Wind River (*****)

WIND RIVER is certainly the first great movie I've seen this year. It's a story that is engaging and thrilling in every regard, filled with memorable characters and unforgettable lines and moments. On the surface it's a murder mystery set on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming in the dead of winter. Just a bit deeper is a story that is full of great emotion and resonance.

Taylor Sheridan is to thank, director and writer (and only his second-directed film to date). He is the genius behind Sicario and last year's Oscar-nominated Hell or High Water. This could debatably be his strongest film to date. What his movies have done so well is placing wounded characters in the most desperate of situations, and then sitting back and watching them use skill to work their way out. This film opens with a solitary shot of a woman trudging her way through a snowy tundra on foot in the dead of night. She falls to the ground, coughs up blood, and later we learn she dies just a few yards away. This is the victim. The rest of the movie seeks to find out what led her to this situation.

We meet Cory (Jeremy Renner), who is a for-hire hunter who protects farms from wolves and various predators who feed on the livestock. During one hunt, he stumbles upon the body of an 18-year old girl, frozen in the snow. By his reckoning she had run 6 miles barefoot before dying at this spot. Cory knew the girl. "She was a fighter." The local tribe police Chief Ben (Graham Greene) gets involved, and we come to understand the Native American community here: small, first-name basis, impoverished, lost... As the body has evidence of rape, the FBI is called in. We meet Jane (Elizabeth Olsen), driving through the snow and dressed for a light fall day. She's fresh from Las Vegas, the "closest field agent" the agency could spare to investigate. Where Cory is surprised that this is what the federal government would provide, Ben is indifferent. When you have only a handful of cops to patrol a reservation the size of Rhode Island, you learn not to expect much.

Jane is an apt officer, wants justice for the victim, and yet receives no additional support since the coroner won't declare the death as a "homocide." The cause of death was simply the freezing of the victim's lungs, leading her to drown in her own blood. Jane is disheartened, but she teams up with Cory to sift through the evidence, tracks, and girl's family to try and determine the killers before being sent back to Las Vegas (or the snow melts).

Even as I write this synopsis it does nothing to capture the power of Sheridan's work. This isn't a buddy-buddy cop movie that finds a smoking gun and confronts the killer in an intense shoot-out, this is a human drama that reflects the way wounded souls are learning to cope. Through her talkings with Cory, Jane learns that he had a daughter who was also murdered and died under similar circumstances. This new investigation becomes a way for Cory to protect the legacy of his recently-deceased daughter. We learn about Jane (but only slightly), her reclusiveness, her steadfastness, and her strong search for justice. It is interesting to see these two characters interact when Cory has such a thorough backstory and Jane has next to none. We come to like both of them for different reasons, root for Jane in her strong heroism and calm in the face of grave danger, and respect Cory for his quiet demeanor and hands-on skills for observation and tracking.

The movie is filled with beautiful performances (Renner is surely doing his best work, and Olsen is a bonafide star brimming with raw talent) but the most affecting is that of the victim's father, Martin (Gil Birmingham), a Comanche actor that I was only familiar with from the TV comedy "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt." This is a wounded man, protecting his manliness with a strong front, but broken just under the surface. His wife mourns openly by cutting herself and sobbing in the bedroom, while Martin only reveals his true feelings to Cory (perhaps because this is the only man who can understand his pain). Birmingham has only 2 scenes in the film, but the final moments between he and Renner are electric.

The movie does conclude on a satisfying note at the surface level in which the killer is determined and he is made to suffer. That's not even the important aspect of this movie. In fact to finally see retribution brought down only makes us ponder how senseless killing is at all. For these men of the wilderness, justice isn't dealt with through prison sentences (one character even says that prison is a "right of passage" for Native American boys in this country), it's still carried out swiftly as you might expect in an old western. The only difference here is that the consequences are just as heavy, and death only brings a life sentence for those who are left to deal with it. Jane, the strong woman in the film who thought she could bring sound logic and law to the place, concludes the film in a fury of tears and remorse, reflecting on the evils of men and her utter lack of knowledge for these people, just a state border away and yet a culture never to be understood.

This isn't a movie that pins Native Americans against the rest, nor does it seek to pity a culture that has retreated into slums and forgotten reservations. It simply wants the audience to know. The ending titles will tell you a story that I don't think anyone knew. It's a shock to the system. Over a quiet image of two men sitting together, Sheridan concludes his movie with a reflective calm and fitting fade out. Watch the movie and see for yourself.

Ingrid Goes West (**)

Scroll. Double-tap to like. Repeat. So goes the life of those obsessed with Instagram, the photo-sharing app that serves as a catalyst in INGRID GOES WEST, a weird, oftentimes squirm-inducing trip down obsession and self-implosion. First we had The Emoji Movie and it's "attempt" to break down the inner workings of a cell phone. Here we have something at least slightly more interesting: the breakdown of a troubled mind with infinite information available at their fingertips.

Aubrey Plaza is our "heroine" here, who is having a stellar year with this and her earlier (and funnier) performance in The Little Hours. We have known her to be a uniquely weird actress, with staring eyes and a sullen voice that sets her apart from the other comedians of her time. This is a step in a more daring direction, and dare I say Miss Plaza has some acting chops as well. Here she is Ingrid, a woman who spent time in a rehab facility after a mental breakdown following the death of her mother. Ingrid is obsessed with, well, let's just say she has her obsessions. She was previously admitted on stalking charges, and now that she's released, she sets her sights on an up and coming blogger, Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen). Ingrid has her inheritance money and little else to do. Time for her to head west.

The movie follows a fairly predictable series of odd and worrisome scenarios in which Ingrid learns about Taylor from her Instagram, eats the same foods, gets the same haircut, and ultimately kidnaps her dog in an effort to call her to collect a reward. She does a bit more than that. The two become friends, although Taylor is certain she has seen Ingrid before (she has). Despite clear warnings, Taylor invites Ingrid out, they have dinner, they travel to a remote desert home to drink and confide in each other. Ingrid feels this is some sort of fated encounter, although we know this is all part of her plan that has no clear goal other than to "become a popular girl."

I was reminded a bit of The Bling Ring in the way we learn about "high society" through the lens of an outsider. The fashion, the picturesque homes, the expensive coffees, and the luxurious poolside parties. Ingrid tries her best to fit in, but it's so clear that she does not. The movie bounces from oftentimes comical scenarios and then back to brooding moments of shocking intensity from Plaza. I would have assumed this to be a comedy, but it flirts with something much darker.

The movie is perhaps a bit too pointed in its satire to really hit me, and is it just me or do movies that use iPhones so loosely as plot devices feel a bit contrived? Not only do we never see Ingrid charge her phone, but the familiar clicks, dings, and texting sounds makes this movie almost a bit too specific for the message it ultimately seeks to address. When Ingrid is plotting her next move to stalk Taylor, I was sitting in the audience wondering how she managed to charge her once-dead phone after being plugged in no more than 1 minute. The performance of Plaza is certainly a career-best, and a surprisingly-annoying-yet-effective performance by Billy Magnussen as Taylor's douchey brother both are highlights for their own reasons. The movie itself is a downer. No characters (and I mean NO characters) are likable, and the story is familiar to the point of cliches. We all know how this ends, so save yourself the price of a ticket and wait for rental.

Menashe (*****)

The Rabbi tells our hero that he must have a wife, a home, and a good set of dishes in order to be complete. Only then can he take proper guardianship of his young son, now living with his brother after the death of his wife a year ago. That man is Menashe, an orthodox Jewish man living in the Bronx. He slaves over a convenience store job complete with a terrible boss. He works small wages just to afford a studio apartment. And yet he loves his son, and he will do all he can to keep him from slipping out of his life.

So sets the stage for one of the year's most utterly beautiful films, a human story told entirely in subtitled Yiddish that feels like a great human drama at every turn. America is a land of diverse people, and here is one such story, a secluded world that is both entirely in view and yet completely shut off from our mainstream world. A community in which the ultra-orthodox women don't believe they should have the right to drive a car, or go out in public without donning a wig first. A community in which the laws of the Torah govern all, including the belief that should a man's wife die, his children must stay with kin until he is remarried. One woman who just divorced not 4 months ago says "life is for marriage and children. What else is there?" Menashe seems to ask that very question: isn't there more to life?

The story is a simple one - the love that a father has for his son. Menashe (played beautifully by Menashe Lustig) is granted guardianship of his son, Rieven, during the week prior to a memorial service planned for his deceased wife. During this time, Menashe works to dispute the advice of his brother-in-law, the Rabbi, and faith in general. He works to make a good home, to cook, to educate his son in the traditional Jewish ways. And yet he stumbles at every point. He is prone to run late to work, he talks loudly, dresses unlike the other orthodox members around him. Rieven seems to notice, but Menashe only tells him that there is more than one way to live a life.

The appeal is the movie's simplicity, showing us passive moments of a father and son interacting and discussing life. Perhaps we don't understand these Jewish customs, but the movie doesn't seek to tell us they are wrong. Even Menashe, who believes he has the right to live with his son, understands the Word that sets their customs in place. He cannot argue it. In many ways, the world is weighed against him. In a lesser film, we might expect him to lose his job, run out of money, or cause harm to his son through neglect and thus proving him as a poor choice to supervise a child. Many movies would, and in fact there are several times when we fear such a downfall might happen. Think of "Kramer v. Kramer" where Dustin Hoffman runs city blocks to the hospital to save his son after a playground fall, or "Mrs Doubtfire" and the emotional climax in a courtroom. Menashe loves his son no less, and demonstrates that caring in his own unique way.

The film comes to a head when the memorial service is held and Menashe invites close family and the Rabbi to his small home to host a dinner. We only expect the worst, and so it is - he has burned the dinner and the apartment is filled with smoke. His guests complain that the potatoes have an aftertaste of freezer burn. When so much has been going wrong, we hear the words of the Rabbi and his simple statement: "why would this meal not be fit for a King?"And so the guests eat their meal in silence. Then we hear the soft voice of Rieven sing a song dedicated to the memory of his mother, and Menashe joins in with a visible pride. He is not a perfect father, but there is no question that he is unfit.

We might foresee the ending and accurately predict that Rieven goes back to live with his uncle. For the entirety of the story, Menashe shows no interest in remarrying. He confides with some Latino coworkers (in a beautiful English-spoken scene) about the means of his marriage and his wife's death. It's a pained moment that is so truthful despite it being in a foreign language (and yes, our hearing English for such a pivotal scene feels like a bolt of lightning). And the final shot of the film, a continuation of that quiet talk, where we see Menashe walking down the city streets dressed as a proper Jewish man complete with top hat, suit jacket, and payot. For the first time we see him stepping into the role of a respected man, his conformation a sight that is logical and yet painful to see. I thought of it long after the credits rolled, and it's a sad, fulfilling climax that seems to imply a loss of innocence. Here we see the story of a man who was once joyous and now conforms to the rules of his society. It's not a defeat or a loss, but it is how he will finally attain his ultimate goal. I was waiting for a perfect ending to such a perfect movie, and I was so pleased to not be disappointed. Menashe is heartwarming, very funny, and an altogether extremely moving story. This is one of the year's best movies.

Atomic Blonde (***1/2)

I saw ATOMIC BLONDE more out of boredom than anything. The plot seemed thin, the only appeal being that of a female spy kicking lots of ass. Charlize Theron, one of the great actresses working today, has clearly done better work. Where did this movie set itself apart? I was more than happy to leave the theater invigorated by the action, thrilled by the look, and wowed yet again by Theron's ability to bring something more to a character that lacks depth on the paper.

The movie (I had not known) is set in Germany in 1989 during the weeks before the Berlin Wall came down. Lorraine (Theron) is a double agent sent to Germany by MI6 in order to reclaim a stolen list of double agents, smuggled by a partner in a wristwatch, now in the hands of a ruthless killer who hopes to sell the names and compromise the safety of hundreds of people. Lorraine is sent to rendezvous with David (James McAvoy), a rouge agent who shaved his head to blend in with the street-punk style of the day. Before arriving, Lorraine is given one head's up: don't trust anyone.

The movie is structured as a flashback. We see Lorraine prepare for an interrogation, body bruised and blood still in her eyes. She looks pained, tired, and dons large sunglasses and a tight white suit as she enters an interrogation room to explain what had just happened. The movie cuts back and forth with great frequency from this interview to 5 days ago then to 2 weeks ago, back and forth and so on and so forth. For a plot so straight forward, I will be the first to admit that this handling of the story left me more confused than anything. A flashback can work to tell a story effectively, but think back to old Rose on Titanic: we didn't need to see her speaking all too frequently during the course of the movie.

The movie obviously takes inspiration from the cultural/bubblegum films of today, pairing catchy pop songs with moments of action. It creates a visceral feel for sure. We match this with neon colors of pink, blue, and red. The movie itself feels like we are watching a living, breathing graphic novel (fitting since it is based on one such comic series from a few years back). The bright colors and David Bowie helps us see past the flaws of the script (or at least forget about it), and the heavy focus on Charlize as our action hero helps us to forgive other mistakes by the filmmakers.

The action in the film is pure energy, some of the best of the year, highlighted by a 15 minute sequence that appears as a single unbroken shot but in fact is an assembly of dozens of takes. As Charlize helps to escort an injured agent out of an abandoned building, she takes the elevator up to the top and floor by floor proceeds to shoot, stab, kill, and punch a variety of armed men. The action is breathless, culminating in a final moment in which she and her attacker are both so bloodied and tired that neither can do more than grunt and crawl on the ground in retaliation. The sequence is one of the year's best, but illustrates the flaw that a movie like ATOMIC BLONDE has: plot is structured around action, not the other way around. What does this mean for the audience? We relish in the fist-fights, but zone out during much of the dialogue and "plot" sequences that make up a majority of the film. It's in no way a "bad" movie. In fact it's one of the more fun times I've had in theaters this summer. I think I'm just upset that the movie tried to be more than it ever needed to be.

Patti Cake$ (***)

It's the underdog story that I think most people will find so alluring in PATTI CAKE$, the debut film from musician/director Geremy Jasper. I attended a screening in which we learned the process by which this movie was made: a Sundance Film Festival-based workshop in which the actors met to rehearse, role-play, and develop characters. What an exciting way to make a movie, especially one that is so small and so restricted in budget, marketing, and star power. I only wish the final result was more potent.

The movie follows the traditional "poor kid who dreams" arch that we recognize from movies like "Precious" and "8 Mile." Our hero is Patti (Danielle Macdonald, an Australian actress in a remarkable debut), a heavy-set girl who hops job to job to support her Nana (Cathy Moarity) and vicious mom (Bridget Everett). While her days are occupied by busy work and bartending at a local watering hole, her mind races with lyrics and rhymes that keep her motivated. Her goal? To become an A-list rapper by the name of Killer P. She is quite good. In rap circles she dominates the field and puts other men to shame. Her only support comes from her friend and pharmacist, Jerry (Siddharth Dhananjay), himself an accomplished lyricist.

The plot kicks off with several factors falling into place, mostly Patti's meeting of a mysterious figure dubbed "Antichrist," aka Bob (Mamoudou Athie), a skinny black kid with a pale blue eye and lives in the remote forest near a cemetery. What Patti needs is to make a demo tape to advertise her talent, and Antichrist has what she believes to be the best beats in town. In the movie's best scene, Patti and her nana stroll over to Antichrist's house (along with Jerry), and the group creates a very catchy song called "PBNJ," complete with nana's raspy voice serving as the baseline.

When I say her mom is vicious, what more can you expect? Everett plays the mother, Barb, as a woman who long ago dreamed of having a similar life. She worked hard to become a mainstream singer but now finds her evenings getting drunk on her daughter's tab and singing profound karaoke with surprising conviction. When she hears that her daughter hopes to be a rapper, she scoffs at the idea. Maybe it's because she's supposed to be "villainous," or more likely because she doesn't want to see her daughter fall down the same path as she. The movie concludes with a rap contest in which PBNJ (Patty, Bob, Nana, and Jerry) compete for a cash prize and the attention of one of Jersey's most famed rappers. Of course Barb shows up in the end, and there's a moment that made my audience cheer in which mother and daughter find a way to bond over their differences. Did I think the moment worked? Let me just say that from the moment we first meet Barb, this is the conclusion you would probably expect coming.

I liked the performances by most of these unknown stars, the surprisingly great songs penned by director Jasper himself. The trailer was one of my favorites of the year: an underdog story that promised heart and a fresh take on a story we have seen so many times before. Instead what we get is a movie that is almost always exactly what we might expect. There aren't surprises here. The story plays out exactly like hundreds of movies have done before. For every strength I saw in the picture, there was an equal and opposite detractor. Do I recommend PATTI CAKE$? Sure. There's a lot of talent at work here that doesn't deserve to go unlooked. Maybe if you are sold by the story, then you might even find yourself cheering in the theater at that climax that so many others praised. It's a movie that obviously has done something right by many people.

The Emoji Movie (1/2 star)

There is nothing funny about THE EMOJI MOVIE. I didn't laugh once. I didn't smile once. I didn't lean forward in suspense or excitement even for a moment. This isn't a movie. You can practically feel the mighty hand of the Almighty Studio coming down through the screen. It's stinks of insincerity and panders to the masses in a way that few things should. I wanted to just write *poop emoji* for the review as a way to be funny and leave it at that, but even that seems too easy for a project so thoroughly misguided.

"Emoji" takes place in a boy's cellphone during a random day as a freshman in High School. The boy's name is not important since his entire character arc is deciding to not exchange his malfunctioning phone for a new one That, and he has a crush on a girl who texted him but he doesn't know which emoji to text back. How did they exchange numbers in the first place if they aren't familiar enough to even talk to one another?

Inside his phone is a world that has as much originality as sliced bread. It's one part "Monster's Inc" and one part "Inside Out" in the way the world is thematically structured. "Monster's" had a restaurant named Ray Harryhousen's. "Emoji" has ... not a lot. The main character is named Meh (although apparently he was called Gene in the movie. I don't remember that) and it's entirely fitting given the quality standards of the production. Meh wants to work in the head office where Emojis are scanned anytime someone texts on their phone. It's a high privilege that has been passed down through the generations (Meh has two parents, presumably named Meh and Meh. How do they procreate without genetalia?). Something happens and, gasp, a scrappy plot develops in which a bunch of annoying characters need to get to the 'cloud' in order to save something. Along the way they stop by Youtube, Facebook, and others. Puns ensue.

Meh (TJ Miller) is joined by High-five (James Corden in perhaps the year's most annoying sidekick role) and a hacker person (Ana Faris) who is also the now-expired Princess emoji in disguise. What a twist! I can't tell you exactly what happens in the film because not a whole lot of it does. On top of that, we intercut between Meh, the human boy in high school, and Meh and Meh Sr (who are looking for their son who ran away on an adventure... Meh). Even the edits are sloppy and the soundtrack is at times too quiet and at times roaringly loud. Not only did the screenwriters not understand the concept of storytelling, but the filmmakers didn't understand the concept of filmmaking. In a year in which Trump was elected and "The Mummy" redefined what 'bad movies' are all about, "Emoji" could still take the cake as one of the worst parts of 2017.

I don't know why a project like this was funded given it's oh so blatant lack of creativity. It feels like a cash grab except I can't figure out entirely who this movie is marketed to... People with phones? Is it fun to watch a movie in which smiley faces live a life based around a certain emotion? Why? I would sooner prefer a movie that deals entirely with ingrown toenails or the cells that make up cancer in the body. My only consolation is that the theater I saw it in was mostly empty and the ending came with the sweet sound of dead silence and a collective sigh of regret from all in attendance. I think we all felt the pain of having sat through one of the year's worst movies in the presence of each other, but in a way it was a comfort to share in the meh with an audience. We walked out of the theater a little less joyous and a little more cautious about our next visit to the movies.