Vice (***1/2)

I've been thinking over the last several years of movies, and with the end of the decade just ahead, can you blame me for beginning to ponder over what my favorites of the last 10 years are? Surely one that keeps coming to mind is Adam McKay's The Big Short, that wildly zany comedy about the Housing Market Crash that almost revolutionized the way narrative features can be told. How excited I was for McKay's return to nonfiction. How underwhelmed I ultimately felt...

The movie is about Dick Cheney (duh), the 46th President of the United States... I mean Vice President. There's a lot of intrigue surrounding the man, his public persona, and the rumors that maybe secretly he was running the country for his 8 years in office. What kind of film is this? Well, in many regards this is a by-the-numbers biopic that charts Cheney's early years and rise to power. We've seen the structure a million times before. One moment he's in a drunken barfight in Wyoming, and the next he has a small office next to Nixon's in the White House. The film intercuts between the man as Vice President and the chronological timeline of his rise to power over the years. Christian Bale is utterly transformed. In the early scenes we can recognize the actor (albeit with a significant amount of extra pounds). By the end, I was all but convinced this was the man in the flesh.

Of course this is Adam McKay, and as dramatic as the film can be, there are moments of pure comic gold. If you've seen "The Big Short" then you remember the cutaways to Margot Robbie in a bathtub explaining what a subprime mortgage is, or Ryan Gosling breaking the fourth wall to speak directly to the camera. VICE follows a similar idea, though McKay is clearly treading further into uncharted waters. There are scenes that serve as vignettes only, such as a scene in which Cheney and his wife transform into Shakespearean characters complete with rhyme, or one of the funniest fake-out endings I've ever seen. I nearly fell out of my chair as fake credits began to roll in the middle of the movie. Wait for it. The levity comes as a stark contrast to the actual actions of the Bush White House, complete with torture, bombings, and false imprisonment of various suspected terrorists over the years.

What's there not to like, then? As the film trudges along, I felt as though the story falls into a rutt, simply showing highlights of Cheney's time in office instead of continuing the plot and following these characters. The film has a beautiful introduction (pre-credits) that set up the stakes at hand. It shows Cheney and his wife (the astounding Amy Adams) and the bargain they make to rise up through the system. In many ways the film is about Lynne Cheney, who many could argue is the ultimate protagonist of the film and the one pulling all the strings. It's a great performance by Adams, worthy of Oscar love. I only wish the back half of the film remained as interested in her character as we do at the start.

By the climax, the intro of the film is all but forgotten, and you can quite literally feel the director (and editor) running out of steam. The film doesn't end, it runs off the tracks. I don't even understand Cheney's motivations once reaching the White House. The film hypothesizes that this man is only attempting to do right by his wife, but by the end he is a ruthless near-dictator that holds absolute power. Sure there are moments of humanity (especially with his daughter), but we lose focus of what Dick Cheney ultimately becomes.

Still, I enjoyed it for what it was. At it's best, Vice can be pure cinematic magic. At worst, it feels like a pandering attempt to recapture the vivid energy of McKay's earlier works. Bale is wonderful as the titular character, yet I feel like such a subtle performance might go over the heads of Academy voters who love fat suits but also love yelling and screaming and kicking and crying. Bale is the epitome of an opening quote: "beware of the man who says little." I think this is as good of a biopic as could be made about the man, but so much feels off. Sam Rockwell's awkward bit as George W Bush feels more like a skit than a living man, and many in the supporting cast feel squished into the movie if only to say "look it's that politician I remember!" Maybe the story could have worked if it focused on only the White House years, or the War in Irwaq, or something... What we are left with is a zany movie with almost too much to say. It's relentless, and not always in the best ways.

Green Book (***1/2)

GREEN BOOK made a splash at the Toronto Film Festival where it won the coveted "People's Choice" Award, a prize previously awarded to Best Picture giants like "12 Years a Slave," "Slumdog Millionaire," and "La La Land" (Oh, wait...). It makes sense. "Green Book" is a crowd-pleaser in all the typical ways. Directed by Peter Farrelly, the film is another addition to the idea of race relations as viewed through a white protagonist. It's one of those movies that caters to your emotions and lets you leave the theater by thinking 'wow it's so good things have changed.' Have they really?

The movie is a true story about accomplished pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) who embarks on a tour with his 3-piece jazz band through the deep south. Shirley has rubbed elbows with the likes of Jack Kennedy and New York high society. As we learn, this journey is an attempt to connect with his roots. Logically he needs a driver, and fearing the worst he hires Tony "Lip," an Italian bouncer/driver/wannabe food critic (Viggo Mortensen). Come on, we've seen this movie before. You can imagine the dynamic: an uptight musician meets street-smart blue collar worker who also happens to be a casual racist. Through the course of their journeys, it becomes apparent that the two men have more in common than they do not.

We've seen the story before, especially that of race relations as told through a white protagonist. As far back as "In The Heat of the Night" and more recently with flicks like "The Help." I think what is more successful here is that both of our heroes go through a transformation, and it's as much about Shirley learning about his culture as it is Tony introducing him to it. As they drive, they listen to artists like Little Richard and Aretha Franklin, artists Shirley knows but has never listened to. Oh, and he's never tried fried chicken. Later in the film, Tony explains it to him in blunt terms: "It's like I'm more black than you are!" I can already head the dissenting articles come Oscar season.

As cliched as the film feels, it really finds success in the lead performances. Ali (recently an Oscar-winner for the drastically-different Moonlight) shines as an artist with much more to his being hidden under the surface. Rarely does it come to a boil, but we see his vices (drinking, isolation, etc) and we begin to understand the man. There's the briefest of scenes that indicates he is also a homosexual, but never again is this touched on or even pondered over. It's another scene in the long list of cliches that is needed to help flesh out this story. Sure, it's probably true, but the film cares less about the actual facts than hitting all the appropriate beats and in order.

Again, as much criticism as Mortensen might receive for playing a "white hero" in this film focused on black culture, I can't help but declare it to be the best male performance of the year. After gaining 50 pounds and adopting one of the most convincing Brooklyn/Italian accents I can remember, the actor who once played Aragorn is transformed in a stunning technical and comic performance. Not once did I even see the actor playing a part. Not often is such a character so vivid, but this film surely proves Viggo Mortensen as a technical master and also one of the sharpest ears for dialect. Watching him act is electric. Any scene without Mortensen simply doesn't feel like a scene.

Can you guess the ending? I was surprised to see it become a near-exact copy of "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" by the end, complete with a race to the Christmas dinner table. On the way, the two men race north to New York through a torrent snowstorm, racing away from a south that denied Shirley the chance to dine among white patrons in a restaurant and use the indoor bathroom at a party where he is the guest of honor. You can practically hear the sighs as they pass a "Now leaving West Virginia" road sign. This is a fine movie that will hit a lot of people's buttons and will likely garner much support come Oscar season. Is this one of the top 10 movies of the year? I sincerely doubt it. When is Hollywood going to start looking past these tropes? We don't need more stories about 1960's segregation seen through rose-tinted glass. Look at a newspaper. Why ignore what's right in front of us?

At Eternity's Gate (**1/2)

It's so disappointing to see a film with so little to say about its subject. Vincent Van Gogh has been the subject of the media's eye for some time now (look no further than last year's stunning "Loving Vincent"). Here is what the filmmakers might call a fresh attempt. One would think Julian Schnabel, the director (who made one of the all-time great movies "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" in 2007) would understand the artistic process, himself being a painter. What we are left with is a movie that mostly runs on colorful fumes alone.

What don't we know about Vincent Van Gogh, that mysterious painter who cut off his ear and then painted with heavy impressionistic brushstrokes? I'm not sure. It seems like our movie doesn't know much, either. The film slowly introduces us to the painter (played by a compelling yet miscast Willem Dafoe) and his friend Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) as they maneuver through the painterly world of 19th Century Europe. At one point Van Gogh removes his ear, another moment he is shot... and, I think that's it. The film has been heralded for its remarkable cinematography, and that's exactly the film we have: a reel for a very accomplished cinematographer (Benoit Delhomme). The 'story' falls to the wayside. I'm not one to complain about a slow-paced film, but for it to remain cinematic an audience still needs something to follow along with, right?

Dafoe, miscast for his age in my view (Van Gogh was a mere 37 when he died... compared to the whethered, 63 year-old face of the actor) still trots through the film with a certain charisma. However, with a gun to my head, I could not tell you a single town he visits, not a single subject of a painting he captured, a line of dialogue, or the beginning or end of the film. In fact during my showing I got up to use the bathroom and returned to essentially the same scene, some long saturated shot of a mountainous infinity. Perhaps this is one of the only movies that functions both a narrative and experimental film. Start the film from any place in its runtime, and essentially to leave with the same impression.

Watch "Loving Vincent" for a greater sense of place and the people in his life. Despite that film being told through flashbacks after the artist's death, we still understand the pathos of such an under appreciated yet influential figure. AT ETERNITY'S GATE is beautiful, sure, but I felt a greater sense of power by watching the film's trailer last month. To stretch it out to nearly 2 hours did nothing but lessen the impact of some already powerful images. I can't think of a film that filled me with more "meh" in recent time.

The Favourite (****1/2)

The two movies I've heard most people reference when discussing THE FAVOURITE is "All About Eve" and "Mean Girls." That's quite a stark divide in genres, and especially when compared alongside an historical costume piece, one might feel at a loss what the through line is? The answer is simply the plot of cunning women scheming behind each other's backs to gain power. Where "Mean Girls" saw power as sitting at the popular table at lunch, here it might involve starting a war with France.

The year is 1708, and the story is set almost entirely in the Palace of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman), a reclusive and sickly woman who relies on her partnership with Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) in order to run her government. In the first few scenes, we see Sarah deciding the trajectory of military troops, arranging meetings with heads of state, and guiding the Queen's hand here and there. Queen Anne, on the other hand, is immediately a sharply-drawn character. Out of touch, childish, easily manipulative...

Enter Abigail (Emma Stone), a former Lady herself who has fallen on hard times (her father lost her in a game of cards) and now returns to the aide of her cousin, Sarah, in hopes of finding work and steady employment at the palace. At first, Abigail catches glimpses of the Queen, comes to understand her relationship with Sarah... Soon she is scheming in an attempt to win back some semblance of respect and money again. She takes action through any means necessary.

This is less a battle of strength as it is about wits. This is not to say the favor of the Queen takes chess-like strategy to achieve. The real battle comes between Sarah and Abigail, both women who probably do not even love their monarch, but work tirelessly to remain at her right hand if only to say "yes, I'm the brains of this organization." It should also not be said that the Queen is painted as an oaf. There are so many moments of tenderness and sadness in which we learn how she has miscarried or lost all of her 17 pregnancies, and her sole companions in the Palace are her beloved rabbits. This is also not to say that she is a 'dumb' character. I thought back on the film once it ended, and I think our final moments with her highness show that there is some more plotting yet to be achieved after the credits begin to role. If an aspect of this movie's strength is its cast, then it is entirely Olivia Colman's performance that deserves all acclaim. Who could come along and beat her to an Oscar is beyond me. This is the year's best performance by 5 miles.

The real stars are the film's writers, Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara. Theirs is a story so crammed with juicy details that I think you do the film a disservice to only see it once. The film covers a wide range of political actions, tracking the politics of war while showing locked door meetings with the likes of the Prime Minister and politician Robert Harley (Nicolas Hoult). Harley attempts to use Abigail as a spy inside the Palace to learn of the Queen's plans for war, but how clueless he is to Abigail's ultimate motives. The dialogue is crisp, fresh, feeling more like a current drama than some stuffy period piece. Look no further than the film's dance sequence to know that we are not watching a movie aiming for 100% historical accuracy (I think).

In a year so full of great movies focused on women, here is another stunning addition. Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz complete a trifecta that is likely the best cast of the year. To see any of the three leads snubbed come Oscar time would be a travesty, and can I also hold out some hope for the always-great Hoult? It's amazing to see a movie like THE FAVOURITE receive such acclaim since it's more likely the film will be seen by a wider audience. That's not to say Yorgos Lanthimos (the director) has made a movie that is by the numbers. If you've seen his other films, you might find the conclusion to be a bit sudden at best, disappointing at worst. Think on it. I have been for hours. I have to hold out hope for the Queen to finally make matters right. In a story that ends with so little finality, we conclude on a long shot that fades in and out between the faces of Colman and Stone. I can only hope that the head that wears the crown will soon begin to start using her brain in the end...

Widows (****)

I wanted to love WIDOWS so much. Not only was it the next feature from director Steve McQueen, who most recently directed Oscar-winner "12 Years a Slave." It was also what appeared to be a taught thriller starring one of Hollywood's strongest actresses, Viola Davis. Maybe I expected too much, or maybe another viewing might illuminate more strengths of the film. Regardless, it's an impressive feat.

The movie is set in and around downtown Chicago and tracks the seedy underbelly of the city's political and violent crimes. There are several threads of storyline that open the film, almost to an overwhelming amount, but we soon realize the connection: that a group of men tasked with carrying out a robbery are killed in a police raid, and their wives are left with more questions than answers. The ringleader of the criminal troupe is a commanding leader (Liam Neeson), who is survived by his wife, Veronica (Davis). She is a woman already closed off the the world. She is quiet, speaks little, and carries herself with a ferocity that catches others off guard. Through flashbacks, we learn that it is a lot more than the death of her husband weighing on her heart. The other wives include Michelle Rodriguez, a small business owner who is left without a shop without the help of her husband, and Elizabeth Debicki as a frail woman who has come to accept abuse from the one man in her life. As these women all meet, they make a realization: that they are financially desperate.

Not the least of all is a threat from a candidate running for alderman (Brian Tyree Henry), a dominating man who lost money in the robbery. He is an up and coming candidate vying for a seat against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), the son of the current alderman who hopes to take up his father's mantle and continue on leading a neighborhood that is clearly not a reflection of his own upbringing. The addition of this political rivalry to an already crowded screenplay demands greater focus as an audience member, but McQueen is smart to use these scenes as a way to highlight Chicago's gentrification and racial divides. One shot in particular shows Mulligan traveling from a public speech back to his home down the street. In one shot, we see a deserted, graffitied neighborhood transform into a residential oasis complete with mansions and nice cars.

Veronica is left with her husband's notebook, a plan that highlights his future heist which would collect a cool $5 million. With blackmail from this politician weighing on her mind and no hope of pleading her case to the police, she reaches out to these other women with broken homes with a proposition: help me and walk away with $1 million each. It's a stretch, but one by one the women come to the same conclusion: "why not?"

The heist is slow to build, and in fact it feels like only the last 15 or 20 minutes that is the ultimate climax. The story is bulked up with side plots including one of the widows becoming a female escort and falling for an architect, a hitman (Daniel Kaluuya) hunting Veronica always one step behind, and a babysitter who falls into the group of women by mere chance. Thinking back on the story, I see how each thread is resolved, but to keep the momentum going, I can't help but wonder if a few more edits might have helped?

Viola Davis is fantastic. What more can be said? She commands the screen in a way much separated from her more sympathetic turns in, say, "Doubt" or "Fences." She transforms from a woman burdened by loneliness, and then develops into the heir apparent to her husband's work. The other widows come to despise her, but there is careful thought and determination that she brings to the role that demands respect (and dare I say another Oscar nomination?). The widows are all great, but the other standout comes from Debicki as Alice, this tall blonde woman who begins to fall for one of her clients. She could have developed into a more comedic part, but she has a few scenes of real cunning that prove she has more than meets the eye.

Once again, the addition of Colin Farrell to the cast is questionable to say the least, as time and again he has proven that American accents are not his forte. As a sixth generation Chicagoan, his dialect sounds more like an Irish man who has lived in Boston for a few months. It's a completely baffling miss that distracts from the movie at every turn, especially in his scenes against the always powerful Robert Duvall. Also questionable is Kaluuya (a recent nominee for Best Actor in "Get Out"). As the villain, he simply misses the mark. His attempt at ruthlessness simply comes across as "acting" and the scenes meant to demonstrate his ferocity instead show an actor that is perhaps out of his range. I felt the same about his performance in "Black Panther." Perhaps playing a henchman isn't his calling.

Like "The Fugitive," "Widows" creates a real sense of Chicago and demonstrates a sense of place that gives these characters room to explore. The cinematography is exciting, and there is more than one sequence that involves very technical camera moves and expert framing that captured my imagination. Like I said, there is so much to like here, I only wish the movie was more a sum of all its parts. As a piece of entertainment, I think many will walk away satisfied. If you're looking for a pure action flick though, you might be surprised at all the other plot you will need to tread through. "Widows" is ultimately an enjoyable (albeit crammed) story.