Hidden Figures (****)

HIDDEN FIGURES follows the behind-the-scenes journey of NASA to put a man on the moon. With stiff competition between Russia and the thought of coming in second place in a two-way race, the need for success was palpable. We have seen movies following the journey of astronauts and the science wizards at NASA, but who would have guessed that even as man was shooting for the stars, employees at the head offices still had to use "colored" and "white" bathrooms?

Theodore Melfi directs this picture which has the feel-good attitude of "The Help," a movie that was a box-office success and sugarcoated race relations in the 1960's. Heck, even Octavia Spencer appears in both films. I can't say for sure which film succeeds more at its objective. The story of black female mathematicians surely isn't one that many people had heard of, and perhaps that's where the film's title is rooted (although I would wager that "Hidden Figures" is one of the year's worst titles...). It's a good story rooted in strong performances, but I found the overall result to be a wash of cliches and predictability.

Three friends - Katherine, Dorothy, and Mary (Taraji Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae respectively) carpool together to the offices of NASA where John Glenn is about to launch into space to become the first American to circle the globe via spaceship. How they are friends we are not sure, but their quick wits and strong minds surely bind them together. Our central character is Katherine, who is called in to assist with the top engineers on flight reentries and landings. Not only is she the only black woman working on these most important calculations, but she is the only woman aside from a secretary who watches her with distain. She reports to Al Harrison (Kevin Costner), built up to be a firm disciplinarian but develops into a man who only wants to see the job done, regardless of race or sex. At NASA, we learn that most of the black mathematicians work in a 'holding room' of sorts, arriving each morning and assigned as 'computers' on various tasks that could result in a couple hours work or a couple weeks... It's all based on assignment. Though they are all employed, the possibility of work is not always guaranteed.

Like "Apollo 13" did so brilliantly, suspense is built during moments when we know the outcome. Even though we know John Glenn makes it back to earth safely (and only just passed away this year), there are nail-biting moments of drama when the fate of success rests on a pencil, paper, and brains. Mary (Janelle Monae in the film's best performance) is assigned to work on the capsule and heat shield. Though she excels at math, she dreams of becoming an engineer (unheard of at the time. She became the first black female engineer in NASA history as the end credits tell us). She takes no slack and acts as any man in her position would: she is straight-forward and doesn't shy away from confrontation. Dorothy (Octavia Spencer) only wants to become a Supervisor and get an according pay raise, and along the way discovers her knack for computers and electronic programming.

I admire the film and it's message, but even yet we suffer from cliche. Whether or not Katherine Johnson was called in within 10 seconds of launch to recalculate a landing formula is beside the point. There are moments in this film where I found myself saying "I've seen this before" and "I bet I know what will happen next." Ten times out of ten I was right. This isn't to discredit the stories of the real women, but rather dismiss the screenwriter for falling prey to conventionality. I highly doubt Dorothy Vaughan was able to sneak into the massive IBM Computer Room and reprogram the machine for weeks without being caught. I doubt the engineers at NASA were really so dumb as to put astronauts' lives at risk until the their math was proven wrong by the film's hero. For a film, it's exhilarating entertainment. Considering the real-life story was almost guaranteed to be less dramatic, we can cut our losses.

I should expect Janelle Monae and perhaps Octavia Spencer to reel in the award nominations for their dedicated and memorable roles. I would consider Taraji P Henson if not for one scene that screams "I want an Oscar" in which Katherine explodes about having to use a colored bathroom and face the scorn of her coworkers. Wide-eyed and full of rage, it's a powerful moment yet goes against everything we know this character to be. The film itself feels a lot like that: trying so hard to be an Oscar contender even by putting reality aside. There isn't a whole lot of depth given to these characters, and even less to the white engineers who essentially prove to be the villains (Jim Parsons gives a surprisingly monotone performance). For movies to touch on aspects of historical race relations, they must realize that it isn't all black and white.

Captain Fantastic (****1/2)

It's hard to keep up with movies throughout the year, but based on the consistent and steady buzz I have heard about CAPTAIN FANTASIC ever since it's early summer release, I'm sure glad I finally got around to seeing it. It's a magical experience from beginning to end, full of surprises and wonder.

The trailer certainly gives away some of the main plot points that move the story along. Our setup is quirky to say the least: a husband and wife decide to raise their 6 children in the woods away from the constant barrage of modern society and all it's vices. Here, they will be honest, will teach their children everything they are curious about, never say "no" and always strive for excellence. We meet the family just as word comes of the wife's death from an apparent suicide. Did I mention the story is equal parts heartwarming and heartbreaking?

Ben (Viggo Mortensen) breaks the news to his children. It's a devastating loss of course, but the rift created between Ben and his in-laws forbids him from attending the funeral. Even though his children are fluent in 6 languages and know the Constitution of the United States by heart (including a thorough understanding of the text, no less), Ben's actions are seen as being harmful to his children. There is a threat that they will be taken away should they return to civilization.

What works so well with the film is the cast of children. In any other movie, just one of these 6 performances would be hailed as a breakthrough of the year. Each child is unique, whip-smart, learned, and scene-stealers moment after moment. Yes the movie is a vehicle for Viggo Mortensen, but without the tact and skill of these actors around him he would be nothing. That's hard to say especially considering how fine of a performance he gives, maybe his best yet. Mortensen seems tailor-made for this role, expanding on a personality that is both understanding and at times a bit mad. There is a delicate balance between our understanding of this family dynamic and the possibility that he is perhaps committing child abuse after all. I think the last 30 or so minutes of the film demonstrate some of the strongest acting you will likely see all year, and I expect an Oscar nomination to follow.

The other lead of the film is the character of Ben's oldest son, Bo (George MacKay). He's a leader like his father, no more than 18, but finds our more about his place in the world throughout the film. The family takes a large school bus named 'Steve' to rendezvous with the funeral, and the journey exposes Bo to the realities that his father have shielded them from. As smart as he is (and having been accepted to every Ivy League school in the country), he has no skills with talking to girls or talking to strangers. We sympathize with him wholeheartedly. Not everything can be found in a book.

The screenplay is one of so many twists and turns. Matt Ross, the writer and director, has only made a handful of films and yet the skill on display is surely some of the most natural I have seen all year. It's a beyond clever story of hardened children who work to find a balance between two worlds. Not only did it move me to tears on more than one occasion, I also found myself amazed at how close this film comes to being a total farce. Think of the final scene where the family sings "Sweet Child O Mine" around a burning funeral pyre. How absurd it sounds out of context, and yet how marvelous it was to take a journey where that moment can be such a fulfilling climax. You would be hard-pressed to find a more original movie this year that is so overflowing with heart.

Fences (***)

FENCES is an okay movie that masquerades with the bragging rights of having been based on a Pulitzer-Prize winning play. I can think of many cinematic instances of  a movie-adaptation failing to meet expectations (most recently I recall 'August: Osage County') and here is no change. What was once fine source material falls into a rut of theatrics and an artificial feel.

The story is a close-knit family in an urban Pittsburgh setting. Troy (Denzel Washington) and his wife Rose (Viola Davis) struggle to make ends meet. Troy is a garbage collector with a son aiming at becoming a pro-footballer. His son shoots for the stars, and time again Troy works to keep him level-headed on the ground. Like the great characters we remember from Denzel's filmography, this is not a man we come to like or even begin to understand. He's the anti-hero. Rose, his caring and sociable wife, works to counteract her husband's stubbornness while never overstepping.

The film seems to be a faithful adaptation to the play (the likes of which I have not seen), and here is the root of the problem. What I think filmmakers fail to realize is that although theater and movies run a similar vein, they are not interchangable. Washington, who also directs the movie, lets his camera linger in wide shots while characters recite their lines as though memorized. They shift blocking periodically to create more interest in the frame, and then the dialogue continues. Think back to 'Doubt,' which was also an adaptation of a Pulitzer-prize winner. That movie used visuals and framing to help develop the story beyond words, and trust me that movie had a lot of words. Think of the snowy setting, the wind, the canted framing in the cinematography... It's not enough to just let an actor read dialogue. On film, audiences need to be wowed.

I did find myself wowed only 2 times, and that was with the leading performances of both Washington and Davis, Oscar-caliber in every regard and such shining examples of why these two are some of the best. Denzel always has a control over his scenes, an eerie focus on his presentation, and even when we know that the film is falling flat, it is he that continues to wow scene after scene. Same with Viola, twice an Oscar-nominee (Doubt & The Help) and perhaps this year's winner, she doesn't so much surprise as demonstrate her fiery focus to her craft. I remember her major debut in Doubt and few minutes of screen time she had. It was an electric moment, acting like we have never seen... Viola's performance is not better or worse than those brief scenes, but it's hard not to get chills when you see a woman performing at the top of her craft.

While I would give the movie a so-so rating, the acting is surely the only reason I could recommend seeing this movie. It's not often that a great play can be adapted into a great movie, but you have to commend the filmmakers for trying. If I had to be completely honest, the movie overall is a bore.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (****1/2)

I could easily write a negative review about ROGUE ONE, slowly dismantling this movie for the few flaws it has. I'll be the first to admit that there are some glaring issues with the movie. Most movies have flaws, and with a series with so much story and such a strong fanbase, it is impossible to please everyone. Let me just say this as a preface: this could very easily be one of (if not the) best Star Wars movie on merit alone. This makes me rethink the praise I had for "Force Awakens" last year, or at least wonder if that film should go down a notch or two (I also rated that movie four & a half stars).

It's a stand-alone film that we were told will have no sequels nor prequels. That's tricky to maneuver since the movie is a direct follow-up to the prequels and takes place in the days before "A New Hope." This film is so closely tied to the original 1977 film that they could be played back-to-back and we would notice very little in terms of a change of tone or style. The filmmakers clearly went to great lengths to recreate sets and costumes to blur the lines, and it works marvelously.

It's a simple story that was mentioned in "New Hope" in nearly one sentence: that Rebels went to great lengths to capture the plans for the Death Star to expose its weaknesses. Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) is that Rebel, daughter of the man who designed the weapon and leader of a Rebel Alliance co-helmed by Cassian Andor (Diego Luna). The front-half of the film establishes their relationship, their plans, their struggles... It's not Star Wars without a funny sidekick, and here we meet K-2SO, a repurposed Imperial droid that works with the Rebels as an assistant. Like C-3PO, he's the comic relief, somewhat prissy, and yet fully realized and wonderfully incorporated. We learn about Jyn's back story and how she was separated by her father after the Empire all but kidnaps him to help with the Death Star's construction. Yes, Jyn is a Rebel, but having a father with such a reputation doesn't make her a woman that people want to rally behind.

The set up to the movie is at times slow and more often than not forgettable. The climax is absolutely inspired. Set on a tropical planet where the actual plans to the Death Star are housed, here is the meaning of "war" when we mention "Star Wars." Combat on the ground, fighters in the air, and the search for the electronic data inside the base, this is a beyond brilliant finale that builds and builds and builds with razor precision. This is not to mention the incorporation of characters from the original trilogy (included with a bit of movie magic and some wonderful nostalgia). I never thought Star Wars was a movie that could be gritty and certainly didn't need to be. This movie ends so perfectly that it surely puts all the other films to shame and leaves on such a euphoric high note that I can't imagine a reason to dispute it. Someone once said that the story doesn't matter as long as you "wow them in the end," and my is this a good ending.

Flaws. Like I said there are several. The clever filmmaking and style of the movie all but washed over me and helped me look past it. As I mentioned the set up to the movie is at times slow and mostly forgettable. The Rebels fly from planet to planet and we find ourselves at a distance with very little to care about. Second, the special effects. I'm sure this movie will be a front-runner for an Oscar this coming year, but not without questionable moments. Grand Moff Tarkin (the sly villain from the first film and Vader's second-hand man) is recreated with a bafflingly-eerie use of CGI, replicating Peter Cushing's persona on screen to reprise the character. Why he wasn't just cast with another actor is beyond me. Every moment he is on screen I found myself disturbed by the almost-human appearance of the character and completely lost as to focus of the story. The same goes for a quick glance of Princess Leia... Yes, today's CGI is good, but it's not that good.

I strongly recommend the film if only because of the end. It works so hard to tie up loose ends and create a unified story that it could almost get away with murder if it wanted to. I didn't even mention Darth Vader's reprise. This is famously the first Star Wars movie not to feature a Jedi or a lightsaber battle, but the final scene with Vader takes the cake as one of the most sinister and perfect moments in the entire series. A quick moment where we finally see all that Darth Vader can accomplish with the dark side. There's no other way to say it: it was "bad ass." Thank God George Lucas finally sold the rights to these movies. Of course we thank him for the ideas, but look at the two movies that have been released back-to-back. This is a golden age of space operas.

Jackie (***1/2)

I feel compelled to begin making bets on this year's Oscar ceremony, particularly in the Best Actress race. In my mind's eye, there can't be a performance that will top Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy. It's calculated and convincing in a way that is undeniable. From looks to voice, what we see on screen is far and away Portman's crowning achievement. The buzz has been entirely around this performance, and having now seen the film, it's easy to understand that it's really a one-woman show.

The story is told in flashbacks (as many historical films do) as an unnamed reporter (Billy Crudup) comes to meet with the elusive Jackie in the weeks after her husband's assassination and her relocation away from the White House. With a temperament that is already biased against publishers that have elaborated about her life to more closely resemble a tabloid, she negotiates the basis for their dialogue and what will and will not be included. Her voice is deep, calm, and her face never breaks from the reporter's eyes. This is not a happy meeting.

"Jackie" is certainly a slow-paced story, focusing more on character than plot. Through flashbacks, we essentially see the breakdown within the First Family of the immediate aftermath of the shooting. There isn't an 'Oliver Stone-like' scene in which the assassination is played out in graphic detail, and in fact it is shown in barely a few seconds of terror. The story is on Jackie, her inner torments... There are many scenes of her and Bobby Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard) speaking in private, debating on the ways to handle funeral arrangements. Jackie researches the funeral procession of Abraham Lincoln, a man who was remembered after his murder in the public's eye. With barely 2 years under his belt, there is worry that JFK will go down in history like James A Garfield or William McKinley, 2 presidents also assassinated and now forgotten.

From 'Black Swan' and now to 'Jackie,' it's easy to recognize the growth and maturation of Natalie Portman the performer. This is a full role, full of nuance and fragility. Within the film, there are contrasting cuts to her famous television tour of the White House, illustrating the renovation and complete overhaul of the famous home's historical artifacts. Portman is never better than these scenes, not only capturing the walk and mannerisms of the famous First Lady, but also her weaknesses and fear of the public's perception of her. Her voice is airy and outwardly 'fake,' but as the film demonstrates, she was a well-researched woman with tact and brain power much beyond those around her. Another moment captures her washing the blood off her face just before Johnson is sworn in. The camera is so close that we can barely see both her eyes in frame. The grief that explodes off the screen is horrifying.

Pablo Larrain, the director who makes his English-language film debut, frames the story as though a dream. Rarely is the camera locked down, and oftentimes we float along with Jackie through the halls of the White House as she realizes that this quite literally the end of one side of her life. Coupled with an almost-experimental film score that so perfectly pinpoints emotional cues, there is certainly skill at a production level that shouldn't be forgotten come Oscar season.

Is the film great? I don't think so. This is a movie made almost exclusively to highlight the skills of our leading actress, pushing story, pace, and drama to the side. The ending itself slowly drags along, scene after scene, almost as though the director doesn't want to look away from such an amazing performance. I can hardly blame him. It analyzes a woman that is so famous throughout America and yet most people probably don't know the first thing about her. There is so much more to this woman than a blood-stained pink suit.