arch of the story as well as every character. Here, the only thing Helgeland is truly clear about is Ronnie and Reggie, while the rest of the characters and sub-stories get a bit muddled, including the narrative by Reggie’s young wife Francis (Emily Browning).
I remember really liking The Krays, a 1990 biopic starring Martin and Gary Kemp (of Spandau Ballet fame). It was based on a book and was perhaps more cohesive in its storytelling. The Kemps were good, but Legend manages to do more with one actor in two parts and takes this technology to new heights. The interactions between Ronnie and Reggie, particularly in fight sequences, are mind bogglingly good. That’s no small accomplishment by cast and crew.
Bottom line – if images of violence offend your delicate sensibilities then perhaps a film about a pair of murderous London underworld gangsters isn’t for you. If, on the other hand, you can stomach a few punches, stabbings and associated gore, then you must see Legend for one of the most extraordinary performances of the year.
Rated R for strong violence, language throughout, some sexual language and violence.
Review by Michelle Keenan
The Revenant ****
Short Take: An 1820’s frontiersman, left for dead after a violent bear mauling, seeks vengeance.
REEL TAKE: The Revenant is as distinct a departure from Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s Oscar-winning film Birdman as one can get. If you really gravitated to the stagey theatricality of Birdman I’m not certain that The Revenant will be your cup of tea. If, on the other hand, your dream movie is a Terrence Malik – Sam Peckinpah love child, then you’re in for a treat. The Revenant is taciturnly dreamlike and unflinchingly brutal and alternately poetic and primal.
The film is adapted from a novel by Michael Punke, which in and of itself is a fictionalized account of American fur trapper and frontier legend Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio). As the story goes, Glass survived a grizzly bear attack in 1823, was left for dead by two of his fellow trappers, and somehow managed to crawl 200 miles to the safety of Fort Kiowa. Punke’s novel takes its inspiration from this event.
Screenwriter Mark Smith and Inarritu take theirs from Punke’s novel, but take even greater liberties with the story, giving Glass a Pawnee wife and son and tragic backstory, all of which imbue the film with an ethereal Native American spirit amidst his quest for survival and vengeance.
At the start of the film, Glass is part of a trapping expedition along the Missouri River, led by Commander Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson). In the opening sequence they are ambushed by Indians. In the aftermath of the retreat, we are quickly introduced to key members of the expedition and familiarized with their moral character. Among these are the mercenary John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) and the young and malleable John Bridger (Will Poulter).
After Glass is attacked by the grizzly, his wounds are determined to be mortal. Henry decides the group must press on, but assigns three people to remain with Glass until he dies and then give him a proper burial. With Fitzgerald now calling the shots and Bridger in tow, this of course doesn’t happen. The rest of the film is Glass’s story of survival and his quest for vengeance.
DiCaprio delivers a powerfully gritty performance. It’s like nothing we’ve ever seen him do before and he does it well. It’s an Oscar bait performance if ever there was, but a nomination is deserved. Hardy, who is far more of a chameleon than DiCaprio, disappears into yet another role, inhabiting Fitzgerald’s dark soul so completely that he makes Reggie and Ronnie Kray look like schoolboys by comparison (see review for Legend). Poulter, Gleeson and the rest of the supporting cast all pull their weight.
But it may be cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, more than anyone else, who sets the tone of the movie. He used only natural light and he used it to great effect. Whether it’s the cold, the dreamlike sequence or the brutality of the story, Lubezki’s handy work permeates every frame. It has been widely reported that this was a very arduous and difficult shoot. Their efforts pay off [for those that can stomach the result].
The Revenant is very much a visceral, not-for-the-faint of heart experience. It is a very measured endurance test of human nature and survival. The question is whether this is an endurance test you care to take. You be the judge.
Rated R for strong frontier combat and violence including gory images, a sexual assault, language and brief nudity.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Youth *****
Short Take: Paolo Sorrentino’s look at life, love, and coming to terms with old age is one of the year’s most exquisite films and gives old pros Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel their best roles in years.
REEL TAKE: About 30 minutes into Youth, I was ready to throw in the towel. I had disliked Italian director Paolo Sorrentino’s previous film, The Great Beauty (La Grande Belleza), because I found it unnecessarily self indulgent in its over-the-top style. Youth begins with an opening shot of a singer performing while the background is constantly moving. “Here we go again” I thought, but then things began to change.
The focus shifted away from the style of the visuals to the substance of the screenplay and the performances of four principal characters, two of whom are old and two of whom are young. Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel are old friends who spend their summers at a Swiss spa. They are also in-laws as Keitel’s son is married to Caine’s daughter. This summer there are several crises brewing.
Caine, a celebrated composer-conductor who has retired, is approached by an emissary of Queen Elizabeth to give a benefit concert for Prince Philip. He refuses but won’t say why. Keitel plays a once celebrated film director wanting to make one last film that will sum up his life. Rachel Weisz is Caine’s daughter whose marriage is falling apart exposing her anger issues with her father. Finally, Paul Dano (brilliant as the young Brian Wilson in Love & Mercy earlier this year) is a young actor trapped by a shallow but very successful role.
This is only an overview for like last year’s Grand Budapest Hotel, there are numerous other characters of interest that are skillfully woven into the screenplay including a small but critical role for the 77 year old Jane Fonda. Sorrentino is able to effortlessly switch back and forth between his various storylines before neatly tying them all together leading to an emotional and memorable finale.
Like The Great Beauty and his earlier This Must Be the Place, Sorrentino focuses on characters in search of themselves after discovering that the life they lived is not the life they thought it would be. Beauty was all style while Place was all substance but both style and substance come together in Youth making it the most approachable and enjoyable of the Sorrentino films I have seen so far.
Youth now joins a select company of films that I will be able to watch again and again. A movie which is enjoyable the first time around but, like a good book, will continue to satisfy in future viewings. Michael Caine, always a consummate performer regardless of the material, has never been better and Harvey Keitel is given one of the too few roles that allow him some range.
Youth will have just opened in Asheville by the time this review comes out. Hopefully it will still be here by the time you read this, but quality is no guarantee of longevity. If it is still here, those of you who want something more than eye popping visuals and ear pounding soundtracks should beat a path to wherever it is playing. 2015 turned out to be a good year for movies after all and this is one of the best.
Rated R for graphic nudity, some sexuality, and language.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
