Movie Review: 1985

1985 (2018) 

Directed by Yen Tan

Written by Yen Tan 

Starring Cory Michael Smith, Virginia Madsen, Michael Chiklis, 

Release Date March 19th, 2018 

Published August 12th, 2018 

Director Yen Tan’s 1985 left me an emotional mess. This incredibly moving drama about a gay man returning home for the holidays to his conservative, religious, Texas family hit me right me in heart with its brave storytelling and artful construction. Filmed in 16 millimeter black and white, the film gives you a feeling of a memory being recalled with great detail, directly from the year 1985. 

1985 stars Corey Michael Smith, best known for his role on TV’s Gotham, as Adrian. Adrian moved away from his Texas home three years ago to live in New York City and, for the first time, to live openly as a gay man. Having never come out to his parents, expertly portrayed by Virginia Madsen and Michael Chiklis, Adrian decides immediately to keep himself in the closet while back home so as not to upset his family dynamic. 

Adrian’s sexuality however, is not the only secret he’s decided to keep from his family. Verbal and visual cues will slowly reveal as the film goes on that Adrian has been losing weight, he’s been getting ill frequently and in a beautifully telling moment, his beloved dog clings to his side as if to protect and comfort him. It’s not hard to suss out what Adrian’s secret is though the film does gently allow the secret to be unfolded throughout the story. 

1985 was directed by Yen Tan, a filmmaker who I am unfortunately not familiar with though this is his fourth feature film according to Wikipedia. In notes that accompanied the movie when I saw it, Tan discussed how working with AIDS patients years ago inspired him to want to tell the story of a closeted gay man and the sadness, frustration, and heartache that comes from keeping secrets so essential to who you are. 

There is a next level of sadness at play here that I am reluctant to go into. I was lucky to watch the film without having read other reviews on Wikipedia or IMDB, places that give away the secret Adrian is hiding. Again, it’s not a twist or even a major reveal, it’s an organic, growing part of the story. I just really loved watching it unfold even as the brilliant visual and vocal clues in the movie give the game away with intent. 

It’s a wonderful piece of filmmaking and it’s not intended to fool you or gut punch you, it makes sense to the plot why Adrian is hiding something and the journey toward him actually saying what is happening out loud is powerful. Actor Corey Michael Smith does an incredible job of making Adrian genial and awkward and delicately pragmatic. The secret of his sexuality isn’t really much of a secret, as we come to find out, but the way in which the film gently layers this into the characters and the story is remarkable and emotional. 

I haven’t even mentioned one of my favorite parts of 1985. Actress Jamie Chung plays Carly, Adrian’s ex-girlfriend whom he broke up with three years earlier when he left for New York. Now an aspiring stand up comic,  Carly has no idea that Adrian is gay and when the two reconnect there is some awkward and brilliantly relatable truth to their interaction. Carly may seem like an extraneous character in some ways but her presence underlines dramatic moments from Adrian’s backstory that pay off with strong emotional impact. 

1985 will be on my list of the best movies of the year. Few films have touched me as deeply as this movie has. It’s not an easy movie, it’s not a movie for an audience that doesn’t want to be challenged and it is not a movie that rewards you with easy answers. This is a deeply emotional and beautifully rendered film that, if you allow it to, will break your heart in ways that will make it stronger and more empathetic going forward. That, to me, is a better feeling than any 10 blockbusters can provide. 

What a year for Black and White movies huh? Roma dazzled us with its arrival on Netflix last week with it’s crisp, clean, black and white sleekness. And here, in 1985, we get a black and white movie that uses this type of film to give age to the story, to evoke the time it is set within and to give the film a dreamlike or memory-like feeling. The grainy, slightly dark, look of 1985 gives the film the feeling of a story being recalled from memory, a little hazy, a little fuzzy, yet recalled with detail and deep emotion, as if we were in the mind of someone recalling this story and feeling what they felt at the time. 

Movie Review The Astronaut Farmer

The Astronaut Farmer (2007) 

Directed by Michael Polish

Written by Mark Polish, Michael Polish

Starring Billy Bob Thornton, Virginia Madsen, Bruce Dern, Max Thieriot 

Release Date February  23rd, 2007

Published March 6th, 2007

Mark and Michael Polish are a pair of eccentric auteurs whose vision of the world is often detached and laconic. This quality is unique and gives them a signature style few directors can claim. It also, however, makes them a rather odd choice to write and direct a mainstream, uplifting family feature. Indeed, their latest film, The Astronaut Farmer, is an supposedly upbeat family story about a man who dreams of flying into the cosmos.

Charlie Farmer is a dreamer. He has been dreaming of being an astronaut since he joined the airforce at 17 years old. He progressed through the ranks quickly and was destined for NASA when a family tragedy called him home to his family's ranch in Texas and a life he never intended. Now in his late 40's with a beautiful wife Audie (Virginia Madsen), three terrific kids, Charlie has somehow managed to not give up his dream.

In his barn, Charlie has built a real life rocket. Stainless steel, a model of the classic first NASA space rockets, Charlie's space ship is nearly ready for launch when he comes to the attention of the federal government. The head of the FAA (J.K Simmons) is determined to keep the Texas farmer grounded. Meanwhile, Charlie's lawyer (Tim Blake Nelson), gets the media involved and Charlie becomes a sensation.

Written and directed by Michael and Mark Polish, The Astronaut Farmer has some of the Polish's usual inspired simplicity. The idea of an astronaut farmer has the same kind of quaint charm as the group of misfits from Northfork who cling to their tiny home even as the government plans to flood them out of existence.

The Astronaut Farmer shares with Northfork and the Polish brothers' debut picture Twin Falls Idaho a similar laconic, detached observant quality. The differences however; are stark and somewhat damning. Where Northfork and Twin Falls Idaho are character studies that thrive under the detached, observant style of the Polish brothers. The Astronaut Farmer is much too patently commercial to thrive under this kind of direction.

The Astronaut Farmer is so disconnected from any identifiable reality that there is a sort of loopy charm to it. Unfortunately the film simply seems too tired to mine that charm for more than just the premise and a quirky opening scene of Thornton in full astronaut regalia riding a horse over the plains. From there, the film drifts and bobs and never gains any narrative energy.

The roadblocks to the farmer's success are laid out succinctly (finances, the Federal government) but because of the laid back pace and manner of the filmmaking, these obstacles never grow to provide any narrative tension. Late in the film; when a false crisis is introduced it is so poorly put together it takes several minutes to realize what happened. This was likely a problem because the false crisis is the most energetic moment in the film and the Polish brothers simply didn't know what to do with it.

The Astronaut Farmer longs to be a simple mainstream family movie. It longs to be warm and charming like a lovable puppy. However, under the direction of the undeniably talented Mark and Michael Polish, The Astronaut Farmer is remote and detached. The Polish brother's attempt at taking their quiet, quirky observant style mainstream only serves to compromise both their style and this story.

Movie Review: Firewall

Firewall (2006) 

Directed by Richard Loncraine

Written by Joe Forte

Starring Harrison Ford, Paul Bettany, Virginia Madsen, Mary Lyn Rajskub, Robert Patrick, Robert Forster, Alan Arkin

Release Date February 10th, 2006 

Published February 9th, 2006 

It's been a tough millenium for Harrison Ford. Since the year 2000 the man who was once our number one action star has had one hit movie, 2000's What Lies Beneath. Ford has worked sparingly since, and each of his three projects has been creakier and more tired than the last. In 2002,  K-19: The Widowmaker featured Ford with an embarrassing Russian accent in a film that was otherwise entirely forgettable.

Hollywood Homicide (2004) was meant to share some of Ford's action-star status with Josh Hartnett. That slipshod effort, however, did nothing for either actor. Now comes the nadir of Ford's recent career, a techno-thriller called Firewall.

Jack Stanfield (Harrison Ford) is the top bank security officer in the field. His computer network is seemingly impenetrable. In fact, its only flaw is Jack himself. In a situation that he or someone from the bank might have predicted, a group of bank robbers lead by Bill Cox (Paul Bettany) has been watching Jack and his family. When Jack takes a late-evening meeting with Cox he has no idea that Cox's thugs have taken his family hostage.

The plan is not all that ingenious really. The bad guys threaten to kill Jack's family unless he will use his security knowledge to find the robbers a way to steal the cash. Naturally, the evil plot involves framing Jack for the theft while the bad guys sneak off to the Carribean with their cash in one of those offshore accounts that are so ubiquitous amongst movie criminals.

Firewall is merely the latest in a new genre called the techno-thriller. It's a genre that requires actors to spout techno-jargon while outwitting one another at computer terminals. What sets Firewall apart is star Harrison Ford who, at 63, could not possibly seem more out of place. The crotchety action star never for a moment seems comfortable with the techno-jargon. Only when the techno-thriller devolves into fistfights does Ford rouse slightly from his discomfort.

Criticizing Harrison Ford is not easy, especially for a fanboy like myself. The man has earned undying appreciation for being Han Solo, Indiana Jones and Jack Ryan. However with his last film, Hollywood Homicide, and now Firewall, the man once considered America's number one action hero is more than showing his age. Ford looks tired throughout Firewall and it's not just because of the character's stressful situation.

Watching the clearly bedraggled action hero vainly beat on his much younger nemeses and expect us to accept it is sad to watch. Someone needed to pull Ford aside and tell him that this role is no longer his strong suit. Ford should be seeking the kind of elder statesman roles that befit someone of his age and stature. Never one to seek awards recognition, Ford might consider chasing more challenging and more rewarding pictures. Certainly no one would begrudge one of our great heroes were he to launch an attempt at being taken seriously.

Director Richard Loncraine, who directed a British thriller called Bellman & True with a very similar plot to Firewall, brings a levelheaded professionalism to his direction. Loncraine is a veteran who knows how to build tension, but working within the constrictions of this genre and a sub-par script by Joe Forte, there is not much even a pro like Loncraine could do.

Loncraine, however, must take some of the blame for taking care of his star's vanity. It is Loncraine who allowed Ford to monopolize the film with his vain attempt at recreating past heroic glories. I would not want to be the director who has to tell Harrison Ford that he just doesn't have that action juice anymore, but someone needed to take responsibility and the director should have been the one.

It took about 15 minutes into Firewall before my eyes began rolling. Once the villains begin talking about encryption codes and servers I wanted to walk out. These computer terms became tired tropes around 1998 when Sandra Bullock ran them into the ground in the identity-theft thriller The Net. They were painfully dull once again in 2000's Swordfish with Hugh Jackman and John Travolta. And I had hoped they had passed for good after Michael Douglas' oh so lame Don't Say A Word. Sadly, Firewall rolls the clichés right back out and reminds us why they were so lame the first time.

Don't Say A Word is an even-closer cousin to Firewall, and not just because Douglas is in Ford's age bracket. Both films indulge another tiresome commonplace plot device, the all-seeing cameras. Big Brother plays a big part in Firewall as the baddies have invented all sorts of neato electronic gizmos to spy on the security expert and his family. In fact these items, along with their laptops and the leader's high-performance sports car, lead one to wonder why they need to rob a bank at all. Simply sell that high-tech equipment and there is a million bucks in your pocket right there.

Firewall is not Harrison Ford's first disaster--Random Hearts, Six Days Seven Nights and Hollywood Homicide could each qualify for that. Firewall, however, is somewhat sadder than the rest. This is the first time that Ford has looked worn out, beaten and defeated. Maybe that was the intent of the performance and, if so, it was a bad decision. Ford looks tired. He looks like a guy in need of retirement or a very long vacation and that just makes the film sad to watch.

Movie Review Sideways

Sideways (2004) 

Directed by Alexander Payne 

Written by Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor 

Starring Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, Sandra Oh 

Release Date October 22nd, 2004 

Published November 13th, 2004 

Wannabe novelist Miles (Paul Giamatti) is sweating the fate of his first novel as he heads off for a week long bachelor send off for his friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church), though to hear Jack tell it, Miles’ novel will be on store shelves in no time. Jack has always done little things such as this that has made Miles uncomfortable but as “Sideways” progresses it’s clear that Miles will put up with it, Jack seems to be his only friend. 

Divorced for two years, Miles cannot get over his last relationship and has more and more come to rely on his love of great wine to get him through a dreary week as an 8th grade English teacher. Is Miles an alcoholic? He would say no but the evidence seems to say otherwise. Miles’ drinking isn’t really the subject of “Sideways” but rather a sad subtext.

The text of “Sideways,” the story that drives the film, is Miles and Jack’s week long trip to California wine country in Solvang, California. On the trip Miles thinks that they are going to drink wine, play golf and get back to L.A in time for the rehearsal dinner before Jack’s wedding. Jack, on other hand, makes one thing clear; he’s getting laid on this trip one last time before he gets married.

There is an element of “Sideways” that plays like “American Pie” for the mid-life crisis crowd. Jack is an overgrown child, a slave to his sex drive and the needs of the moment in front of him. Miles is lower key but in the way that he allows himself to be dragged into Jack’s world he demonstrates that he isn’t much more mature than the friend he constantly looks down upon.

On their first night in Solvang Miles and Jack meet Maia (Virginia Madsen) that Miles had spent a little time with on previous trips but she was married then. She’s not married anymore and when Jack makes the acquaintance of a local girl named Stephanie (Sandra Oh) who happens to be friends with Maia, Jack’s plans to get himself and Miles laid kick in even as Giamatti and Madsen’s maturity plays heavy against such childishness.

This brings us to arguably, the most famous scene in “Sideways,” easily the scene that won Virginia Madsen an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress and should have one Best Actor for Giamatti. As Miles and Maia chat about wine they each reveal themselves in elegantly crafted speeches; Miles revealing parallels between himself and his favorite wine, how this particular grape used in Pinot Noir is thin skinned, temperamental and can only be cultivated by the most patient of growers.

As Miles continues the metaphor turns to lament as Miles describes the taste of a good Pinot in the same way one might have described Miles if he ever reached his potential, haunting and brilliant but only under just the right circumstance. The side references Miles makes to Cabernet and how it can thrive anywhere and that it is ‘prosaic’ in an inescapable description of Jack.

Yes, the scene is a little too self aware but it works because Giamatti is so sympathetic in this moment. Then as the scene turns to Virginia Madsen and she describes the life of wine with this look of warmth and great beauty you quickly realize that this is the woman who could coax Miles to his full potential. The scene ends as it only can as early as it is in the movie; in awkwardness as shy fumbling Miles blows the moment only to even more awkwardly attempt recapture it.

These are wonderfully human moments that draw us in and glue us to our seat for the rest of the ride that is “Sideways.” It’s a film about characters that do some awful things but are never caricatures, never merely types of characters. Paul Giamatti especially delivers a performance of deep pathos, a sympathetic portrayal of a pathetic man striving to no longer be pathetic, failing more often than he succeeds.

Wine is the life blood of “Sideways” and Miles’ love of wine is his one respite, an area of expertise that he can fairly be proud of and yet offers another layer to his character, pomposity. The oenophile Miles is arrogant and snobbish and yet his expertise in the realm of wine also gives this otherwise pathetic character an air of dignity and sophistication that no other hobby could bestow.

Did you know that the success of “Sideways” has in just a few weeks done such damage to sales of some brands of Merlot that industry insiders are calculating the potential damages to their brand? It’s just one throwaway scene, Miles vehemently refusing to drink Merlot and yet the impact was felt and is still being felt among those who produce Merlot and champion it. 

Ah, the wonderful quirks of our popular culture. 

Movie Review A Haunting in Connecticut

The Haunting in Connecticut (2009) 

Directed by Peter Cornwell 

Written by Adan Simon, Tim Metcalfe

Starring Virginia Madsen, Kyle Gallner, Martin Donovan, Amanda Crew, Elias Koteas 

Release Date March 27th, 2009 

Published March 26th, 2009 

Virginia Madsen is a very talented actress. This assertion on my part is well demonstrated in her Oscar nominated performance in Sideways. However, her name on a marquee inspires the kind of fuzzy, hazy, disconnected state that only Pink Floyd could properly describe. Place her name above the title The Haunting in Connecticut and the combination inspires the kind of yawn that can only be described as jaw breaking.

The Haunting in Connecticut is a movie that commits the cardinal sin of movies. It is not merely bad, it's boring. Not boring merely in the way that one could be doing better things with their time but boring in a way that one is subjected to. As if locked in a room with blank walls and no windows. Gene Siskel put it best 'This movie does not improve upon a blank screen viewed for the same length of time.'

Virginia Madsen is ostensibly the star of The Haunting in Connecticut though one might fairly claim ennui as the film's true marquee element. Madsen plays a country mom to a cancer-addled son, played by Kyle Gallner, who decides to move her family to a suburban home closer to the local hospital. Because the family is not rich she accepts the first home in their price range. This, despite the fact that the home used to be a working funeral home. Poverty is stronger than the darkly ironic, fate tempting idea of moving her dying son into what used to be a funeral parlor.

Dad (Martin Donovan) is forced to stay in the country for work reasons but the rest of the family is coming to the creepy new house. The rest of the family include a toe-headed little brother and a pair of female cousins whose living arrangements are somewhere in the exposition, likely during the onset of my movie-long malaise.

Of course it's not long before the ghosts begin tossing plates and the shrieking musical score begins trying to convince us that all of this is pretty scary. I remain unconvinced. Along the way we greet a few more unhappy clichés including conventional horror movie misdirection where people hear noises that they think are scary but are really cats or birds or relatives.

There is even a brief digression into the child in danger plot as the youngest children are briefly menaced by apparitions. This is thankfully brief but hey if you are going to fly by on cliché you may as well throw them all in there. Clichés at the very least are familiar and even distracting yet somehow even they come off as boring in this film. It's difficult to describe this level of boredom. Imagine Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller mode reading the instruction manual for a ford fiesta. Now take that down a notch and you can imagine something close to what I felt during The Haunting in Connecticut.

This is surprising considering the 'true story' the film is allegedly based on. Al and Carmen Snedeker are a real family who moved into what was a former funeral home in Connecticut back in the mid-80's. After moving in they did indeed report a number of creepy goings on. Their story inspired Ed and Lorraine Warren, the spiritualist con artists who crafted the Amityville Horror legend years earlier, to come and craft an elaborate haunting for the Snedekers.

Not surprisingly, the whole thing became a bestselling book and now this movie. Except that the movie seems to have left out some of the more juicy and entertaining details. Not the ghosts, the bodies allegedly stuffed in the walls, or the alleged séances that may or may not have taken place as a regular bit of funeral home business. That's all in there somewhere, I think, I may have blacked out briefly. 

No. It's the part where Al and Carmen cop to having been raped by apparitions repeatedly over the TWO YEARS they lived in this house. Disturbing on so many levels? Yes, but definitely not boring. This detail was dropped from the movie either in a nod to good taste (Booo) or because writing this detail into the movie would take more effort than the writers were willing to put into it. 

Or, even more likely, it was a commerce over creepiness decision. The film is more bankable as a PG 13 feature not featuring ghostly forced sex. I'm not sure what this says about me but I cannot honestly tell you whether I preferred the boredom or the creeptastic, ungodly alternative left out of the final film. I guess we'll never know. The Haunting in Connecticut is what it is, an utterly mind numbing bore.

Movie Review: The Number 23

The Number 23 (2007) 

Directed by Joel Schumacher 

Written by Fernley Phillips 

Starring Jim Carrrey, Virginia Madsen, Logan Lerman, Danny Huston 

Release Date February 23rd, 2007 

Published February 22nd, 2007 

Jim Carrey has struggled to overcome his reputation as just a clown for years. He has done well with dramatic turns in The Truman Show, Man on The Moon, and The Majestic. With his latest picture he once again works against type this time as a potentially psychotic family man in the thriller The Number 23. He should probably have stuck with comedy. The Number 23, directed by Joel Schumacher, is a goofball thriller with an interesting premise that never works because Jim Carrey is simply the wrong actor for this role.

Walter Sparrow (Carrey) has a life that is rather mundane. As a dog catcher he doesn't seem to have much to do from day to day, when there aren't dogs to catch. Aside from waiting for his wife, Agatha (Virginia Madsen), to finish work everyday he's a pretty boring and lonely guy. One day, when Walter picked up Agatha from work he found her in a bookstore. There she purchased for him an odd used book called The Number 23.

Walter is skeptical of the book at first; but two chapters in he is hooked. The book, it seems to Walter, is mirroring his life. The description of the lead character Fingerling, played by Carrey himself in dream sequences, matches Walter's childhood experiences almost exactly. As the story progresses Walter see's more parallels with his own life, especially in relation to the book's central theme about the number 23 which Walter links everywhere in his life. Eventually the book predicts Walter will murder his wife and he must find some way to keep that from happening.

Directed by Joel Schumacher from a script by Fernley Phillips, The Number 23 is a paranoid thriller that indulges an interesting conspiracy but sadly degenerates into a series of ever less believable twists before crashing and burning in the final 20 minutes. The idea behind the film is interesting. The number 23 has in fact been linked by conspiracy theorists to all sorts of tragedies and the script for The Number 23 initially makes good use of this.

From the moment the first trailer for The Number 23 hit theaters Jim Carrey fans have worried that they had another Cable Guy on their hands. They were right. The Number 23 is yet another manic, out of control performance for the funnyman, only this time without the few spare laughs that other film managed. Carrey simply can't find the right pitch for this type of character. He can do morose and he can do manic but when he combines those attributes as he did in Cable Guy and as he does in The Number 23 his performance becomes messy and over-indulgent.

I love the idea of this film. With a tighter script and a different lead actor; I believe The Number 23 could be a dense, conspiracy thriller. In reading about the number 23 enigma I found that the number is linked to the Illuminati and other rich conspiracy targets. Those who have obsessed over the number, those who suffer from an illness called Apophenia; the experience of seeing patterns in random meaningless data, have connected the number 23 to numerous historic tragedies from the Oklahoma City bombing to the siege in Waco Texas to 9/11.

Did you know that Oklahoma City and Waco both happened on 4/19. 4 +19 is 23. No matter that Timothy McVeigh intimated that he chose that date for the Oklahoma City bombing because it was the date of the Waco siege, the conspiracy theory about this ridiculous number is more fun. A movie about that kind of mania would likely be much more fun than the mess that is The Number 23.

I'm certainly not suggesting that there is a role Jim Carrey can't play. However, clearly there are roles he shouldn't play. Psycho, conspiracy-attled killer simply doesn't suit Carrey. It didn't work in The Cable Guy and it works far less in The Number 23. Granted, a third act train-wreck in Joel Schumacher's direction does Carrey few favors but even with Schumacher's bad direction, Carrey is so wrong for the role that even good direction likely could not save The Number 23. \