Calvary **** ½
Short Take: A good priest in a small Irish town receives a mysterious confessional death threat as payback for the sins of the church.
REEL TAKE: John Michael McDonough’s Calvary is a powerful character-driven drama strewn with dark comedy throughout, but it is not a dark comedy. Calvary is a shatteringly cruel film ensconced in a scathingly satirical script. Fans of McDonough’s previous film The Guard (which also starred Gleeson) will be a likely audience for this one, but they should not go in expecting the more comedic bent of that film. Calvary is an emotionally brutally story, one not for the faint of heart. It is however an utterly engrossing and worthwhile film.
Brendan Gleeson gives the best performance of his career to date as Father James, the moral compass in a sea of depravity in a small town in Sligo. He’s a good man, truly called to his vocation. Unlike most priests, he comes to the ministry after being married, having a child, battling the bottle and being widowed.
At the start of the film Father James is hearing confessions. The voice on the other side of the confessional says, “I was seven the first time I tasted semen.” A startling opening line to be sure and a lynch pin as well. He proceeds to tell Father James that he was preyed upon by a bad priest every day for five years and now, decades later he’s going to retaliate. But with the perpetrator long dead, the mysterious confessor says he’s going to take a good priest’s life because, “that’s something people will pay attention to, won’t they.” He gives Fr. James a week to put his affairs in order and says they are to meet on the beach Sunday next.
The week that ensues would be enough to send most of us over the edge, but the good father does his best to maintain his usual quiet devotion to collar and creed in service to the community. He seems to wrestle more with relevance of the church in today’s society than he does with his own mortality, but that would be thanks to the unrepentant lot of characters in his midst.
In short he counsels a battered but adulterous wife, her butcher husband with an ax to grind, a contemptuous African immigrant (with whom the aforementioned wife is cheating), a lonely young man, a vastly wealthy gin-soaked prig of a businessman and last but not least a serial killer. He also endures the wrath and scorn of a local pub-owner facing foreclosure, a local policeman, a cold hearted atheistic doctor, and a male prostitute. The only allies he seems to have are his aging dog, an elderly American novelist and a French woman whose husband has just died. He’s also working through his relationship with his suicidal daughter who thinks of his vocation as a form of abandonment.
Yeah … so, it’s a lot. It’s heavy. There’s so much more going on than I’m able to delve into and keep to a word count. Suffice it to say it’s quite a juxtaposition; a mash up of bleakness, despair, faith and forgiveness. It’s difficult and desolate, but it’s also fascinating and it stays with you. Gleeson brings a transcendent grace and dignity to James that makes the viewer ache for this melancholy soul. McDonough’s gift for dialogue leaves you leaning forward, hinged on every word. The photography is brilliant. The end result of this collaboration is a smart, exemplary little film. For me Calvary is a must-see movie for 2014.
Rated R for sexual reference, language, brief strong violence and some drug use.
Review by Michelle Keenan
The Expendables 3 ***
Short Take: Third installment in the aging action hero series differs little from the previous two but it really benefits from a “killer” performance from Mel Gibson as a former member turned rogue.
Reel Take: 3rd installment, 3 stars. That seems fair doesn’t it? I certainly think so. The Expendables 3 is far from being a great movie but then it has no pretenses at trying to be. It’s a throwback to the Saturday matinees of yore where action is meant to trump plot and character development but not the characters themselves.
I’ve read a lot of criticism online that has been leveled at the film for toning down the graphic nature of its violence to achieve a PG-13 rating. I completely disagree. There’s killings a plenty going on here (I lost count at around 500 and that’s just the opening prologue) but there’s no need to show all that detailed blood and gore. That’s what video games are for.
After the frenetic opening I just mentioned, which was to break a former member (Wesley Snipes) out of a foreign prison, it turns out that another former member of the team believed dead (Mel Gibson) has gone rogue (just like Sean Bean in Goldeneye) and he needs to be brought to justice. In order to do this, Stallone must retire the old team and then recruit a newer, younger one.
While movies of this type are always built around an aging action star (in this case several aging action stars), it’s the villain who makes or breaks the film in the long run. Where would James Bond be without Goldfinger or Doctor No? Mel Gibson as Stonebanks, the rogue member, isn’t in their league but he’s more than a worthy adversary for this film recalling Alan Rickman –vs- Bruce Willis in Die Hard or Richard Boone –vs- John Wayne in Big Jake. In fact he is, by far and away, the best thing in the movie.
In brief, Gibson sabotages the opening rescue effort and cripples Caesar (Terry Crews) while shaking up the rest of the team. CIA operative Harrison Ford is none too pleased and this is why Stallone must get some new blood. He seeks out soldier-of-fortune Kelsey Grammar who recruits Kellan Lutz, Glenn Powell, Victor Ortiz, and the team’s first woman Ronda Rousey (hey, gotta keep up with the times).
They track Gibson to his lair where he is more than ready for them. After getting captured, it’s up to the old team (with the addition of Harrison Ford doing his best Han Solo imitation) to save the new one leading to a final, top notch showdown between Gibson and Stallone. Guess who wins.
I thoroughly enjoyed The Expendables 3 because it delivered exactly what it promised. This movie already has a built in audience and I doubt that anything I have to say will influence those people in any way whatsoever. For you others, if you’re looking for a movie to end the summer with, you can do a lot worse than The Expendables 3.
Rated PG-13 for violence including sustained gun battles, explosions, and some language.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
The Giver ****
Short Take: Beautifully realized film version of the Newberry Award winning book about a future society where emotions have been eliminated and sameness in all things is celebrated.
Reel Take: Of the three movies that I had to review for this issue, along with others that I also saw, The Giver was the one that I enjoyed the most. Going into it, I knew nothing of the 1993 book by Lois Lowry other than the fact that it had been a Newberry Award winner and that it had a science-fiction setting.
Having not read the book, I was not prepared for the film to open in black & white. Only later does color gradually enter into the movie; by the end everything is in full color all the time (much like the movie Pleasantville from a few years back). The setting is a future society where sameness is celebrated and conformity rules. There is no ethnicity other than white, no war or poverty, and no religion.
In fact emotions such as love are banished and have been erased from the society’s collective memory as have all memories of things past. Everyone is calm and harmonious and everything is peaceful thanks to daily medication. People go about their daily assigned tasks without rancor and without question.
One member of the society is known as “the Giver” and only he is permitted to possess memories so the community has them if they need them. The community is led by a group of elders headed up by Meryl Streep. As everyone in the new society is given a preordained task to do, one young person will be chosen to succeed the existing Giver and it is up to the old one to train the new one.
Jonas (Brenton Thwaits) is chosen in the annual coming of age ceremony to be the next Giver. He must now train with the existing Giver (Jeff Bridges) who is getting old and must pass on his memories. At first Jonas is fascinated by all the new things he is discovering then he is appalled at all the knowledge that has been withheld. The Giver explains that this was done to protect and improve society for it is these memories that bring pain and cause strife among humans.
Memories evoke emotions and emotions inspire strong feelings both good and bad. Should memories be banned for the good of society? That’s the question that Lois Lowry and the filmmakers want young adults (the target audience) to grapple with. But while young adults may be the target audience, The Giver has something to say to all of us. This makes it a throwback to the thoughtful sci-fi of the 1950s-1970s before the special effects departments took over.
Even though the budget for the film wasn’t huge by today’s standards ($25 million as compared to Guardians’ $140 million) it manages to beautifully evoke its futuristic setting. Director Philip Noyce and his cameraman, Ross Emery, skillfully handle the transition from the black & white fake world to the rich colors of the real one.
Of course once Jonas is exposed to memories of the past (shades of Soylent Green), there is no turning back and he does everything he can to restore them to his society although it means pain and death and the ultimate demise of that society. Even watered down there is more food for thought in The Giver than in most of your big sci-fi epics. For that reason The Giver is a movie that should be (but won’t be) seen by everyone.
Rated PG-13 for mature themes and sci-fi action violence.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
Guardians of the Galaxy ****
Short Take: Although it has a little too much razzle-dazzle and goes on longer than it should, Guardians of the Galaxy doesn’t take itself seriously and makes for an ideal summer moviegoing experience.
Reel Take: In the ongoing “war” between movies made by Marvel Comics and DC Comics, I’ll go for those made by Marvel every time. The primary reason for this is that the Marvel films don’t take themselves as seriously which is rather ironic as it was Heath Ledger’s Joker in DC’s The Dark Knight who famously said “Why so serious?”
Guardians of the Galaxy continues the tradition of Marvel’s The Avengers and subsequent sequels by providing top notch entertainment with liberal doses of humor (and not of the pitch black variety). Like the other movies in this genre, it contains a little too much razzle-dazzle and goes on longer than it should but that can be forgiven considering how good it is.
The plot is a complex one for the uninitiated involving multiple characters including two villains to go along with our 5 “superheroes” as well as several different planets and their respective civilizations. The streamlined version is as follows. In order to save an Earth like planet (headed up by Glenn Close) from annihilation, 5 unlikely characters must come together to defeat a super-villain who, so far, has been indestructible.
These 5 characters are an Earthman abducted as a child (Chris Pratt), the daughter of the principal villain (Zoe Saldana), a genetically altered raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper), a living tree named Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), and an escaped prisoner (Dave Bautista) bent on revenge for the murder of his family. The principal villain, Ronan (Lee Pace), is made to look and sound as much like James Earl Jones as possible.
Guardians moves from one large set piece to another starting with Peter Quill’s abduction from Earth. Years later he steals an orb that everybody seems to want and despite numerous attempts to steal it, he manages to hang on to it. This brings him into contact with the other 4 members and they all wind up in an intergalactic prison. After a protracted escape, they face the film’s principal villain in a spectacular showdown and finally defeat him. They then decide to join forces as G.o.t.G.
As I mentioned earlier, the special effects and CGI are marvelous and are obviously geared for the 3D and IMAX audience but they do get a little wearisome after awhile. With ticket prices being what they are (especially 3D and IMAX tickets), the producers wanted to make sure you get your money’s worth and you certainly do but they could have scaled them back a little and the film’s overall running time, 121 minutes, could have been cut to around 105.
Those last two points are just a 60+ year old’s minor quibbles. Guardians of the Galaxy makes for ideal summer family fare and I’ll take it and other Marvel movies in the same vein over Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy any day.
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and for some language.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
The Hundred Foot Journey ****
Short Take: When an Indian family opens a restaurant in a small town in France, across the street from a Michelin star-rated restaurant, the flour flies.
REEL TAKE: Lasse Halstrom’s The Hundred-Foot Journey is one of two utterly delightful summer confections for the art house cinema scene this summer. The other is Magic in the Moonlight (see review on page 15). If Magic in the Moonlight is a champagne cocktail, The Hundred-Foot Journey is the petit fours of films this summer. Based on Richard C. Morais’ novel by the same name, it’s beautifully made, well acted and very charming. Halstrom, who directed the magical and playfully naughty Chocolat, is the perfect chef de cuisine for this simmering pot of goodness. The fact that it’s predictable and is not exactly a groundbreaking or important piece of filmmaking matters not.
The Hundred-Foot Journey tells the story of the Kadam family who, after losing loved ones in political violence in Mumbai, immigrate to Europe, seeking the right place to settle down and rebuild their restaurant in their adopted home. Eventually they settle in a lovely little town in the south of France. When Papa Kadam (Om Puri) purchases a dilapidated building across the street from the stately Le Saule Pleureura he has no idea of the battle royale to ensue.
Le Saule Pleureura is an haute cuisine establishment and is run by the imperialistic and meticulous Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren). Madame doesn’t take kindly to little India moving in across the street and gastronomic and cultural clashes ensue. However, when Papa Kadam’s son Hassan (Manish Dayal) displays culinary genius and an interest in French cuisine and Madame’s lovely young sous chef (Charlotte Le Bon), get ready for Michelin star-rated romance and fun.
Cultural acceptance is an important by-product of the story, but it is secondary to the sparring between Mirren and Puri, the chemistry between Dayal and Le Bon, and the sumptuous feast for the eyes. But then again, that’s the unifying power of food, the magic of spice and the connectivity of breaking bread.
Puri is a delight. Mirren is a tour de force, as always, Le Bon is lovely and Daynal is a charming revelation. They play well as an ensemble. With the exception of one misstep regarding Hannan’s meteoric rise to super chefdom, the pacing is excellent. Those who liked Chocolat in 2000 and Chef earlier this summer will surely want to take The Hundred-Foot Journey.
Rated PG for thematic elements, some violence, language and brief sensuality.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Magic in the Moonlight **** ½
Short Take: A 1920’s British illusionist, pessimist and all round curmudgeon sets out to debunk a lovely, young American spiritualist and ends up believing in more than just himself.
REEL TAKE: Woody Allen’s Magic in the Moonlight is a delightful dalliance in the 1920’s Cote d’Azur countryside replete with witty repartee, fabulous costumes, amazing music and some very fun shenanigans. Watching it one could not help but think how much fun they must have had filming it.
Colin Firth is Stanley Crawford, the stuffy British magician and illusionist behind his alter ego Wei Ling Soo. A master of illusion, Crawford believes in little, certainly not magic, the occult or a divine entity. When friend and fellow illusionist Howard Burkan (Simon McBurney) solicits his help in debunking a young spiritualist that he thinks is fleecing a wealthy American widow, Stanley is on the case. This is right up his alley and helps to fortify his rigid beliefs, or lack of beliefs, and his general view of the world.
Welcomed as a guest at the home of the Catledge family, Stanley gleefully sets out to expose the lovely Sophie Baker (Emma Stone) as a fraud. Mrs. Catledge (Jacki Weaver) has committed to fund an institute for the occult with Sophie at the helm. Sophie’s always hovering stage mom-like mother (Marcia Gay Harden) sticks close to the flighty matriarch to keep their goal in her sites. Meanwhile the ukulele-playing heir apparent (Hamish Linklater) of the Catledge family fortune has fallen head over heals for Sophie and serenades her at his every opportunity. Very predictably, though not disappointingly, Stanley’s plans go awry. Instead young Sophie turns the staunch pragmatist’s faithless world on its ear.
Magic in the Moonlight is not nearly as magical as Allen’s Midnight in Paris, but it is a charming throwback to another era (for my money a most lovely time and way of life). Even the fast paced dialogue, and especially Firth’s slightly stagy delivery of it, harkens back to films from the 1930’s or 40’s. It struck me that this must be Allen’s perfect dream world.
With that all said I am quite perplexed by the greatly divided [and mostly negative] reviews for Magic in the Moonlight. At press time it only had a 48% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Audiences gave it slightly higher rating at 58%, which was also surprising to me. (There is a bit of a twist to the story that may not sit well with some folks, but to speak of it would spoil the fun.) I’d like to think that the good Professor Kaufmann and I help steer people towards quality movies that they are going to enjoy or at least appreciate. This isn’t the first time we’ve differed with the over all critical consensus and it won’t likely be the last time. Perhaps it’s because the good professor and I are each a bit of a throwback to another era.
For me Magic in the Moonlight was an effervescent trifle and a lovely escape for an hour and a half. I hope it will be for you too.
Rated PG-13 for a brief suggested comment and smoking throughout.
Review by Michelle Keenan