Continue reading ““The Post” Review”
Continue reading ““The Post” Review”
Continue reading ““The Greatest Showman” Review”
Continue reading ““The Darkest Hour” Review”
Continue reading ““The Meyerowitz Stories” Review”
Continue reading ““Murder on the Orient Express” Review”
Continue reading ““Buster’s Mal Heart” Review”
Movies such as The Promise can make history come alive in a way that no other medium can. I can still recall being bored out of my mind by junior high school history class until we were allowed to watch Glory and the American Civil War was now exciting and interesting. In a similar tone, The Promise will shake awake dreary students to how horrific and inhumane the Armenian Genocide of the Ottoman Empire truly was. As a historical piece about the horrors of a massacre, it’s solid film making. The soapy love triangle attached in the foreground, however, prevents the movie from being truly great.
At least the actors are not playing it like a soap opera. Oscar Isaac puts everything he has into the role of Mikael, an Armenian med student who has come to study in Constantinople. He could only afford to go to this school with the dowry of marrying a woman he’s not sure he truly loves. Those suspicions are confirmed when he meets the lovely Ana, an Armenian artist rose in Paris and played by Charlotte Le Bon. They hit it off right away and desperately long for each other, despite Mikael already being betrothed and Ana already married to her overly-emotional husband of a reporter Chris (Christian Bale). Considering that Mikael’s uncle offers to pay off the dowry and Chris is more occupied in the political tensions of the country than Ana, all the cards seem to be falling in place for the happy couple.
But then that pesky Armenian Genocide gets in their way. This is the aspect of the movie where it truly shines and not just because it takes us away from the dreary romance. There are some unforgettable shots where Mikael attempts to unlock a train full of Armenian prisoners and Chris watches helplessly as Turkish soldiers lead Armenians into the desert to be killed. I could feel the heartbreak when Mikael starts losing loved ones to executions and Chris is given the difficult choice of denying the genocide or being slaughtered by the Turkish government. Just when it seems as though the story has hit its stride, however, it continuously cuts away from the more powerful moments. There is a violent assault of Armenians defending themselves as they move up a mountain from pursuing Turkish forces, but the movie will quickly cut away to another scene just as the violence starts to become more brutal. Must the Armenian Genocide by PG-13?
It’s not that a romantic plot couldn’t be weaved into such a catastrophic event in history, but it’s not as strong with how the romance between Mikael and Ana is presented as a clashing element. There’s a very intense scene where the two of them are trying to fend for their lives in the streets of Constantinople, fighting off Turkish soldiers with their fists and cabbages. After finally finding a safe building in town, while people are still being beaten and businesses are still being destroyed, the two laugh about throwing cabbages at Turkish soldiers that wanted to beat them to death. With the levity established, they have passionate and loving sex…while Armenians are still being beaten in the streets just outside their window.
It’s so hard to recommend a movie like The Promise which favors more of its lame romantic triangle than the more interesting historical aspects. If you can overlook the overly dramatic, and sometimes out of place romantic tone for such material, this film can be a raw and sobering experience of how 1.5 million people were wiped off the face of the Earth. But, again, there’s an awful lot of dreary longing, gazing and smooching to look past. Of all the characters, I found myself most interested in Christian Bale’s character as he seems to be the only one more concerned about this atrocity than who is currently sleeping with his wife. His story on its own is far more intriguing than finding out if Mikael will ever confess his true feelings to Ana.
I wanted to enjoy Unforgettable for the trashy thriller it aimed to be. I really did. I knew this entire plot was going to lead into some ludicrous climax of Rosario Dawson duking it out with Katherine Heigl, wielding knives and fireplace pokers at they smash each other into glass. But my heart was broken to discover that director Denise Di Novi attempted to make a thriller that genuinely took itself seriously in its first act before launching off the rails in the second. And when the train finally crashes, it’s more disappointing than amusing to watch the ensuing cat fight. I never thought I’d find myself being saddened by actors being so good.
To my great surprise, both Dawson and Heigl are far too great for such a bad a movie. Dawson is always a likable presence and does a magnificent job at trying to embody the chipper and anxious Julia, a woman who wants to marry her boyfriend David and become closer to his daughter. Heigl is absolutely brilliant as the wicked ex-wife that goes quietly crazy for the woman stealing away her family. They’re not exactly deep characters that slowly reveal their intentions over time, especially how the movie begins with Dawson already bloody and accused of murder, but they do their best to make lemonade from coal.
For the first half of the picture, I was starting to genuinely enjoy the mind games of Heigl’s character messing with Dawson. She sets up fake Facebook accounts to speak with Dawson’s stalker, steals jewelry from her house and attempts to stir up controversy. The problem is that I watched with dread for the inevitable trashy conclusion. The point of no return happens around the second act where Dawson has wild sex with her boyfriend in the bathroom while Heigl masturbates to sex chatting with Dawson’s stalker. Whatever modicum of feasibility there may have been for this scenario is gone by this point and we’re just watching the movie attempt to go into trashy mode.
Now, I don’t mind if Unforgettable wants to be a trashy thriller where Dawson and Heigl sprint towards the inevitable bloody cat fight, but I do when the talent involved is too good for such a script. Dawson delivers a stellar performance for how little he is given and this may be the best role for Heigl I’ve seen in a decade. It’s a movie that has the ingredients for making something provocatively sexy and vicious, but seems to up with the usual Fatal Attraction style affair. This made the ride towards the inevitable showdown more depressing than exciting as the silliness and violence mounts. And what of the husband and the daughter? Mere props for the savage antics of Dawson and Heigl. The husband does little more than excuse any strange or sociopathic behavior, while the daughter can do little more than smile for montages, look sad for uncomfortable moments and shout “mommy” whenever in danger.
Is it wrong to wish that a bad movie such as this could be worse, if only to be so crazy enough to recommend as wine party entertainment? The movie seems to balance between a tough situation of toxic love and an over-the-top thriller of off the rails writing. Despite the film’s best efforts to go full trashy by the end, including a shocking stinger of a possible sequel, it never reaches such heights. I’m thankful that the movie at least has such a generic title that it will quickly be forgotten in the sea of third-rate thrillers.
I will give the movie credit in that it does aim for a higher goal than most dog-centric movie, seeking a more philosophical angle. The story is told entirely from the point of view of the dog Toby and, surprisingly, his thoughts are not all about food and fetch. One of his very first thoughts, voiced by Josh Gad, seems to be about contemplating his purpose in life. That’s quite the question for a puppy to pose. I thought all dogs pondered about was where the food was and which smell is where. Could this dog really be more of a philosopher than another brainless pup? Don’t worry, kids; Toby’s not above knocking over dinner tables, eating hot dogs off the ground and farting loudly in the car.
Despite a stumbling start to life, Toby falls for his child owner Ethan instantly, forming the basis for the classic tale of a boy and his dog. Based in a 1950s rural community, it’s that familiar flavor of midwest mundanity where racial concerns and space race are mere background elements to the more immediate issues of Ethan making the football team and Toby causing a mess of a dinner with the boss. I will give the dinner scene some credit for its unfunny aftermath. The scene itself is portrayed with the expected amount of slapstick and silly music, but follows with the father becoming a bitter alcoholic about not being able to work closer to home. It isn’t long before dad goes bad and starts beating his wife, leaving Ethan to defend himself while Toby barks at the wife beater. But was it Toby who drove him to this point? Something to ponder for the obligatory noble segment where the dog pulls Ethan out of a burning building.
Just when I think the film has settled into its Homeward Bound style of soft drama, the plot reaches the moment early where Toby must pass on from this world. Surrounded by his family, including a college-bound Ethan, he passes away into the next life, which happens to be the life of another dog. Now reincarnated into a different dog, and a different movie, Toby becomes a German Shepherd police dog that works with a bitter cop. Shot on the job, Toby then becomes a Corgi and then helps a woman go from a binge-eating college student to wife/mother. One death later, Toby is a St. Bernard-Australian Shepherd mix and abandoned by abusive owners.
And by now I’ve lost all interest in whether or not Toby will ever find his master Ethan. Sure, Ethan’s time on Earth is limited where as Toby receives apparently unlimited tries to reincarnate, but what will happen if Ethan dies before Toby serves his purpose? Will he continue to reincarnate and find someone else to bring joy towards? Or will he go to hell or purgatory or something? What is at stake here?
Why am I asking such questions? I shouldn’t be. This is mostly a soapy dog movie for the easily-weepy to push out some tears at dogs dying and giggle when they topple over tables. I could buy that just fine as meaningless fluff, but this whole element of a dog trying to find his purpose in life is too meaty of a plot for this picture to handle.
In the rather low expectations of the dog movie subgenre, A Dog’s Purpose tries to add in a Terrance Malik angle to its rather simple story of a dog that warms hearts. There’s no philosophical treat at the end of this furry journey, as Toby’s hypothesis for life is nothing all that special. I couldn’t help but think of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life’s ultimate answer to the big question: Be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. That answer was intended to be humorous for being so obvious and underwhelming, but Toby delivers this statement as if it is an emotionally-moving revelation. And I’m sure it would be, if I were a dog. Too bad I’m not as amazed by the simplicity of catching a ball, the easy sadness of spending a night in the shed or the fun of knocking over dinner tables. Maybe then I wouldn’t question why a dog needs to question existence itself, in between farting loudly and wrecking dad’s dinner party.
To make such a scenario more dramatic and riveting than it really is, the movie does its best to present good-natured Christian protagonists and misguided atheist villains. Grace (Melissa Joan Hart) is a high school history teacher that is portrayed as a sweet and innocent woman who cares for her ill father as any good Christian would. She finds herself quoting scripture in the classroom when a student asks of the correlation between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jesus Christ. Such talk stirs up the “free thinker” parents that are appalled by Christianity in a public school. The administration wants Grace to apologize, but she refuses and the trial is on for the right to talk about Jesus in school, gaining enough traction to become national news.
Representing the prosecution is an ACLU attorney played by Ray Wise, a fitting bit of casting considering he once played the devil on TV’s Reaper. Playing such a sinister character, Wise has the honor of reading the line “We will prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that God is dead” with that wicked smile he does so well. The movie does improve slightly over the previous movie where the central antagonist of a college professor that challenges Christianity is actually a closeted Christian himself. The ACLU attorney is fully committed to being the evil atheist that will destroy God, one courtroom case at a time.
Representing the defense is the good looking Jesse Metcalfe, but, wait, he’s an agnostic! Think of him more or less as the straight man in this rather strange tale of the crisis of Middle Americans. He doesn’t so much want to make a case for Christ in the classroom as much as he wants to prove that Grace wasn’t malicious or preachy in her citing of scripture. There’s a twinge of hope for this court case when he states that he will not be putting Christianity on trial, but this is of course a lie. This is made abundantly clear when J. Warner Wallace, writer of the forensically based religious book Cold Case Christ, is called to the stand. To be fair, Wallace does have some interesting things to say about Christ in his findings, but it feels out of place for this movie. It is a little hilarious to believe that Christians could call upon Wallace for any case where someone cites Christ in the class or quotes scripture in a government building.
Also similar to the previous film is the subplots of Christian-themed stories that surround the case. A Chinese student quarrels with his dad about being a Christian, fulfilling some sort of diversity quota for these films as if to say “see, [insert non-white race] can be Christians, too.” I’m assuming the movie inserted this subplot in order to excuse a rather cringe-worthy scene where a white guy has to teach the black school principal about Martin Luther King. Other subplots include a reporter recovering from cancer and unsure of her devotion to Jesus. A little Christian rock music from a promoted Christian band does the trick. The most recognizable of returning characters is David A.R. White as Pastor Dave, a man that seems likable and silly for his many slapstick antics, but still views the central case as a war on faith. He views this event as a time to finally get serious and stop spilling his damn coffee with amusing results.
Director Harold Cronk has staged his clunky and choir-playing drama to be both a fear-mongering tale for Middle American Christians and a proclamation of faith fit for mom’s Facebook feed, urging others to Like if you believe God is not dead. It is a film built for rural Christians of quaint communities to feel as though there is urgency, a danger and a war that threatens everything about their faith. And I really don’t want to look down on movies about religion, but it’s hard not to with a franchise that props up Duck Dynasty as God’s must-watch TV.