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.

Boy Erased (***1/2)

BOY ERASED is a perfectly fine adaptation of an eye-opening nonfiction book. Based on Garrard Conley's memoir of the same name, it documents a boy's journey through conversion therapy, a "treatment" in which Christian fundamentalists attempt to cure homosexuals of their sinful ways. Contrary to what some might expect, there is no shock therapy, there is no physical torture, nothing ripped from "Clockwork Orange" or the like. What we see is a picture of a real facet of America - a group of people who aren't smart enough to see what is so plain to many others: that there is nothing needing to be cured.

Lucas Hedges plays the lead role, renamed Jared Eamons, and he's quickly finding himself typecast as the closeted gay son to a guarded religious family. First "Lady Bird" and now here, we see perhaps the darker aspects of what such a coming out might risk. He is the only child to a preacher (Russell Crowe) and his wife (Nicole Kidman), and they live comfortably in an affluent southern suburb. They buy Jared a new car for his birthday, they allow him to invite girls over... All the while we see that something is bubbling up in Jared, and when he finally admits to being gay, it's a nail straight through the heart of this family.

The movie is told partially in flashbacks, first showing us the routine of this conversion camp, and then reverting back to those times in high school and college that, according to these "therapists," guilted him into turning towards homosexuality. It's not all fun and games. Jared's first intimate encounter with a boy in his dorm is a violent attack, and his second is a perfectly lovely night of conversation and quiet stares. At camp, that's not enough. Jared is expected to dig deep into his family lineage to find the drunks, the gamblers, the murderers, those who watch porn, etc, in order to source the root of this inherent evil. While modern doctors tell Jared he is perfectly healthy, to these fundamentals, science isn't an acceptable conclusion.

Lucas Hedges is quickly a rising star in Hollywood, and he delivers a grounded performance that is believable as a boy learning to think outside the box. Same for Nicole Kidman, ever-great as a mother who also discovers more about her own opinions along the way. The camp itself is far enough away from home that Jared and his mother drive and spend their nights at a nearby hotel (yes, Jared gets to go home after sessions). Together (and away from their demanding father), they have quiet conversations about each other over dinner and in their suite. I think Kidman deserved one or two more scenes to really flesh out this role, but her final moments prove why she is such a talent. Same for Russell Crowe, once an Academy darling and now making it by in roles here and there. His performance is one that is both horrifying and yet fully realized. By the film's end, I found myself most drawn to this man... Not his hatred, but his own personal fears of losing everything he had attempted to create with his family. As unlikely as it would appear, Crowe would richly deserve some recognition for this minor supporting part.

Ultimately, the film still feels like the work of a first-time director (writer, director, and star Joel Edgerton). It's well-written, but so often we are left with moments of melodrama if only to progress the story. There's a mention of a suicide that is all but forgotten about 30 seconds later. We also might have issue relating to Jared as he makes a sudden decision during class to rebel and end it all so abruptly. I thought he was a devote Christian who believed in this therapy? Where does this change come from? Troye Sivan, singer and now actor, has the presence of a bonafide star even in his brief moments on screen. There's an intensity that rings true for a boy going through such a process. We could have used more of his perspective.

Ultimately, is such a story the right one to tell? Minor spoilers here: in the end, Jared convinces his parents to accept him for who he is, and it seems like all involved have jumped onboard the "gay bandwagon." What does this story seek to tell us, that if you become a good enough writer that you can convince someone to change their mind? I have heard from people and met young men who have gone through conversion therapy, and it seems more likely that for survivors, their parental relationships are forever damaged. Sure, it's a nice tear-jerker Hollywood ending, but how accurate is it? People don't change. At least not to such an extreme. If it were this easy to convince a pastor to accept homosexuality as a lifestyle, one might expect world peace to be a bit easier to attain. Notice how the film mocks a therapist for observing that straight men stand a certain way, and then the filmmaker later using the same pose to indicate a character might be closeted after all. Is this a clever bit of visual storytelling, or are we led to believe that, yes, all gays stand a certain way? On the surface, the film is very strong, but digging a little deeper, there is a lot more to discuss and to pick apart.

(As a side note, the movie makes a distracting, almost fatal error when one of the characters plays a Troye Sivan song on the radio. This got me thinking - in the world of this movie, then Troye Sivan is a real musician... But he is also a character in conversion therapy... So who is he? Does this boy just happen to resemble the pop star? As I was thinking about this paradox in my head, I ended up missing about 10 minutes of the movie. Yikes.)