Ron Howard and true-life stories are a match made in heaven. Instead of reshaping the true and the real into fiction while adapting it to the innately fictional medium of film, Howard takes stories like this one—where a soccer team from Thailand gets trapped miles inside a cave when an unexpected rainstorm causes it to flood—and showcases what is already astonishing about the true story.
As a rule, I don't care for movie based on true stories. Ron Howard overcomes that rule.
He changes as little as he can. He doesn't push fake emotions. He doesn't add drama to the situation. He finds the subtle drama in the true moments and points a camera at it—highlighting the right moments in the right order to bring out the natural story arc and themes that are already there. And he hires actors who can show that nuance in a casual and honest way—like Viggo Mortensen and Colin Farrell, playing two British rescue divers who fly in to lend a hand. Later they recruit Joel Edgerton, and Tom Bateman, and together they make an unfathomable plan to swim the boys out before monsoon season floods the entire cave.
My memory of when this happened in real life is brief. I heard they were trapped, and that people were working to get them out. Then a few weeks later I heard they'd been rescued, and I wondered why it took so long. Now, to see exactly how impossible the situation really was, and how great a feat it was that they all survived, how hard everyone worked, even the entire concept of how they were rescued—it completely blew my mind. I was still reeling from the fact that each day of swimming to the boys and back was a 12-hour dive when they threw out the rescue plan as the only and best option, and I still can't quite wrap my mind around everything it entailed.
There were many instances that made me protest aloud because of how crazy it all sounded.
People who are capable and willing to do difficult things astonish me. And I guess that's a universal thing. We have stories with heroes in fiction who do the impossible for a noble cause all the time. Superheroes, though, have superpowers. The men who swam hours and hours through muddy water in narrow tunnels just to have a chance at saving a few people they never knew—they were normal human beings. They simply had the drive, the skills, and the will to put themselves at risk for a good result. They did a job, and they looked at it as a job. And the movie understands that. It doesn't make them out as superheroes. It shows their weakness, and the mundane aspects of their humanity, and then it shows them do heroic things—impossible things—and then (and this is what I loved most about the movie) it shows how their experience affects them.
The part that hit me the hardest was the first day they bring some of the boys out. The volunteers rush in and haul each kid away, leaving the diver alone and watching them go. Each actor they show do this has an incredible look on their face that tells of the physical and emotional gauntlet they had just come through, though they remained professional and stoic during the task. It absolutely broke my heart, and I love it because it wasn't shoved at me. Or slammed over my head. I just saw it. I know it was intentional, but the reservation of those moments is remarkable. Shown at a distance; not lingered on too long; or punctuated by overwrought music. You could almost think you're seeing something you're not meant to see.
What must it be like, to volunteer your skills, your time, and your very person to become the difference between life and death for another human?
Any director can have style and flair, but it takes a master to create art that leaves no fingerprints. Howard's hand is invisible in this film, yet we still see what he's pointing to. Through his deft and discreet craftmanship, and cast full of equally dedicated performances, we get a beautifully nuanced glimpse of real-life heroes, and from the comfort of our homes, experience the mountain of hardships they willingly faced down for the chance to achieve something good. I'm grateful for men like that, and for the artists who, through their invisibility, make them visible.
In October I got to the theater to see Venom (review), which I didn't care for but have no enmity towards either, and Bad Times at the El Royale (review), which rocketed up to be my #3 movie of the year!
I never got around to First Man, so that's my top priority now, and hopefully I'll have time to catch up before November's interesting movies get here. There aren't any absolute must-sees for me this month, but I wouldn't be surprised if I wound up seeing one or two.
What looks good to you? Happy November!
Bohemian Rhapsody
Nov 2nd; PG-13
Full disclosure, I'm not much a Queen fan particularly, but I am a fan of 70's/80's rock. I'm also a fan of Rami Malek (ever since Larry Crown) and word is that he's great in this. Word is also that the movie around him isn't so great, but I get a sneaky suspicion that expectations of this being an Oscar contender may have heightened the disappointment. Just the PG-13 rating is a good indicator that it wasn't exactly vying for a best pic nom. The trailer is very groovy and if the film is like that, I expect I'll get a kick out of it someday. I'd be there for the music mostly anyway.
Nutcracker and the Four Realms
Nov 2nd; PG
Twelve-year-old me would've been all over this. Now, if I ever sat down to watch it, it would be in the hope that it's so stupid and horrendously bad that I could just laugh at it for 2 hours. I actually want to see Keira Knightly embarrass herself with that pink hair and those eyebrows and that voice. Does that make me a bad person? I realize it's a movie for kids, but actually good kid movies are good adult movies too, and really, if they were serious about doing an updated twist on The Nutcracker, this is the absolute LAST way I'd want it done.
Prospect
Nov 2nd(limited); R
Coooool. Small budget scifi that still looks good; doesn't try to push the limit of what they can cohesively accomplish, but sticks to what makes all stories compelling: the human element. Character. That's what trailer makes it out to be, anyway, and I'd love to give it a watch. Scifi always seems to be best used as a catalyst for drama and conflict instead of being the main focus itself.
Overlord
Nov 9th; R
Now this is interesting. This is the J.J. Abrams-produced WWII zombie film that was originally meant to be a part of the Cloverfield Universe. (So they say.) But the Cloverfield part has been ditched. I suspected that choice was made after The Cloverfield Paradox got such a terrible reaction. Like they didn't have confidence in this movie's quality and didn't want to keep making bad Cloverfield movies. BUT, this movie's getting great reviews so far. I wanted to see it even before I saw the trailer, but after the trailer I didn't expect this good a reaction. I guess zombies and Nazis are a pretty fun combo!
The Girl in the Spider's Web
Nov 9th; R
I've never seen a Girl with a Dragon Tattoo film before, but this is the closest I've come to wanting to see one. If they keep on making these movie (I dunno how much source material there is) they won't have to bother with trying to make James Bond a girl. I guess these movies are much more mature and thriller-y than Bond, but this trailer definitely has that kind of appeal. Also I bet Claire Foy is awesome in it. AND I caught a glimpse of the young German actress who plays the deaf girl in Dark, and it's so cool seeing actors from Dark outside of that show, even if it small roles.
Outlaw King
Nov 9th; R
I watched the trailer and was still confused about who exactly the outlaw king is. Robert the Bruce? Either I'm bad at history or he was kinda obscure. But okay, I can dig it. Medieval, Scotland, war, kings, knights. Not huge on Chris Pine, but there's plenty of other people there too. And it's Netflix, so lazy afternoon watch it is!
Time Freak
Nov 9th; PG-13
Look y'all, Asa Butterfield and Sophie Turner are doing an About Time movie, but for kids! So, extra focus on the time-travel gimmick, more traditional and cliched romance, and cheaper comedy efforts. For some reason, I still wouldn't mind watching it.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Nov 16th; PG-13
Haha, can you imagine if they called this "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Crimes of Grindelwald"??? They should have. Just commit to it, ya know? Anyway, I watched the first one and enjoyed it so I guess I'm in for this too. I'm not super excited about it in any particular way, but I've never been a big Harry Potter person to begin with. I liked era setting, and the character of Newt, and Jude Law as Dumbledore should be neat. I never thought I'd say this but I think I'm going to miss Colin Farrell as the bad guy though.
Widows
Nov 16th; R
This one's got a cast on it! Wowee. But I don't understand what the plot is? Some ladies' criminal husbands are killed so they decide to pull of their next planned heist? Why? Did the bad guy guy murder them because they robbed him, so they decide that's the best way to get revenge, or...? If the impression I'm getting here is right I'm not sure I'd be able to pull for our (anti?)heroines, but I guess I'll keep an eye out. What a cast.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Nov 16th; R
The Coen Brothers have made a Netflix film. That's it, y'all. There's no going back now. Netflix allows for different types of movies, though, you know? This isn't the sort of flick people would be rushing to the theater to see, but because of Netflix it still got to be made -- without altering to be more appealing to the theater crowd -- and I'd be surprised right out of my boots if it isn't a good, fun, western time. An anthology film apparently, of several short films, all set in the wild west. I'm all the way on board!
The Clovehitch Killer
Nov 16th; NR
Charlie Plummer is doing a "My Neighbor is a Serial Killer" movie -- but even more dramatic, because it's not his neighbor he suspects, it's his father. This trope gets done quite a lot, but rarely as well and as real-life as it looks here, and after Lean on Pete I'll watch anything that kid tries his hand at, so I'm 1000% there for this movie. Seriously, the trailer looks great. Moody and intense... human drama over excessive thrills... coming of age elements... Plummer is probably great in it too, but what else is new?
Jonathan
Nov 16th; NR
Okay, so Ansel Elgort has dissociative personalities, one good one bad. The bad one's dating a girl, but then she breaks up with him to date the good one. Hahaha, well, I guess it's not a weird as cheating on one of the personalities. Wow I can't even keep a straight face typing this I bet the movie is golden I need to see this. Reviews so far skew positive though... so maybe it's genuinely decent, who knows. The trailer's definitely taking itself seriously. I'm not sure if I can.
Ralph Breaks the Internet
Nov 21st; PG
Oh hey. This actually looks good. For some reason I was expecting immediately obvious tragedy and downgrading but now I'm on the hook until the truth is revealed. It very well could still be tragedy. But they have a solid premise going that demands world expansion, and they're playing Rick Astley so they have to be a certain level of in the know concerning the pop culture they're going to be dealing with... idk... it might be good. If I ever feel like it's not, I probably will stay away though, because I kinda loved the first one.
Green Book
Nov 21st; PG-13
I tire easily of movies that purposefully take on the subject of racism, simply because they tend to serve to divide more than unite -- but judging from the trailer, this movie does the opposite of that, showcasing a positive side of things that can come through the negative, by focusing on the friendship between the two characters. This looks like a really good drama, with good performances and sleek, rich look. And they'll be piano music too I expect, so that'll be nice.
Robin Hood
Nov 21st; PG-13
You know that guy on YouTube who does trick and fast archery? Practical application and close-quarter stuff? This is a take on Robin Hood inspired by him I bet. I would be fairly surprised if it turned out to be critically praised or regarded flick, but that doesn't mean I'm not interesting in watching it. Quite the opposite. Robin Hood adaptations don't need to be exceptional pieces of film. It's action/adventure entertainment, and the sooner filmmakers understand this the sooner we can have an exceptionally fun Robin Hood movie. This may not be it -- but it could be. Taron Egerton and his fun screen presence will likely at least make it not a waste of time. And then there's Ben Mendelsohn and Jamie Foxx to consider.
Anna and the Apocalypse
Nov 30th(limited); R
IT'S A CHRISTMAS. ZOMBIE. MUSICAL!!! Oh my goodness. It's probably not going to be as good as I want it to be, but okay but that's only because my imagination is running wild right now, and there's no way it's not a little bit crazy fun. No way. With that combination, it'd be impossible to be outright bad. The trailer makes it look brilliant and like a blast. Actually even if it's bad it'd still be brilliant because its a brilliant idea. Wow, I'm totally hyped for the holiday season now.
Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee star in this subtly-scifi drama about a father and a son who are journeying through a freezing apocalyptic wasteland in pursuit of the one thing they have left: survival.
Nuclear fallout has killed all the animals and bugs, the plants and trees are dying and literally crumbling down around them, and humanity is all but gone. Sure, there are a few humans left, but most have lost their humanity. Suicide is only slightly more popular than cannibalism. The father is determined to protect his son as best he can, and grapples with the idea that someday the best protection he may be able to provide is to shoot him in the head with one of the two bullets remaining in his pistol.
This film is bleak. It's the epitome of the word. It started, and began explaining all of the above to me in Viggo's soft and dramatic voice-over, and when he was halfway done I thought there was no way in the world I was going to like where this movie goes. The journey might be well-told and beautifully, harrowingly shot, but it would be impossible to conclude and leave me happy. I thought that, but how wrong I was.
Bleak scifi films love to end further down than they start. This one breaks the tradition for exceptional results.
The Road is a journey through hopelessness toward the impossible goal of hope. Miraculously, it gets there; and impressively, it gets there realistically. Through every turn the movie ponders the natural questions that its extreme setting creates: In the most dour situations, does survival ever become worthless? Can inhumanity or immorality be forced on people by circumstance, or is it always a choice they make? Is it possible to live in a world of pure evil, and not fall into evil?
With every question that is subtly posed, it seems that cynicism and pessimism will win every time, but then truth pushes its way through and the father and son press on, unsoiled. They carry "the fire" inside them, they say, and it seems to drive them past hardships that no one else had the courage or will to overcome. The determination they display in such a bleak world is staggering and inspiring.
There's so much rich content to glean. I feel like I picked up on 60% of what's there.
On the more technical side, the movie is taut -- put together excellently with a strong tone and beautiful imagery. The pacing is slow but steady, and consistently edged with foreboding suspense. Performances are wonderful, particularly Viggo, who carries the movie almost completely alone, and expresses all his questions and worries and thoughts without exposition via dialogue. Kodi is also great; this is the youngest I've ever seen him, so he doesn't get quite as much to do, but is still impressive.
This is a hard-hitting movie in the best possible way, leaving you haunted and pondering its dark themes. It may disturb or depress by its vile setting and the darkness it explores, but is determined to uplift with its themes and character arcs. Every message it gives, and every conclusion it makes, is doggedly, admirably, beautifully hopeful. Against all odds, this bleak little film left me soaring.
In the 1960's, an older man (Viggo Mortensen) and his young wife (Kirsten Dunst) touring Greece make friends with a young tour guide (Oscar Isaac) who's also a small-time con man. And when trouble occurs, they all go on the run together. And as the trouble gets deeper and the tensions get higher, trust goes completely out the window.
The biggest problem with this movie is that Oscar's hair was straightened for a strange and unknown reason.
What we are left with is a low-key suspense thriller building slowly around these three characters, to a not shocking, high or vibrant peak, but to a peak nonetheless. The story is based on a novel, written in 1964 by Patricia Highsmith (author of Strangers on a Train, and The Talented Mr. Ripley), and I'd be very interested to know if it's considered an accurate adaptation. Particularly if it's faithful to the tone, because it's very different tonally. As a film, it's not as exciting as you'd expect a thriller to be, not mysterious enough to be just a mystery; too light for a hard character piece and too straightforward to be a straight up drama. It's a very unique mixture of all of these aforementioned genres, but not in a way that is readily appealing to the typical Netflix-browsing viewer. The people I watched it with didn't think of it too fondly.
It doesn't set very high goals for itself, but what goals it does set it then achieves flawlessly. I'm hardpressed to think of one single flaw in this movie, from any angle; but at the same time, its whole being is just not the quality of a flawless movie. That being said, it caught my attention effortlessly, and gliding along in it unpredictable way, held it while adding to my interest all the way till the end.
Cool 60's Aragorn is cool.
That probably had a lot to do with the actors. I'm not much of a fan of Kirsten Dunst usually, but her character here was different enough from her usual fare that I forgot about that for a while. And the two men, Viggo Mortensen and Oscar Isaac, are definitely on my list of favorites, and their performances were both quite involving. Mortensen does the complicated character actor bit, making a sharp and deep character that makes you forget that he's ever played some guy named Aragorn. And Isaac, who's a relatively new favorite of mine, impressing yet again with a character that has both the charm of the leading man, and the edge of something much more complex. All three actors find the right balance of getting you involved in their character, and leaving you in doubt of whether you should be.
That is something that could also be credited to the script, which seemed well-refined and was just complicated enough, or, perhaps even the original novel. The style of this movie is not so much in the plot or characters, but comes through mainly in the overall look. It all starts out light, and clean and brightly saturated, and as it progresses slowly get darker and dirtier. This effect was achieved in makeup, hair and costumes (I must mention that I loved the 60's style costumes) all the way through to lighting and filming. But the whole time the filming was and stayed quite elegant and pleasant to watch.
Blending in.
I would definitely recommend this film, but only for those who think they would enjoy a film like this. It's a psychological thriller, full of realistically complicated characters and their dilemmas, examining the way their minds work. But all in a way that is light. Mellow, but light. The "psychological" part simply makes you think about the characters and their motivations, and the "thriller" part just keeps you interested. Perhaps it should have been publicized in a more accurate way, but with The Two Faces of January, it seems the more accurate you are, the more complicated the description gets. I watched it for the actors, and found much enjoyment in it from more than just them. So, as to description, the simplest and easiest way for me to describe it is this: it is a good movie.
