The Handmaiden (*****)

THE HANDMAIDEN is a great film. It seems to glow with creativity and beauty with each new scene, and during the entirety of its over 2 hour run time I found myself entranced by a slow-churning mystery that left me once again excited by the craft a good movie can make appear so easy.

The film is a South Korean production helmed by director Chan-wook Park, known mostly in America as the director of 'Oldboy.' People often say that foreign films demonstrate a higher quality in comparison to the stuff of Hollywood; that stories are daring and the craft is not as pressured by executives who would rather turn a profit than make something truly substantial. Did they ever get it right.

The movie is a period piece that is lush in costumes and sets. Each new shot paints a picture on the screen that simply pulls one into the world of South Korea in the 1930's. The cinematography, a lush landscape of vibrant hues and meticulous staging, keeps us engaged as though by hypnotism. The story follows three people, each scheming in their own right, telling the audience information that might only be a passing thought in their mind. In the simplest form, the story is of a conman who hopes to rob a wealthy woman (Lady Hideko) of her inheritance by feigning love with her and posing as a Count. Once married, he will find her mentally unsound and throw her in a mental institution, leaving him to bask in a newfound fortune. In order to make the most of his plan, he sends a maid (another con artist named Sook-Hee) to infiltrate the Lady's home and gain information and insight into the mind of the woman.

The film opens with a scene of forgers and thieves who meet to hear the "Count's" plan. He runs a business of sorts, forging money, legal papers, and jewelry. He promises them a cut of the fortune assuming they can help pass himself off as a man of means. Sook-Hee, for her troubles, is promised $50,000 and a new wardrobe once Hideko is institutionalized. She is a simple girl, illiterate, but the prospects are insatiable.

In the night, she takes a car ride down the coastline to the estate of Lady Hideko, a grand estate built in two parts: one half designed as though an English mansion, and another half in traditional Japanese style. It's truly East meets West, and the blatant metaphor of clashing cultures and ideas only becomes more potent as the story progresses.

Lady Hideko lives on the estate with her elderly uncle, a man who uses an ink pen so fervently that his tongue is stained black. He is a collector of antique literature and texts which are entirely erotic in nature, and uses Hideko to recite the texts to potential buyers who frequent the mansion in hopes of bidding on what is essentially pornography. We learn about her past, raised by her Uncle in a disciplinarian manner, losing her aunt to a suicide as a child, and an eternal fear of ever leaving the confines of the estate. For Sook-Hee, the innocent maid come to spy on her, it might already seem like a mental institute is not too far off.

As these two women begin to know each other, they become friendly, with Hideko using Sook-Yee to model her clothes and confine dark secrets in the privacy of her room. Sook-Yee, who sees the potential wealth she will soon inherit, seems hypnotized by the beauty of her boss, and in some of the most beautiful moments of glances and gestures, we can see a dark romance forming between the two women.

The story is broken up into three parts, and to venture in even discussing the array of twists and turns would do no favors to the structure of the story, so expertly-written and brilliant that at any one time we may have flashbacks within flashbacks told simply to act as footnote to a line of dialogue or interpret the actions of a character. Never are we lost or in over our heads; this is a masterpiece of story and style. In fact, Part 2 nearly replays the entire first act of the film but through the perspective of an entirely different character. Scenes are repeated in their entirety and yet the insight we gain only leads towards understanding of the next moment, and the next...

The movie is based on an English crime novel called "Fingersmith," and we can see how this story could easily be (at first glance) a serial crime novel with a predictable plot. The story is tense at times and deeply erotic at others, showing these two women in moments of ultimate vulnerability and strength, sometimes in the same instance. I would expect many audience members to be offput by the graphic nature of several scenes, and yet I can do nothing but praise the artistic endeavors to use sex on film as a means to tell an emotional story.

The Academy Awards have created a shortlist of potential nominees for Best Foreign Film, a list that does not include 'The Handmaiden' (South Korea instead nominated a film called 'The Age of Shadows'). It's a shame that a movie as wonderful as this could be looked over, even if by technicality that a country needs to pick one film only to represent it. The soundtrack is haunting, the story compelling, the look is heavenly. I know I will see many more films as the Fall rolls along, and yet I know that when I come to make a list of my favorite films of the year, this is now the one to beat.

The Birth of a Nation (**)

The problem with THE BIRTH OF A NATION isn't the controversy surrounding the title, which it reclaims from the acclaimed 1915 silent film by DW Griffith. It also has nothing to do with the stigma surrounding the film's director Nate Parker and cowriter Jean McGianni Celestin, accused of raping a woman back in 1999. The simple fact of the matter, amidst a film festival circuit buzzing about Oscars for this little film, is that it is not that good.

This is described as being a passion project for first-time director Nate Parker (who also stars in the lead role of a slave named Nat Turner), who financed much of the film with his own money and worked tirelessly to bring the forgotten story of a rebellion to the big screen. Based on true accounts, this is another film in the lives of the Antebellum south where slaves are brutalized on screen and audiences are meant to both marvel at the art while feel shame for living in a country with such dark historical chapters. There seems to be a resurgence of slave-based films, going back to Tarantino's "Django Unchained" and followed by the masterful "12 Years a Slave" and "Lincoln." In a time when race relations are at the centerfold of a political election cycle and splatter the front pages of the news every day, the subject matter has never been more relevant or controversial.

There are certain moments in the film where an emotion rings true, or the camera catches a glance of something remarkable. Overall, I felt like I was rewatching a copy of better films. For a first-time directorial effort, this is in no way a failure of intent. Watching the film, I think Mr Parker simply paid one too many homages to similar films that have come before.

Nat Turner is a slave who is raised to read and write by the wife of his master. Growing up, there is little evidence that Turner or his family experienced an onslaught of torture, and in fact his relationship with his mother and grandmother is in many ways the center of the film. When grown, Turner begins preaching the gospel, and word spreads of the "colored preacher" who may have a way to reach slaves in various plantations and bring them to the salvation of the Lord through sermons and prayer. He becomes a celebrity of sorts, brought house to house by his master, Samuel (Armie Hammer). Along the way, he marries, has a child, and begins to ponder the true meaning of the Bible and whether or not it flies in opposition to slavery itself.

The story goes that Turner formed a militia of slaves from nearby plantations, murdered their owners, and worked their way to the center of town in attempts to overpower the whites and bring about a coup where slaves all over the South would rise up in opposition. Set in 1831, this occurred no less than 30 years before the Civil War, and the idea that tensions were bubbling up for so long only helps one to realize the fragile state of the country during the time of slavery.

The story of Nat Turner itself is a beautiful testament to God and the idea of self-worth. In the hands of a more skilled filmmaking team, there is no doubt that this story could have been a movie worth remembering come Oscar season. There is simply no subtlety in the film, which recreates similar movies nearly shot-for-shot, including a final execution scene that is all but plagiarized from the finale of "Braveheart." We have seen movies that deal with outsiders coming together to overcome a great challenge before, and when watching "Nation," there was very little to distinguish it as more than white noise in a tapestry of repetition. Even the final fight and coup amounts to little more than 20 minutes of the film and features the standard villain who eventually faces his death in a moment meant to illicit cheers from the audience (in fact, this scene felt like something straight out of "The Patriot," another Mel Gibson film about revolution and war).

As an actor, I can attest to the strength of Nate Parker's performance as a man who comes to term with his own destiny. I can also praise Aja Naomi King who plays his wife, Cherry - a woman bought as a throwaway slave but ultimately becomes the catalyst that gives Turner his strength and devotion. I can separate the controversy from the film itself. I think most artists should have their work judged separately from their personal selves, regardless. It's just a disappointment that there's not a whole lot to write home about.

Deepwater Horizon (*****)

DEEPWATER HORIZON is about as good of a disaster movie as I think I have ever seen. Recounting the tragedy in 2010 in which an oiler rig caught fire and claimed the lives of 11 men on board, the movie follows the events in sequence as an ensemble cast brings to life one of the most horrific events I think I could ever imagine. Stuck in a fire is bad, but imagine being stuck in a fire 45 minutes from land, with the ocean 3 miles deep below you? That's terror.

The movie is told from the perspective (mainly) of one man, Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg), who is now regarded as a hero for his quick-thinking and rescue of several of the crew on board. We are introduced first to his family. His wife, a stunning Kate Hudson, and his whip-smart daughter who wants her dad to find a fossil at sea for bragging rights at school. Before Williams leaves at work, the daughter demonstrates the way an oil rig works using a can of soda and a metal straw. Like that scene in Titanic where a computer generation simulates the entire sinking of the ship so that the audience knows what to expect, so does this throwaway scene give us a rudimentary knowledge of the happenings on the rig later on. When they are talking about cement and pipes and negative pressure, we have less cause to question what is happening. It's brilliant filmmaking.

On board, we meet the rest of the crew, captained by Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell), who argues constantly with the BP executives on board about cutting corners. The construction of the pipeline leading to the ocean's floor is already 43 days behind, and construction is abruptly finished to cut corners and save the multi-billion dollar company a little money. BP is, of course, the villain of this story since their actions led to the largest oil spill in US history. The face to the company is John Malkovich playing a conniving investor with a Cajun accent and knack for time saving. His dialogue with Russell is great, and we see the rival sides of two arguments: the crew is trying to work in the safest environment possible. BP wants the job done on schedule.

The events on board play out in the course of 24 hours or so. We meet the workers on board, all chummy and casual with each other. They practice songs with each other, joke, work like friends... The atmosphere is that of comfort, and there is lots of clever writing in the way small talk turns into startling character development and the candor of speech places these characters so specifically in southern Louisiana.

All the while we see bubbles slowly rising from the ocean floor, an omen of what is to come. When performing a standard 'negative pressure test' to gauge the strength of the newly-built pipe, a surge of pressure forces mud and natural gas to erupt into the Horizon with the force of a bomb. The facility fills with gas, and the overdrive of engines causes an explosion. In the darkness, we see massive amounts of black oil rise into the sky thousands of feet above the platform. With a spark, it is ignited... The entire ship is a floating firebomb.

Luckily many survive, and the action once the flames start is less plot driven and more or less a fight to escape. With Mark Wahlberg's character, he is knocked unconscious in his bed chamber and must work through the darkness to find safely. Kurt Russell, caught in the explosion in the shower, is nearly blinded and impaled by shards of glass and metal. It's utter chaos.

The most effective aspects of this film (and there are many) is the set piece of the Deepwater Horizon, itself. It has been called the most expensive movie set ever built, and watching the movie I would never have second-guessed that this was not a real rig that has been long weathered and worn. We learn it is not anchored to the oceanbed but rather a floating raft of sorts that uses propellors to center it constantly above the delicate pipeline bringing oil to the surface. Without propellors, the craft shifts off-centered, risking the pipe bursting and oil flowing freely into the ocean. In a moment of absolute startle, we are with the pilot in the control room when suddenly all power goes out. The silence is matched in terror by the instant knowledge of an oil spill unlike anything they had seen before and the dire need to regain power of the motors.

This is surely an intense film, but it is matched equally with heart, which is an aspect I think many disaster movies gloss over in the end to create a cookie-cutter ending with a bow on top. Here, when the survivors are rescued and brought to safety they are not happy and cheering to be alive. Mike Williams breaks down on his hotel room floor and is unhinged by the horror he had just lived. Families become angry in an attempt to locate their son or daughter on board. Yes this is a true story, and the filmmakers respected the subject enough to give it a bit more weight that a typical blockbuster might have bestowed.

It's hard to rate movies on a scale since it's purely objective and driven by emotion. Deepwater Horizon may not be a perfect movie, and it may have slight flaws, but the feeling of immersion into the story and the characters left me breathless from opening to the final credits. The visual effects add to the story and create images that I won't soon forget. The final moments brought a tear to my eye. From the movies I know are currently playing in theaters, this is the one movie I would want to go back to a second time.

Denial (**)

"Denial" attempts to bring to the screen two of the Oscars' favorite genres: courtroom & Holocaust dramas. The story is prime: that of a woman who was taken to court over her statements about a Holocaust denier, claims that allegedly tarnished his reputation as a notable historian. The woman in question, Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), an American, was brought to an English court in the late 1990's to prove her case: that the denier, David Irving (Timothy Spall), knowingly altered the facts to support his own beliefs. In America, the defense is innocent until proven guilty. In England, the burden of proof in fact falls on the defendant. Stuck in court with years of preparation, Lipstadt simply has to prove one thing: that the Holocaust actually happened.

Thus is the set up for what could have been a brilliant movie about thinking minds and the the nature of historians and differing views. In a time when the Holocaust is in danger of becoming a cliched topics to garner awards and praise, the trailer for "Denial" looked nothing short of eye-opening.

History is a broad topic, breathtaking when captured effectively and dreadfully dull when it goes wrong. This is a movie where they got it wrong. Lipstadt (played by Weisz with perhaps the worst American accent we have seen on film in years) is the heroine this movie doesn't deserve. We meet her as a professor who teaches passionately about the nature of World War II and the losses it accrued. A Jew herself, the Holocaust is a passion of hers. People who refute evidence as candidly as David Irving are simply not worth her time. When faced with Irving, Lipstadt freezes, becomes argumentative, can't prove her point. The next time they meet is in court, where she promises that she will not testify. In order to win the case, she must remain impartial.

Her defense team is made up of a team of lawyers and scholars, the leader of which is Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson), who is a calculated criminal lawyer who knows his facts but can't grasp the emotions of the case itself. Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) is the would-be villain who wants to win the case but in the process loses all sense of respect for the survivors of such tragedy. It's a crack team, indeed.

The problems with the movie are vast, but they are rooted in the simple fact that Timothy Spall as David Irving is simply the more compelling character, regardless of him being the villain. How wrong it is for someone to so plainly deny the events of the 1940's that led to millions of deaths, but Irving is played as a man who still lives honestly, presents plain facts, and seems to truly believe that he is in the right. Weisz on the other hand plays her role like a whiny girl who can't get a word in and is simply a hindrance to the plot. For a movie so devoted to this one woman's story, boy is she an annoying person to get to know.

The court scenes themselves are small fragments of the 8-week trial that offer little insight into the actual arguments themselves. A brief snippet here and a tiny sentence here. The movie is padded so vigorously with fluff that by the time the verdict is read we are truly too tired to care and too distracted to have any real reaction. There is a good movie in here somewhere, and many will recall this case making the international news no more than 10 years ago. It would start with a new writer, a new cast, and a new director... In fact, with so many garbage movies being remade nowadays, here's a worthy candidate.