Tuesday, 24 April 2018


As you know, I’m a big fan of old-fashioned spy films that focus on intelligent drama instead of action. For the most part, Beirut qualifies. And yet, something didn’t feel quite right.

Directed by Brad Anderson and written by Tony Gilroy (back in 1982), Beirut stars Jon Hamm as Mason Skiles, a former U.S. diplomat in Beirut who is called into service by the CIA when his old friend, Cal Riley (Mark Pellegrino), is kidnapped during the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. Rosamund Pike plays Sandy Crowder, the undercover CIA agent in charge of keeping Skiles safe in Beirut. The rest of the team trying to negotiate Riley’s release before he is forced to reveal all his secrets includes three state department officials: Donald Gaines (Dean Norris), Gary Ruzak (Shea Wigwam) and Frank Shalen (Larry Pine).

Skiles lost his wife in a terrorist attack in 1972 and has become a serious alcoholic. He really doesn’t want to be in Beirut and has no interest in playing by any rules. But he’s a master negotiator and poker player and the kidnappers have specifically asked for him to handle the ransom demands. Everyone thinks that this is because of his friendship with Riley but that turns out not to be the case. I won’t say more, other than that Israel’s Mossad plays a key role in the ransom negotiations.

The trailer for Beirut was viciously attacked by journalists for making the film look like another Hollywood film that stereotypes all Arabs/Muslims as uncivilized terrorists and has a white American saviour. This might have been a fair critique of the trailer, but it doesn’t do justice to the film, which is fairly nuanced, politically, and tries at least a little to humanize Arabs and terrorists while depicting the Mossad, and to some extent the CIA, as the conniving duplicitous organizations they are. Nevertheless, it is true that Beirut doesn’t do near enough to provide a context for the war or to show the plight of the Lebanese people during that war. It doesn’t help that it was filmed in Tangier, Morocco and had little if any Lebanese involvement. 

On the positive side, Beirut is well-acted (Hamm and Pike are at their best), has great atmosphere, has an intelligent complex story that is well-written and directed and it isn’t too heavy on action (though perhaps a little more than I would like).

So I am going to give Beirut a light ***+, acknowledging that spy films today should try harder to be fair to their settings. My mug is up.

Sunday, 22 April 2018

Isle of Dogs

Wes Anderson’s last two films (The Grand Budapest Hotel, Moonrise Kingdom) both made my top ten lists in their respective years, so I didn’t wait long to catch his latest film on the big screen. While I wouldn’t say Isle of Dogs disappointed me, because I thoroughly enjoyed it, it won’t be making my top ten list for 2018. 

Isle of Dogs features beautiful stop-motion animation, which is an art form I hugely respect, but it’s true that I prefer non-animated films. Like all Anderson films, Isle of Dogs is so quirky it can’t easily be compared to other films. That uniqueness is what’s so lovable about Anderson’s films and I enjoyed Isle of Dogs all the more for it.

Isle of Dogs is set in a dystopian future Japan, where all dogs in Megasaki City have been exiled to Trash Island due to a mysterious illness carried only by dogs. A scientist states he is close to finding a cure for the disease, but the mayor of the city is determined to carry out his decree. A foreign exchange student (Tracy Walker) suspects a conspiracy and begins to investigate.

Meanwhile, the plot follows the adventures of a young boy named Atari Kobayashi (the mayor’s nephew and ward) as he flies to Trash Island to hunt for his dog, Spots, which was the first dog to be exiled. Atari is assisted in his quest by five dogs who rescued him when his plane crashed on the island. Lots of craziness ensues. 

One of the things that makes Isle of Dogs special is the terrific cast, which includes Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Greta Gerwig, Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, F. Murray Abraham, Harvey Keitel and many more, including Japanese actors Koyu Rankin, Kunichi Nomura, Akira Takayama and Akira Ito. I won’t bother to identify who plays whom. The humans in the film (except for Walker, played by Gerwig) speak Japanese (often with no subtitles), while the dogs speak English. Like I said, It’s not like anything you’ve seen before.

Besides being well-acted, Isle of Dogs is very intelligently written, with some hilarious dry humour and lots of imagination. Most of the film is engaging and fun, but there are two key problems that keep the film from receiving ****. The first of these is the film’s lack of ‘soul’, a word used by a certain daughter of mine, who asked to remain nameless lest she be denounced by rabid Anderson fans. To elaborate, my daughter claims that the characters and dialogue in Isle of Dogs (as in all Anderson films) lack emotional depth. I understand what she means and tend to agree, though I don’t feel as strongly about this as she does.

My biggest complaint is that too many scenes in Isle of Dogs felt superfluous to me, offering opportunities to show off the aesthetics while not adding anything vital to the story. This made the film needlessly disjointed and a little too long. So Isle of Dogs gets a solid ***+. My mug is up. 

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Indian Horse

Due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to see Indian Horse when it played at the Edmonton International Film Festival last October. Having finally seen it this week (it was just released in Winnipeg), I deeply regret having missed it - not because it was a fantastic film (though I thought it was very good), but because I would have been promoting it in advance so that every Canadian reading this review would not miss the chance to watch Indian Horse on the big screen.

The big screen is for the cinematography, which is gorgeous throughout - from the opening scenes in the Northern Ontario wilderness to the shots inside the residential school and on the hockey rinks. But the big screen is also to take advantage of watching this hugely important film as soon as you possibly can and telling all your friends to do the same. 

Indian Horse is based on the 2012 novel by Richard Wagamese, who died last year (while the film was in production). It tells the story of an Ojibwe boy named Saul Indian Horse from when he loses his family in 1959 and ends up in a residential school to some twenty years later when he is in a treatment program. 

The film begins with Saul’s grandmother trying to hide the six-year-old Saul (played by Sladen Peltier) from the authorities. She knows what will happen to him at the residential school and is determined to keep him out. But when Saul’s brother dies of an illness and his parents (Christians because of a Catholic residential school) take the body away for a proper Christian burial, Saul and his grandmother must go it alone in the middle of the wilderness. An accident on the river leaves Saul by himself until he is picked up and taken to a Catholic residential school in Northern Ontario.

At the school, Saul learns quickly that the goal of his education is to remove his Indigenous language, spirituality and cultural traditions and assimilate him into a white Christian culture. Those students who fail to comply with the nuns’ strict demands are severely punished, from the strap to being put into a small cage in the dark damp basement, leading to desperate attempts at escape, including taking one’s own life.

But a priest named Father Gaston (Michael Huisman) takes an interest in Saul and introduces him to hockey on TV. Saul immediately falls in love with the sport. Getting out of bed before anyone else is up, he practices hockey on the school's small ice rink, using frozen horse dung as pucks and skates that are far too big on him. With TV hockey as his teacher, Saul quickly becomes the best player at the school. This will change his life, as opportunities arise that will take him away from the school to a small mining town and then Toronto and even give him a few years of happiness in a loving family environment (by now, Saul is a teen and is played by Forrest Goodluck). 

Unfortunately, wherever Saul’s travels expose him to white people, he encounters racism, reminding of his days in the school. Eventually, these encounters will lead him to a rage he can’t control and his life will begin its downward spiral (by now, Saul is a young adult, played by Ajuawak Kapashesit). 

For a small Canadian film, Indian Horse is an excellent film. The acting is a little uneven but most performances are solid, with the two actors playing the younger Saul standing out. The writing and direction (Dennis Foon and Stephen Campanelli) are also uneven but generally well done. The twist at the end of the film is a questionable choice, but forgivable.

The most important thing about Indian Horse is that it tells a story, in narrative form, that every Canadian needs to hear, and it tells the story well. That makes Indian Horse essential viewing for every Canadian reader. It also means that I feel compelled to give Indian Horse ****. The quality of the film may not warrant such a rating, but it is such an important film (in some ways groundbreaking), and a moving one, that it deserves no less. My mug is up!

Saturday, 14 April 2018

Paul, Apostle of Christ

The latest film from Affirm Films (Heaven is for Real, Risen) is Paul, Apostle of Christ, written and directed by Andrew Hyatt. Here's the link for my review at thirdway: http://thirdway.com/paul-apostle-christ/

There's a good film there somewhere, and it has a lot of good things to say, but it's far too heavy-handed in its theology and its use of theological language to be taken as seriously as the story deserves. It gets only a lukewarm ***. My mug is up, but keep your expectations in check.

Friday, 13 April 2018

A Quiet Place

This week’s box office champ is another one of those so-called horror films. I say ‘so-called’ because it doesn’t meet my criteria for horror films, but, from beginning to end, A Quiet Place does indeed have the feel of a pure horror film, so I won’t complain too much about using that genre. Of course, since I am not a fan of horror films, that horror feel doesn’t appeal to me. Nevertheless, this terrifying film is uniquely captivating, beginning with its opening scene of a deserted town in which the Abbott family is silently foraging for food and supplies.

It isn’t much of a spoiler (since it’s revealed in the first minutes of the film) to tell you that the world (of the very near future) has gone quiet. Not because of a plague that has wiped out humanity (as in last year’s similar film, It Comes at Night) or because of a nuclear winter, but because there are fast-moving big-eared monsters at large that kill anything which dares to make a sound. We don’t know how many people still survive on this quiet earth, where they have learned to live very quiet lives, because we only really get to see the one family. 

John Krasinski, who also directed and co-wrote A Quiet Place, stars as Lee Abbott, the husband and father, who is an engineer skilled in working with sounds and who is trying to find a way for his wife, Evelyn (real-life partner Emily Blunt), to give birth without alerting the ever-present monsters, and for their deaf teenage daughter, Regan (Millicent Simmons, who is deaf), to ‘hear’ the monsters’ approach. Their other child is 12-year-old Marcus, who lives in constant fear (as is only proper in such an environment).

The audience also lives in constant fear. And they can’t even eat popcorn to try to calm themselves because much of the film is so utterly silent that no one in my full theatre dared to eat or drink or cough or make any sound except on the few occasions when there was music or when the loud monsters came to call. It was a freaky experience, but one I appreciated - the sense of a full theatre of viewers holding their collective breath for 90 minutes is, I suppose, one of the appeals of horror films, but it rarely works for me. This experience did.

But what makes this ‘horror’ film uniquely watchable is the family dynamic. A Quiet Place is primarily the story of a family, albeit one caught in a unique situation. The way this family is presented, with well-developed characters and convincing relationships conveyed with little dialogue is a very satisfying film-watching experience, especially when you are sitting in constant fear. Add some excellent acting (especially by Blunt) and great cinematography and A Quiet Place gets a solid ***+. My mug is up, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Monday, 2 April 2018

The Party

I only needed to see ten seconds of the trailer to know this was one party I didn’t want to miss. This is my idea of good dark comedy (I knew that a B&W film called The Party just had to be dark). People dying, people cheating on each other, people screaming at each other, people pointing guns at each other. What fun!

Sally Potter has brought together the perfect cast for her film and they are uniformly excellent: Kristin Scott Thomas is Janet, the host of the party. She’s a politician (in London) who has just been appointed to an important position (it remains a mystery for a while), so she holds a party to celebrate. What could be more exciting and innocent? But then why is her husband, Bill (Timothy Spall), sitting in a chair in the middle of the living room, looking like his wife has just died? And why does Tom (Cillian Murphy) come without his wife, Marianne (Janet’s colleague), and then immediately hide himself in the bathroom and pull out a gun? And why does Janet’s cynical friend, April (Patricia Clarkson), continuously belittle her partner, Gottfried (Bruno Ganz), who calls himself a spiritual healer? And why are Martha (Cherry Jones) and Jinny (Emily Mortimer), who are a couple, fighting about Martha’s announcement that she is pregnant with three boys? For the answers, you’ll have to watch this delightful dark film yourself.

The Party is full of intelligent witty dialogue and brilliant social satire (with some things to discuss afterwards). Filming it in B&W (the cinematography is beautiful) was a great idea because it somehow both enhances the feel that we’re watching a stage play while making it something different. The Party is very short (71 minutes), which also works perfectly for a film like this. The only thing that keeps me from giving The Party four stars is the coldness and the lack of truly profound ideas. The Party gets a solid ***+. My mug is up.

Sunday, 1 April 2018

The Death of Stalin

I’d been looking forward to watching The Death of Stalin for months now, after reading a short review in October that made it sound very much like my kind of film: great acting, great dialogue, subtle intelligent humour, brilliant political satire. I guess in my mind I was thinking of that greatest of dark comedy political satires, Dr. Strangelove (my seventh-favourite film of all time). So, given the addition of rave reviews by my favourite critics, I admit my expectations were way too high. But even if I had heard nothing about the film, I think I would have come away disappointed.

Not that watching The Death of Stalin was a waste of time, or that the review I mentioned was inaccurate. On the contrary, everything I remember about what it said was accurate. It’s just that I found the film far too dark (and violent) to work for me as a dark comedy without far more intentional and ‘funny’ (to me) comedy. What I’m saying is hard to convey, so let me try saying it in a different way: By definition, dark comedies are ‘dark’ and often quite violent. If the comedy is hilarious and ‘in-your-face’ (e.g. Dr. Strangelove), a fair amount of violence can be excused by me in a dark comedy. But if too many jokes fall flat or if the comedy or satire is too subtle or if the drama overwhelms the comedy or if the characters are treated with too much disdain, then violence can quickly make me feel uncomfortable, limiting my enjoyment of the film.

This is what happened in The Death of Stalin, which tells the story (based on true events) of the power struggles in Moscow following Stalin’s death. The film’s primary actors include Steve Buscemi as Khrushchev (Party Head), Simon Russell Beale as Beria (head of the KGB), Michael Palin as Molotov (Foreign Minister), Jeffrey Tambor as Malenkov (Deputy General Secretary), Jason Isaacs as General Zhukov (head of the army), Olga Kurylenko as Maria (a pianist), Andrea Riseborough as Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana, and Rupert Friend as Stalin’s son, Vasily. 

Beria and Khrushchev are the primary schemers after Stalin’s death, while Malenkov temporarily takes Stalin’s place. But Khrushchev soon sees Beria as a rival and begins to plot Beria’s elimination, a plot that will require the support of the other leaders. Mayhem ensues. While the opportunity for insightful political satire is there, director Armando Iannucci and his fellow writers don’t make the satire overt and powerful enough (in relation to contemporary events) to justify the darkness of the story or the so-so humour of its comedy (bottom line: I didn’t laugh anywhere near enough for this to work for me). When I discovered that Iannucci is the creator of Veep, I understood part of my problem with the film, because my appreciation of Veep is limited by similar issues (not violence but language). 

Nevertheless, as I have already indicated, there is much to praise in The Death of Stalin (I agree with everything in the first paragraph), I enjoyed many of the scenes and all of the performances, and I am still inclined to let it slide over the line to ***+. My mug is up, but for me this is not the classic I was hoping for (and that many critics saw).