Hail Caesar! ****
Short Take: A playful homage to 1950’s Hollywood from the Coen Brothers. It may not be one of their best films, but it’s incredibly fun, especially for movie buffs.
Reel Take: Hail Caesar! is a satirical look at the old Hollywood studio system by the two present-day filmmakers who could do it best, Joel and Ethan Coen. Taking place in the post WWII, anti-communist, Red scared America, the story depicts a day in the life of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), a fixer for the fictitious Capitol Pictures (loosely based on the real Eddie Mannix who was a heavy for MGM back in the day).
Mannix spends his days (and nights) fixing potential publicity problems. On his shortlist this particular day: protecting the wholesome image of DeeAnna Moran, a knocked up Esther Williams-like starlet (Scarlett Johansen), transforming a singing cowboy named Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) into a serious thespian, and finding Capitol’s biggest star, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), who’s been kidnapped by a group of communist screenwriters just before he’s to shoot the climatic scene for Hail Caesar: A Tale of Christ, the studio’s sword and sandal Technicolor epic. Hunting his every step are rival sibling gossip columnists Thora and Thessaly Thacker (both played by Tilda Swinton).
Throughout the chaos we also meet Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum), the studio’s all-American song and dance man, a la Gene Kelly; dramatic director Laurence Lorenz (Ralph Fiennes), a la George Cukor; and a chain smoking film editor C.C. Calhoun (Frances McDormand), a la Margaret Booth. With all of this ‘a la’ going on, I don’t quite understand why the Coens used Eddie Mannix’s name instead of creating a fictional Mannix-like character especially when their version bears only the slightest resemblance to the real Mannix.
Brolin is the perfect pick to play the straight front man to a backdrop of such silliness; his comedic talent is perfectly suited to just such a character. Clooney is the Coen brother’s go-to goofball and he’s delightful as ever to watch. Channing Tatum’s Anchors Aweigh like dance number is fantastic (the audience applauded), and I’m sure he will continue to surprise people with this role. But the revelation here is Alden Ehrenreich as the lovable, lasso roping, aw shucks m’am , singing cowboy. He and Ralph Fiennes share a scene that’s funnier than anything since Abbott and Costellos’s “Who’s on First” routine. The Coen Brothers also make good use of his character throughout the story, while some of the others have far less with which to work.
The film pokes fun and mocks the old Hollywood system, which was sadly beginning to crumble at the time, but it’s also a love letter to that bygone era. Veteran cinematographer Roger Deakins does a great job recreating the era and there are countless references (including but not limited to: Ben Hur, On The Town, Million Dollar Mermaid, Audie Murphy, Carmen Miranda, gossip columnists Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, the Lorretta Young/Clark Gable love child that Young was forced to actually adopt to stave off a scandal), and many more I’m sure I missed. Hail Caesar! is clearly going to be funnier to anyone with a movie geek pedigree, but it’s not necessary to enjoy the film.
Rated PG-13 for some suggestive content and smoking.
Review by Michelle Keenan
The Lady in the Van **** ½
Short Take: The “mostly true” story of British playwright Alan Bennett and “Miss Shepherd” the titular Lady in the Van.
REEL TAKE: Nicholas Hytner’s The Lady in the Van is a downright oasis in the otherwise vapid post-award season wasteland. This is especially true for the 65+ Masterpiece Theatre demographic. So under-served are they that the film played to sold out crowds opening weekend. It took me four tries before I finally made it in to see the film. Who knew Maggie Smith would be such a hot ticket at the age of 81!?
It’s with good reason too. The actress, who has most recently charmed American audiences as the aristocratic Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham (and of piercingly funny one-liners) on Downton Abbey, delivers a pitch perfect performance as the titular character. The Lady in the Van tells the story of the eccentric “Miss Shepherd” and homeless but formidable woman who parked her van on Gloucester Crescent in the Camden Town area of London in the mid-1970’s and stayed fifteen years, most of which was spent in the driveway of British writer and playwright Alan Bennett (Alex Jennings). The experience inspired a book, a radio and theatrical play, and now movie, all written by Bennett, all performances featuring Smith as “Miss Shepherd”.
Intelligently and thoughtfully crafted, the film showcases the unlikely friendship (or an alliance of sorts) formed by Bennett and Shepherd. As Bennett gets to know the crusty old squatter in his driveway, he realizes that she is an educated and religious (devoutly Catholic) woman. She is proud and feisty, but these attributes are sometimes overshadowed by mental illness and fear. The mystery lies in her past; what thing or things happened to her that drove her to such an existence?
Shepherd’s and Bennett’s paths were well suited to cross. Each was a misfit in their own way – she an outcast of society, he a closeted homosexual, each carefully guarding their secrets. Smith has garnered most of the praise and attention for the film, but Jennings is every bit her equal, and together they share a wonderful chemistry.
Bennett and Hytner, who have collaborated on several projects, smartly relay the tale with two Bennett’s – Bennett the writer and Bennett the mild fellow with the batty old woman living in his driveway. This is a creative touch that serves the story especially well. Never once do they sugarcoat it or fall prey to sophomoric sentimentality – from “Miss Shepherd’s” hygiene to the treatment of plight of indigent and mentally ill people – they keep it razor sharp and strikingly honest. As the writer, Mr. Bennett says to the real Mr. Bennett, “If I ever write about this, people will say there is too much about shit.”
Touching, charming, sad and funny, The Lady in the Van is anything but [shit].
Rated PG-13 for a brief unsettling image.
Review by Michelle Keenan
The Witch **** ½
Short Take: Absorbing low budget film set in 17th century New England is genuinely creepy and disturbing but is too slow moving for your average horror fan.
REEL TAKE: When I first heard about The Witch, it sounded as if it was going to be a 17th century version of The Blair Witch Project. I hadn’t seen a trailer for it, but the fact that it created quite a stir at Sundance piqued my curiosity. I got to see it at an advance screening for local critics and I was stunned by how good and how singular it was.
There have been numerous movies about witchcraft and witches over the years beginning with a 1922 Swedish film called Witchcraft through the Ages (Haxan) which this film resembles in many ways although it is much narrower in scope. Haxan deals with European folklore concerning witches over a long period while The Witch focuses on 1630 New England only.
Another movie that has something of the same feel is the 1970 British cult classic Blood on Satan’s Claw which is also set in the 17th century. It deals primarily with the children of a small English village who become possessed or “infected” by witchcraft and what happens to them as a result.
I mention these two earlier movies because they are personal favorites of mine that I have watched many times. For me, to place The Witch in their company is high praise indeed. As soon as it comes out on DVD, I plan to add it to my collection. I still collect DVDs for the special features they offer and for their inclusion of subtitles.
Those would have been handy for The Witch, and this will be a turn-off for many, is written and the dialogue spoken in 17th century English. It’s like listening to the Bible on tape, but that is how these characters would have spoken back then, and it was very brave of writer-director Robert Eggers to do it that way.
This makes The Witch a very hard film to recommend for a mainstream audience. The fact that it is being marketed as a horror film makes it even harder. Older audiences generally avoid horror films altogether while younger audiences want lots of action and carnage. There is little of that to be found here although when the movie shifts into horror film mode, it is truly memorable.
The basic story is simple enough. A Puritan family is banished from their community for religious difference with the Town Elders. These differences are never specified but they are unimportant as they are a plot device to get the family out of the village and into a farm where they try to make a go of it. At first things seem to be going well enough but then strange happenings begin to occur and slowly the family begins to disintegrate.
It starts with the sudden disappearance of the family infant. After a quick search to no avail (we know that the baby was taken by a witch), suspicion falls on the oldest daughter Thomasin. When her older brother goes in search of the child and then disappears, the rest of the family (Father, Mother, 2 younger siblings) turn against her.
To say more than that would be giving away too much but add to the above scenario, animals with supernatural powers and real things not being what they seem and you enter a magical but terrifying world experienced from the family’s point of view. Although portrayed in a realistic manner, the film is quick to point out in the ending credits that the events we have witnessed are based not on reality but on what 17th century Americans thought witches were capable of.
The performances by a cast of relative unknowns are uniformly fine with Anya Taylor-Joy a standout as the suspected daughter. Ralph Ineson as the father has the look and the voice of the late, lamented Alan Rickman (they were in Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows together). The Witch was stunningly photographed on location in Ontario and was purchased at Sundance for the unbelievably low price of $1 million. If only the majority of films with 50 to 100 times the budget were half this good.
Rated R for disturbing violent content and graphic nudity.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
Where to Invade Next ****
Short Take: Michael Moore’s most accessible documentary since Roger & Me has the filmmaker visiting different countries in search of good ideas to bring back to America.
REEL TAKE: It has been 27 years since Michael Moore first burst on scene with his clever documentary Roger & Me (see my DVD Pick). Since 1989 he has produced seven more docs, several shorts and TV episodes, as well as one completely fictional satire Canadian Bacon (1995) where the U.S. plans to start a war with Canada.
Now we have his eighth documentary Where to Invade Next which marks a return to the more whimsical but still perceptive attitudes expressed in Roger & Me. This is a departure from the strident “Rush Limbaugh of the Left” approach that he uses in such films as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11.
I approached Where to Invade Next with caution. While I agree with many of Michael Moore’s conclusions, I’m frequently annoyed at the heavy handed approach he uses to demonstrate them. For whatever reason, Moore decided to return to presenting the material in a straightforward and deadpan manner allowing us to appreciate the irony and see the results for ourselves.
The movie opens with Moore tackling his famous un-objectivity straight away. “I’m searching for roses, not for weeds” he tells us and then he proceeds to visit several different countries in the hopes of coming across some good ideas to bring back to America and make it a better place.
In France he encounters the incredible school lunches prepared by French chefs for even the most remote school districts (a real eye opener), and then it’s off to Italy where he learns about Italian workers’ extended paid vacations, which make for a much happier work force. A trip to Tunisia showcases that country’s free health care for all of its citizens.
The most surprising segments come from Scandinavia. In Norway he visits several model prisons and then, in the film’s most powerful sequence, interviews a father whose son was killed along with several other students by a mass murderer who was given 21 years in prison (Norway’s maximum sentence). The father harbors no thoughts of injustice or revenge.
In Finland students spend less time in classrooms, have virtually no homework, and yet rank among the best in the world. In Iceland, which had a banking crisis of its own, the perpetrators were jailed (check out The Big Short to see what we did) and now the country is governed primarily by women and thriving.
At the end of each visit, Moore plants an American flag and proudly claims this country’s idea for the U.S. The punch line to Where to Invade Next is the ultimate irony. All of these better ideas originated in America but were either abandoned or never implemented. Of course Moore is playing with his usual stacked deck and a good argument could be made that these countries are all way smaller than the U.S and most of them (especially the Scandinavian countries) lack any real diversity.
Nevertheless it’s good to be reminded of what once WAS in America and now IS in other parts of the world. The final segment at the Berlin Wall memorial is Michael Moore’s ultimate lesson for America as he and a friend recall how it was protesters and not tanks and guns that brought about the end of the Soviet Union and the re-unification of Germany. As Frank Zappa once said “It Can’t Happen Here” but in an election year, it’s a nice thought to harbor.
Rated R for language, some violent images, drug use, and brief graphic nudity.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
