Land of Mine
★★★★
Now playing

In the final months of World War II, German forces buried more than 1.5 million landmines on the western beaches of Denmark. Germany believed that the Danish shore was one of the probable landing spots for an Allied invasion.

After Germany’s surrender, Danish officials commandeered four thousand German POWs to remove the landmines. By then, most of the original occupying forces were dead or gone. The final wave of German soldiers sent to Denmark were mostly teenagers—children, essentially—conscripted by Hitler in a cruel last gasp.

This largely forgotten episode of World War II history is dramatized in the Danish film Under Sandet (Under the Sand), nominated for an Academy Award and generally acknowledged as among the finest Danish films of the last several years. For some goddamn reason, the film has been retitled Land of Mine for its limited U.S. theatrical release. What were they thinking? This film does not need a pun in its title.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

gifted

GIFTED
1/2
Now playing

So this happens sometimes at the movies: a film comes along and does things you’ve seen a hundred times before. You know you’re being worked over emotionally, with cinematic tricks and techniques that have been around forever. But the story soars anyway, and you walk out genuinely moved and entirely satisfied.

Such is the case with Gifted, the story of Mary, a seven-year-old math prodigy caught in a custody battle that will determine the trajectory of her life. Chris “Captain America” Evans plays Mary’s uncle and guardian, Frank, a former philosophy professor turned boat mechanic. Mary’s mother (Frank’s sister), a math prodigy herself, committed suicide just after Mary was born. The trauma sent Frank spiraling out of academia and into the bars and harbors of coastal Florida. (He’s the “damaged hot guy,” as one tavern admirer says.) Frank and Mary live in a trailer park, where Frank tries to provide his niece with a poor-but-normal, nongenius life.

Read the rest of this entry »

Table 19
★ ½
Now playing

Science has yet to identify the precise biomechanical workings of the cringe. A function of the sympathetic nervous system, it’s an involuntary muscular reaction that occurs when we see or hear something embarrassing or unpleasant.

Watching Table 19, the new ensemble comedy starring Anna Kendrick, I’m pretty sure I strained several important cringe muscles. It’s a surprisingly bad movie, the kind that usually get detoured into foreign markets or a DVD/digital release well before any U.S. theatrical distribution is negotiated. It’s a genuine curiosity to see a specimen like this on the big screen.

Read the rest of this entry »

get_out_universal_pictures
from Indy Week

The go-to synopsis for Get Out, the brilliant new horror film from writer-director Jordan Peele (Key & Peele), is that it’s Look Who’s Coming to Dinner crossed with a racially charged update of The Stepford Wives. That’s about right, but Peele’s game-changing film is more than that, and it’s the best thing to happen to the horror genre in 20 years.

The set-up: Brooklyn photographer Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) is about to meet the parents of his new girlfriend Rose Armitage (Allison Williams), on a weekend getaway upstate. That’s stressful enough as it is, but Chris has deeper anxieties. He’s black, she’s white, and the Armitage family lives in the kind of tony suburban enclave where people of color feel conspicuous and vulnerable just walking down the street.

This last observation is confirmed in the film’s (seemingly) unrelated opening scene, where another young black man finds himself lost in those same suburbs. Bad Things Happen, and the sequence establishes the film’s nervy tone: This is a story that’s as aware of Treyvon Martin and Oscar Grant as it is of Halloween and Invasion of the Body Snatchers

Back in Brooklyn, Rose assures Chris that her parents are not racists, and indeed Chris is warmly welcomed by neurosurgeon dad (Bradley Whitford) and psychotherapist mom (Katherine Keener). The ‘rents seem harmless and square, making clumsy attempts to connect with Chris by conspicuously name dropping President Obama and Jesse Owens. “We’re huggers!” dad says, embracing Chris on the front porch of the house.

Read the rest of this entry »

re1

from the Raleigh News & Observer

The video game genre known as survival horror plays by a certain set of rules. These games generate thrills through atmosphere and tension rather than straight-up action, and limited resources give the player a sense of desperation. Running and hiding is often a better option than standing and fighting.

“Resident Evil 7: Biohazard” is a nice example of survival horror done right, and by “nice” I mean “utterly terrifying.” Horror fans who like to scare themselves silly – whether by game, movie or book – will appreciate the experience that “RE7” provides. When executed properly (heh), survival horror games are unlike any other storytelling mode.

Returning players will already be familiar with the “Resident Evil” vibe – creeping horror punctuated with sudden scares by nightmare beasties. As the title of the new game suggest, the series also plays with our deep biological fears of infection and contamination. “RE” specializes in squirm-inducing environments designed to punch you right in the brain stem.

Read the rest of this entry »

ARRIVAL

from Seeker

The opening scenes of the new sci-fi film “Arrival” cover familiar territory, as we see enormous spacecraft hovering over cities on our troubled planet Earth.

But soon the film reveals that it’s not going to be like other alien movies. The spaceships have no weapons. Our hero is a linguist. Cerebral narrative puzzles take shape. A procession of subtle and intriguing ideas ultimately blossom into a story of profound insight and hope.

“Arrival” is the best sci-fi movie of the year because it does what science fiction does best: It encourages thoughtful conjecture and lateral thinking. It asks us to project our hopes and anxieties out to some notional event horizon, then see what develops. In the choppy wake of this terrible and divisive election season, it’s the one movie you should take the time to see, and process and talk about afterward.

Warning: There are some moderate spoilers ahead, but nothing much past what you can see in the trailers, and I’ll stay far away from the film’s central mystery.

Amy Adams plays Dr. Louise Banks, a linguist recruited by the U.S. government to communicate with the aliens. Twelve spaceships — ovoids that suggest seed pods, significantly — have descended over countries around the world. The aliens show no signs of aggression, but the world’s nation-states respond with varying defensive postures, scrambling jets and aiming weapons at the ships.

Banks is partnered with mathematician Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), who hopes that the language of numbers will help in establishing contact with the aliens. Each day, the ships’ portals open briefly and Earth sends its various delegations aboard. Inside the ship, director Denis Villeneuve creates a minimalist marvel of art design, an extradimensional space with sideways gravity. It feels like a prehistoric cave, those sacred spaces where our species first experimented with language and art.

We see the aliens, eventually, but they’re cleverly obscured and the visuals underline a storytelling strategy used throughout the film. “Arrival” isn’t really interested in the aliens; it’s interested in our reaction to the aliens. How will we reach out to this new entity, this ultimate Other? What will we choose to communicate, and how?

In the end, “Arrival” is all about communication. “The language we speak determines how we think,” Louise says, referencing a fierce debate in the field of linguistics. Without spoiling too much, the aliens present us with a new kind of language, a new way to communicate. It’s a language that imparts meaning directly, does not represent sound or speech, and is not bound by time.

It’s so nice to be treated as an adult by a science fiction movie. This is a film that asks us to think, and presents delicious mysteries concerning ideograms, palindromes, game theory and the significance of the number 0.083.

It’s said that providence moves in mysterious ways, as does Hollywood, and the timing of “Arrival” is auspicious. The film addresses that nagging suspicion, perhaps you’re familiar with it, that the promise of the Digital Age is fading fast. Our precious devices and networks aren’t bringing us closer together. They’re driving us apart. We sit in public spaces, staring into the tiny screens in our palms. We gather in online cliques and echo chambers with those who share our history and opinions.

Despite our space-age communication technology, we’re not talking to each other — not really. We’re projecting digital versions of ourselves. We aren’t connecting in the important ways. We’re fractured and divided, as evidenced by the world’s escalating conflicts and even our own domestic elections and referendums.

Thoughtful science fiction like “Arrival” can help us approach this existential dilemma from a sideways vector. As a genre, as a mode, sci-fi provides us with the opportunity to think laterally about ideas and issues. Movies are one of the ways we process change, as a culture, on some unknowable level of collective consciousness that transcends rationality and intent. When a movie like “Arrival” comes along, we should pay attention. We’re telling ourselves something.

fantastic_beasts_warner_bros

from Indy Week 

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
★★★ ½
Now playing

I suspect that, for a while at least, it’s going to be difficult to avoid processing every halfway applicable film through the nightmare lens of the recent elections. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the latest installment in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter universe, opens with a montage of headlines. “Anti-Wizard Sentiment Sweeps America,” reads one swirling paper as we’re introduced to the setup.

In the movie’s alternate history, it’s 1926 in New York City, and hateful fringe groups are agitating for the deportation of all witches and wizards, the current threat to Our Great Nation. At one point, the newspaper headlines switch to German, then we fade to an image of the Statue of Liberty. Goddamn it, is every onscreen scenario like this going to make my stomach hurt for the next four years?

Moving on: Fantastic Beasts, an original script by Rowling adapted from the 2001 footnote to the Harry Potter series, returns us to her richly imagined world of wizardry and witchcraft. Eddie Redmayne takes the wheel as our new hero, Newt Scamander, an eccentric British mage who has sailed to America with his marvelous, magical suitcase.

Newt is an animal advocate of extreme passion, and that suitcase is filled with all manner of, yes, fantastic beasts. The extra-dimensional realm within Newt’s luggage is one of the film’s many visual extravaganzas. There’s a whole world in there, packed with magical creatures from the savannas to the mountains.

The trouble begins when several of these creatures escape into old New York, prompting urban adventures with demoted American auror Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) and profoundly confused Muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), an aspiring baker who’s along for the ride of his life. Our heroes soon run afoul of the American wizarding authorities, who are debating their own public policies in regard to Muggle relations. There’s plenty of allegory in Beasts, if you want to tune in …

Director David Yates, who helmed the last four Potter movies, brings a lighter tone to the new movie, which is entirely welcome—those last few movies were awfully grim. Redmayne is a compelling new hero, and his performance here is a delight of oddball physicality. He walks like a duck, for one thing. As the eager and kindhearted auror, Waterston (daughter of Sam) is completely engaging; she reveals many layers, and may be concealing more. Tina’s younger sister Queenie, played by musician Alison Sudol, is also delightful. But Fogler really steals the show as the lovable sad sack Kowalski. He’s got all the movie’s best laughs.

I’m genuinely looking forward to following these new core characters through the Beasts series, now planned for five films. This group of childlike adults can plausibly fit into the shoes of Harry, Ron, and Hermione. But I’m not looking forward to figuring out future story lines, if they’re as confusing as what we’re given here. Rowling’s expansive myth making can easily get unwieldy, as evidenced by the resolution of the Potter books, which very nearly collapsed under their own weight. Beasts starts out confusing, then stays that way for two hours and thirteen minutes. Look, red herrings are fantastic beasts, too, but they need to be properly deployed. At the film’s halfway point, I realized I had no idea who the villain was. By the end, things weren’t much clearer.

Still, Muggles who appreciate the grand modern mythology that Rowling has bequeathed to us—I’m one of them—should not miss Fantastic Beasts. It’s a promising start to the new series, packed with imaginative ideas and fabulous visual flourishes. If the political allegory is a little heavy-handed, maybe that’s a good thing. Evidently, a good portion of the U.S. electorate has trouble spotting the actual existential threats to our country.