5/10 - Patricia Rozema's Into the Forest is just fine as a film, but really does nothing for me. It just felt cold and unwelcoming as a film and one that seemed to try and instill some sort of allegory, but wound up just being a relatively straight forward post-apocalyptic film with a statement about our dependence on technology. Of course, the funny part is that while Rozema tries to critique our use of technology, she has the characters resort to books to survive. That is fine, but certainly seems to defeat the point of naturalism since it is not their own ingenuity.

That said, Into the Forest is quite funny for the first half of the film. The power goes out for a few days and there is no running water so the world turns into chaos where store employees pull guns on shoppers. I do not care what anybody says, that is hilarious. Humanity has descended into chaos merely by this super advanced technology failing. Oddly, the technology shown in the film is not currently available and the film seems to be occurring in the modern day, but I guess not.

One of the film's biggest faults is its characters. Both Nell (Ellen Page) and Eva (Evan Rachel Wood) really get no development. They just walk around the home, adjust to living without technology, and fight with each other about how to use the gas. This one of the film's biggest faults and why it often leaves you disconnected. Though I thought Evan Rachel Wood was terrific (especially during and after the harrowing rape scene), Ellen Page was so disconnected. As she was mostly the lead, this really hurt the film. Her character never gets any development and I have no idea who she is, other than she was studying about amnesia before her SAT's (is Ellen Page really still playing high schoolers? Since when is amnesia on the SAT?). Her character's only individual action is to be a whiny baby early in the movie and then a responsible one later, as if she just woke up one day and decided to be a grown up. Oddly, Eva's character does the exact opposite and is mature one day and a wreck because she cannot listen to music the next.

The film is also incredibly politically charged, which really seems to hold it back more. Articulating the battle between technology and naturalism, Into the Forest certainly seems like it tries to be symbolic about how we have to cut our dependence on technology. Yet, the characters solve their problems by reading and then just copying stuff from the books. Seems as though that's a problem solved, no? If technology dies, just go raid the library for books about how to gut animals, right? Based on the movie, that does seem to be the answer.

In other political arenas, Into the Forest seems to try and make a comment on rape culture in America. Yet, the scene does nothing for the film. It just serves to have some weirdo male character from earlier in the film come back and rape one of the characters. I guess the comment there is that if you are weird, you are probably a rapist. In terms of abortion, this is even comes up in the film and Rozema does not shy away from proclaiming her pro-life stance. That is no problem with me, but I did not need this political element in the film. Just have her keep the baby, no need to bring up abortion.

Yet, after all of this complaining, Into the Forest is not that bad. Occasionally thrilling, Into the Forest - when it is focused - is a riveting look at how we would cope with the loss of all infrastructure in an instant. From the paranoia to the rumors to the desperate attempts at survival, Into the Forest is a quality post-apocalyptic film in this arena. Though unoriginal, it is still intriguing enough on its own in this area to stand on its own two feet.

Overall, Into the Forest is an emotionally distant, unfocused, and politically charged post-apocalyptic thriller. When it focuses on its genre though, Into the Forest can often embody the very best of the narrative potential found in the post-apocalyptic world.



4/10 - I have seen far worse films than The Sea of Trees. Honestly, its harsh reaction at Cannes in 2015 feels as though it was quite unfair. Make no mistake, the film is not great. However, there are great elements within its mess of a story and the film is hardly worth laughing at. That said, the Cannes audience can be quite harsh and the film's sentimentality is certainly for everyone. While predictable, The Sea of Trees can be a moving tearjerker at times, but only when it really wants to be. Otherwise, it is a film that can seriously drag at times with incredible tonal shifts.

Jumping from suicide introspective to survival film to relationship drama to a heart warming and sentimental conclusion, The Sea of Trees struggles most often when in the forest. Traveling to the "Suicide Forest" in Japan, Arthur Brennan (Matthew McConaughey) is a heartbroken and depressed man who meets another man, Takumi Nakamura (Ken Watanabe) just as he is set to kill himself. What follows is the duo trying to get out of the forest with flashbacks to Arthur's life with his wife, Joan (Naomi Watts). It is in these flashbacks that the film truly delivers on its promise of being a thoroughly emotional film.

With a great relationship created between Arthur and Joan, director Gus Van Sant knows how to pull on the audience's heart strings. Though his approach is often obvious and predictable (the ambulance sequence), the film could work as a sentimental look at love and loss. However, Van Sant becomes obsessed with the forest. Though the forest is always lovingly shot by cinematographer Kasper Tuxen, there is not much of a story here. The survival element is silly and merely distracts from what the rest of the film is trying to accomplish. McConaughey and Watanabe just limp around the forest moaning in pain with very little to do and, as such, the film suffers greatly.

That said, one of the best moments does come in the forest when Arthur talks about his relationship with Joan, both the highs, the lows, and why he is in the forest. Here, the film finds it emotional power with McConaughey's great delivery of this monologue. From there on out, the film really turns into the emotional drama it should have been, though the punches it does throw are quite obvious. If you watch the film, you should have an idea by the 100th time Watanabe's character mentions the spirits in the forest. It is as if the film does not trust its audience to get it, so it starts laying the bread crumbs (heh) along the way to help lead you home.

This is why it is so unfortunate that the film itself gets lost in the forest. The forest, while interesting for a suicide drama, is not the focus in any world. The real dramatic juice comes from Arthur and Joan's relationship and that should have been the focus with flash forwards to Arthur in the forest with Takumi. Or, at the very least, not have them be lost in the forest, getting hurt, and struggling to get out. If Van Sant insisted on going in that direction, then it needed to be a straight forward survival drama where these two men learn they do want to live with no flashbacks. In other words, there were far better options than what we got, which is far too little of the flashbacks and far too much of the forest.

Now, what makes the flashbacks so great? Well, the film really instills them with an odd sort of warmth. Though what it shows can be quite the opposite, the flashbacks have a feeling that is unique within the film and capture the sentimentality the film wishes to imbue upon the audience. Essentially, it is this sentimentality for those near you whom you love and care about, even if things are not always great. The Sea of Trees captures this perfectly and is why these sequences work so well for the film.

Unfortunately, these scenes not plentiful enough. Instead, we get a film that jumps all over the place getting to its ending, drags heavily in the middle, and takes too long to get to the point. It is an unfortunate that this one wasted Watanabe entirely in a meaningless role and wasted good performances from McConaughey and Watts. As it stands, The Sea of Trees is not boo or laugh worthy, it is solely disappointment worthy given its promising cast, director, and positive elements.



9/10 - SPOILERS

It is official. Denis Villeneuve is my favorite working director. This could change, but my Lord is Arrival brilliant. Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, and now Arrival are all some of the best films of this decade - no, century - and each has an indelible respect for the audience. It trusts that we will follow along as Villeneuve spins a web that, though it may not make sense initially, will craft a gorgeous vignette of some element of existence. Arrival is most certainly a part of this collection now and is one of the best science fiction films in a while with stunning visuals, chill-inducing brilliance, and incredible performances.

Admittedly, however, Arrival missed the mark for the first half or so. It seemed so different. So unique. Nothing truly made sense from the opening with this daughter that seems out of place for the film I expected to receive, plus the weird narration scene by Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner). It just seemed so haphazardly put together that it seemed wholly indigestible. However, after this halfway point, the film is pure brilliance. Even better, it opens up the world of the first half to the point that you realize that - even if the narration is still a moment that I cannot wrap my head around - everything else adds up. In this second half, Arrival soars with the grace and beauty previously only experienced by eagles.

A confusing, nonlinear film, Arrival follows Louise Banks (Amy Adams), the country's best linguist in the aftermath of the arrival of extraterrestrials. In the interest of determining their purpose, Louise is tasked with cracking the code of the heptapods (the aliens). What transpires is film that can often mirror Dances with Wolves in its respect for language (Close Encounters of the Third Kind as well to a degree for this) and Contact for its similarities regarding the military and its approach to, again, language. In many respects, Arrival is a science fiction film, but it is also a film about destiny, free-will, and the beauty of language.

Through language, worlds open up. One can weave a beautiful sentence that can move readers to tears. Others can craft a speech that sways people to believe one thing or the other. Language allows people to express feelings, emotions, thoughts, or simply converse with others. Language, as discussed in the film, is the foundation of a civilization. In many ways, it is the foundation of humanity. Arrival delves into this sheer beauty of language throughout the picture. Villeneuve brilliantly allows this elegance to take centerstage with long drawn out sequences of nothing but communication between Louise and the heptapods.

Yet, the film hardly stops there. Through showing the possibilities the language of the heptapods can reveal, Arrival hits a peak. Once we learn that the heptapods language allows the speaker to see the future, Arrival's philosophical explorations really take hold. This is the part where many will be lost and why I am skeptical as to film's acceptance amongst general audiences. However, the film's nonlinear storytelling is incredibly revealing and really works. Through the nonlinear storytelling, we know the end of Louise's story. We do not know that we know this, but by the end, it is clear what her future is. Louise knows it and though she keeps it to herself in the present, we know the future is something that is simulatenously her past. It is already a part of her and one she cannot escape. However, it is clear she does not wish to escape her future. It is one filled with challenges, but filled with equal joy and love. Films have previously discussed the concepts of free-will and destiny (hell, Oedipus did this in the BC's) and yet, Arrival brings a warmth to the discussion. Though Louise may know her future, she chooses to head into it with no hesitation. Yes, it will bring her unspeakable pain and tragedy, but it will also bring sheer ecstasy. For Louise and many others, this is more than acceptable. However, Arrival does not hesitate to ask: If you know your future, would you try to change it? This is certainly a fallacy, as I believe Arrival showcases. The heptapods knew Louise's future. How? Because it already happened. There is no time, there is no free-will, there is only destiny. For the world of Arrival, the possibilities of the world are not endless. You are on a path and destined to complete this path.

Arrival often mirrors the language it discusses, not just the heptapods' language, though. Language, as Louise states frequently, can be messy and confusing. Yet, it opens doors to the world that were previously locked tight. This is very similar to the film as a whole, as it is a complex puzzle and my initial hesitation to the film's world was because I only received small pieces of a large puzzle. Once they started fitting together and the image became clearer, the film became a truly awe-inspiring, striking, and beautiful experience.

Given the current state of the country, Arrival is decidedly a film for the moment. At a time when we are most divided, we must unite and work together if we are to truly succeed. Not just in America, but globally. We live in a global world and things do not occur in a vacuum. Rather, they leave an indelible mark on the world and people that surround us. Through his work of art, Villeneuve calls for the world to become one unit and work together to solve the problems before us. Here, it is the the arrival of extraterrestrials. In the real world, it is the environment, racism, intolerance, and violence. This is what makes the film's climax - Louise calling General Shang (Tzi Ma) in China - so poignant. The film leaves it in Mandarin with no translation, but per the screenwriter, it translates to, "War does not make winners, only Widows". For the film, this causes the General to back down from attacking the aliens. For ours, it is a call for union. To lay down your arms, your bombs, your hate, your anger, and your contempt for one another. It is a call to realize that this violence solves nothing, it solely creates the same concoction of emotions that led to it originally.

Arrival is one of the most poignant films of the year and yet another truly brilliant addition to Denis Villeneuve's filmography. If somebody else's works since 2010 matches his level of output, I would love for somebody to tell me who they are so I can immediately sit down and watch their films.



8/10 - The third feature film from Jeremy Saulnier, Green Room cements his status as one of the bright young talents in cinema. His second feature, and most notable until now, Blue Ruin was a tremendously brutal and suspenseful thriller. Green Room is pretty much the same deal, just shrouded in green and far more of a contained thriller than his previous effort. Starring Anton Yelchin, Imogen Potts, and Patrick Stewart, Green Room is a thriller about a punk band that witnesses a brutal murder while after performing for a group of neo-nazis. Now, they must escape while every neo-nazi in sight tries to keep them trapped.

In one of his final films released before his death (if not the final), Anton Yelchin is magnetic as Pat, the bassist of the band. As Amber, a girl who witnesses the murder, Imogen Potts is equally terrific. However, both pale in comparison to the performance of Patrick Stewart as Darcy, the leader of the neo-nazis. Ruthless, brutal, and quite sadistic, his Darcy is a fear-inducing character written with real menace by Saulnier. Stewart's performance is so captivating, he instills the viewer with fear even when he is off-screen.

In terms of his direction, Saulnier's Green Room is incredibly tight and focused. The film introduces very little in the way of subplots and even when it does, it reduces them to ash immediately. It is incredibly focused on the survival element at play here and every effort is poured into that area. In this area, Saulnier creates tension at every turn. Though the film is quite short, Saulnier is not afraid to take his time to create atmosphere and elicit tension through repeated sequences of uncertainty and attempted escapes. Unlike many thrillers/horror films, Green Room has no cheap thrills. Instead, they are well-earned.

Green Room is an incredibly violent picture with an unabashed love for boxcutters that has been unseen since 2014's Gone Girl. Ideally, Rosamund Pike and Imogen Potts are ushering in a new trend: blonde women with boxcutters. Just as in Blue Ruin, Saulnier is not afraid to get graphic, but he uses this violence well. It is not just violence for the sake of itself. Rather, it is violence that leaves the viewer in shock, regardless of whether it was expected or not.

However, one area in which the film can be improved is character development. Though incredibly tense, the film does very little to develop any of its characters, which kind of deprives the emotional impact of each individual's death to a degree. Plus, there are so many players in this film, it can be hard to keep track, especially when it comes to the neo-nazis. Additionally, though the film introduces neo-nazi characters, Saulnier never really uses it for any political symbolism. Sure, the punk band sings an anti-nazi song and makes a few comments about them, but it is hardly a major focus. While the film is an incredible thriller, it could have a more nuanced film with some kind of subtle statement about neo-nazis in modern day America, but that is just personal preference, I guess, so not really a criticism or a reason as to why this one is rated as it is.

As a whole, Green Room is a terrifically entertaining and intense thriller that is not shy about showing the audience casually brutal violence. Saulnier is one heck of a talent and his next work will be yet another must watch.



8/10 - A beautifully moving film, Moonlight certainly bears resemblances to Boyhood, one of the best films of 2014. Both show a main character grow up and undergo otherwise mundane experiences, but those experiences are things that leave an indelible mark on him for the rest of his life. Moonlight, however, is different in scope. It is a journey of self-discovery undertaken by a man who is decidedly "other". He is black and living in the inner city with a drug addict mother and a drug dealing man who looks after him a bit. He is - as he will discover - gay. This is tough as a whole, but especially in the hypermasculine environment in which he lives. For Chiron, life is a minefield and one he must navigate or simply be consumed by it, all while figuring out who he is and what he wants.

Barry Jenkins' film gracefully slides through Miami with Chiron and his life, while properly giving weight to each significant moment in his life. Jenkins let's the camera linger, while Chiron - never much of a talker - rarely ever says anything. This allows the moment to really land on the audience, which makes Moonlight a film that is entirely heartbreaking. From a bullied youngster who first experiences being called a "*****" to a teen who has his first gay experience while finally fighting back against the bullies to an adult who has become everything he once stood against, Moonlight is an enriching and tragic film.

However, Moonlight is equally a look at the black experience in America, particularly in the inner city. Chiron's father is gone. His mother, Paula (Naomie Harris), is a drug addict. The only people who show him any love are Juan (Mahershala Ali) and his girlfriend Teresa (Janelle Monae). However, Juan is a drug dealer and sells to Chiron's mother. Clearly, his life is far from neat. When introducing his sexuality, his relationship with Kevin is all the more complicated by both's need to display masculinity on the outside, which leads to them physically hurting one another often. There is a connection between them - highlighted by the brilliant acting of both's final version, Trevante Rhodes as Chiron and Andre Holland as Kevin - but it is not one that can be explored due to the barriers between them. The look Kevin gives Chiron reveals all you need to know about how they feel about one another. Yet, it is hardly an option for either due to the need to look tough.

In all areas, Jenkins' script is phenomenal. Truly nuanced character development, which allows all characters to show growth and a variety of dimensions and faces they show to the world. However, one of the greatest accomplishments is Juan. Mahershala Ali is being mentioned for an Oscar nomination and he certainly deserves one, but the writing is equally good. A sensitive, yet hard nosed drug dealer, Juan helps out Chiron whenever his mom kicks him out. He defends him and opens his home to him, while acting as a father figure for this lost child. Yet, he is a drug dealer. In reality, Juan is a foreshadowing of what Chiron will become. This is incredibly tragic and certainly something Chiron is aware of by the end. He knows his life is not built to last due to dealing drugs, but he is there because he never knew who he was and could never figure it out, because of his own thoughts on how a black man from the inner city should act. Juan reveals a lot of this, merely through his interactions with a young Chiron, especially his solemn regret when Chiron calls him out for selling drugs to Chiron's mother. The similarities between the two (the doo-rag, the poor relationship with their mother, drug dealing, etc.) are numerous and often quite subtle. However, it reveals their connection and why they were drawn to one another.

Moonlight is also beautifully shot, essentially relying upon the light of the moon to give sequences at night this sort of magical glow. Each scene at night is obviously quite dark, but the faces of the actors are glistened with this sort of hazy glow that really defines the look of this film. And what a look it is. Moonlight is a beautifully shot film with tremendous lighting and this beauty equally matches the beauty of its journey.

A tale of self-discovery and losing yourself to your environment, Moonlight is a moving and tragic film that will stick in your mind for weeks to come. All of the acting is tremendous and to pick a standout performance would be far too difficult. Every actor brought an authentic quality to their role, which is fantastic to see given the tremendously written characters.



8/10 - Directed by Susanna White, Our Kind of Traitor received a largely mixed reception upon its release this past Summer, which is really too bad. Another adaptation of a John Le Carre novel, Our Kind of Traitor is the least of his recent adaptations (The Constant Gardener; Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; A Most Wanted Man), but still a high quality spy thriller. Starring Ewan McGregor as Perry, a professor who is unexpectedly approached with vital information on the Russian Mafia by gangster Dima (Stellan Skarsgard), the film is a slow building film, but one with a stellar pay-off.

As with all of the adaptations of Le Carre's novels, Our Kind of Traitor is incredibly precise. Its actions are slow and drawn out. This allows White to inject the film with incredible tension and, occasionally, a unique visual style. Throughout the film, much of the film has this very sleek, glowing look that establishes Our Kind of Traitor as both a good looking film and a decidedly modern one. At times, however, it can be extremely distracting. For example, there is one scene in which McGregor is sitting and is overtaken by a bright orange lens flare that obscures our view of him. I can only hope that was unintentional.

Yet, even when that occurs, the film is incredibly well-written. Tense, deliberate, and with a ton of moving parts, Our Kind of Traitor is a Le Carre spy adaptation, through and through. It is very subtle and a lot happens that the film simply expects the audience to keep up with it. Fortunately, if you are paying attention, this is hardly a challenge and it is very rewarding to watch a film that trusts its audience to keep up and does not feel the need to spell everything out.

The acting in Our Kind of Traitor is also tremendous. McGregor is terrific in the lead role, as the unsuspecting and personally maligned college professor who gets thrown into international politics. Skarsgard, as the repentant and family-focused member of the Russian mafia, is boisterous and loud when needed, but equally solemn and subtle when things turn serious. The balance he strikes between these two personalities is quite compelling to watch and never a let down. As the stolid MI6 agent, Damian Lewis is pretty stereotypical, but brought a cold, calculating edge to the role that really made his performance incredibly captivating.

In a world of action spy films dominated by James Bond and Ethan Hunt, John Le Carre spy films are a breath of fresh air every time. Even if Our Kind of Traitor is not the best film of the recent bunch, it is still a terrific spy film that is thrilling, engaging, and smart. Even better, it respects its audience and trusts us to follow along with the complicated web it weaves. Our Kind of Traitor is simply my kind of film.