“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” = spectacular effects, yes; classic superhero movie, no
By Steve CrumTeaming up fictional heroes has always held fascination and excitement for me, beginning in the 1950’s with childhood movie cowboy stars (The Range Busters) and comic book superheroes like the Justice League of America. Always a devoted DC Comics nerd, I loved it when Superman and Batman teamed in their World’s Finest comic book series. Great Krypton, it has now—finally—happened on the big screen with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I’m happy about the team-up concept, but not so with the end result.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice severely trashes the original concept of both characters, particularly Superman, and ends up as a whole lot of bells and whistles. LOUD bells and whistles. This is not to say the two characters have not already been tweaked in movies, TV, radio and comic books since their 1930’s comic book origins. (Superman premiered in 1938, and Batman in 1939.) That includes costuming, a redesigned Batmobile, and a smugness about the business of law enforcement. The Caped Crusader really turned ominous with Christopher Nolan’s three Dark Knight Batman films, beginning in 2005.
In this current take, Superman has become a humorless bastion of strong arm police work—even labeled a terrorist by many in the media and public. At the same time, Batman is beset with nightmarish flashbacks about his parents’ murders. His ongoing paranoia falls to a new level when he swallows media hype in believing Superman is indeed a threat to world peace.
Batman himself is still the same reliable protector of truth and justice, except now he finishes off murdered bad guys by literally branding them on their necks with his Batman symbol. There is a high murder count in Batman v Superman, making it seem more like a high tech video game. Add spectacular CGI effects, and by golly this IS a big budgeted kill or be killed video game.
Ben Affleck is perfectly cast for a Batman/Bruce Wayne of this unsmiling and stoic nature since he already fits the mold, based on many of the movie characters he has portrayed. Adding Henry Cavill’s similarly stiff acting as Superman (originally playing him in 2013’s disappointing Man of Steel) gives the audience two robotic actors in superhero costumes that appear to be made of Goodyear rubber. 
Director-producer Zack Snyder is the DC superhero golden boy responsible for any kisses and hisses B v S will garner. Evidently Man of Steel box office was great enough for him to continue with another Superman saga. He is already in pre-production with next year’s Justice League: Part One, which will combine a Gold’s Gym of superheroes. Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) has a major sequence in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and we glimpse Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg. These super beings will be better showcased, in addition to Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, in 2017’s franchise installment. 
The running time of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a grueling 152 minutes. With most of the screen time devoted to Batman and Superman clobbering each other as well as the humongous creature called Doomsday, there is scant time to showcase the many fine actors who have been given seemingly key parts with little to say or do. Still, let us give them credit for their near cameos: Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Diane Lane (Martha Kent, Superman’s earth Ma), Laurence Fishbone (Perry White), and Holly Hunter as Senator Finch. Look for true cameos by real people playing themselves: Sen. Patrick Leahy, Charlie Rose, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Anderson Cooper, and others. 
Oh yes, there is a brief scene featuring Kevin Costner as Clark Kent’s earth father. True, he died in Man of Steel, so…well, you’ll figure it out.
As a positive, Jesse Eisenberg tears up the scenery with his take on the vicious Lex Luthor. Jeremy Irons’ Alfred (Bruce Wayne/Batman’s loyal butler) is a unique interpretation of that well known character. Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL’s bizarre score is a borderline plus. After 2-1/2 hours of sitting through relentless CGI violent visuals and deafening sound effects, I was exhausted. Recuperation should end just as next year’s Justice League movie opens.
——————————
GRADE on an A-F Scale: C-
Hilarious ‘Hail, Caesar!’ requires multiple viewings to appreciate myriad jokes
By Steve CrumWithout divulging the central surprise plot element of Hail, Caesar!, let’s just say the brothers Coen have here given a hilarious send-up to a certain post-WWII conspiracy theory that was widely accepted and acted upon in the late 1940’s and early ‘50s. That sad state of affairs is presented with over-the-top parody in this comedic gem.
Joel and Ethan Coen, sharing honors in the writing, directing, producing and editing, have created a kind of Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World of 2016 about political and showbiz events of 1951. Although I loved all the funny, snarky Hollywood references, Hail, Caesar! includes a plethora of inside jokes. For example, movie executives at Capitol Pictures have a designated room for formal discussions, called The Wallace Beery Meeting Room. If you don’t catch the humor in that very title, you are missing the satirical point. Therefore, general public be aware. The Coens are shooting high, maybe over your heads.
The bottom line premise involves Josh Brolin, well cast as studio “fixer” Eddie Mannix, whose job (“Head of Physical Production”) is to keep account of the studio’s actors as well as other production elements. An opening scene shows Mannix tracking down and rescuing a studio actress from what could have been a morality violation resulting in bad publicity. Of course, the studio would not have any of that. Mannix takes his work very seriously, which makes his very deadpan being even more hilarious. 
When star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped between takes during a filming of a Biblical epic (Whitlock is a Roman officer), Mannix is once again on the trail. Make no mistake, his Mannix name clearly references the real life Eddie Mannix, who was also a studio “fixer.” 
Ethan and Joel Coen confer during filming Hail, Caesar!
While the hunt goes on for one of the studio’s top stars, we glimpse other stars on set during various productions. The coolness of Hail, Caesar! is that major stars have been cast as major stars. Even though the names have been changed, it is clear who is being parodied. For example, Clooney’s Whitlock is supposed to be Kirk Douglas in a Spartacus-like movie. Alden Ehrenreich is Hobie Doyle, a Gene Autry type in B-westerns the studio is trying to elevate to dramatic actor. Ehrenreich is superb…and funny.
Also amusing are Ralph Fiennes as Hobie Doyle’s exasperated director, Laurence Laurentz, Scarlett Johansson’s DeeAnna Moran (an Esther Williams type), and Tilda Swinton. Swinton plays twin sisters who are opposing gossip columnists. Think Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons. The latter two were not related, but made livings as sisters of seamy scandal.
Then there is THE highlight of Hail, Caesar!, featuring Channing Tatum, of all people. In a take on Gene Kelly singing and dancing in On the Town or Anchors Aweigh, Tatum’s Burt Gurney sings and acrobatically dances with a group of fellow sailors to the lively Carter Burwell tune, “No Dames.” That the sequence escalates to, well, flamboyance makes it even funnier.
Incidentally, there are enough references to assume MGM is the basis for Capitol Pictures.
The Coens have laced Hail, Caesar! with enough visuals and double entendres that beg for multiple viewings to appreciate them all. Look for Dolph Lundgren as a submarine commander; overhead swim shots straight out of Busby Berkeley; Veronica Osorio suggesting Carmen Miranda; and the seldom seen lately Christopher Lambert. Frances McDormand has a choice slapstick bit as a cigarette smoking film editor. As a topper, Michael Gambon narrates this Coen opus. It is time to see Hail, Caesar! again.
——————————
GRADE on an A-F Scale: A-
Adult cartoon ‘Anomalisa’ is typically insightful, bizarre Charlie Kaufman
By Steve CrumThose familiar with the films of Charlie Kaufman will expect some strange goings-on in his latest picture, an odd gem via puppet animation called Anomalisa. It’s worth watching. In fact, its bizarreness will grab from the get-go. This does not mean you will grasp any or all of its meaning or purpose when the 90 minute running time concludes.
Ready yourself for filmed eccentricity, ladies and gentlemen.
Before delving into Anomalisa (a created word used by the main character), realize that Kaufman has written only a smattering of theatrical motion pictures: Being John Malkovich; Synecdoche, New York; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Confessions of a Dangerous Mind; Human Nature; and this new one. Anomalisa and Synecdoche, New York are his only feature film—director works.
Kaufman himself labels Anomalisa as “existential”—an apt description befitting previous films. His TV-movie, How and Why, involves the discovery of a portal to a supernatural world. In Being John Malkovich, a group of miniaturized humans take advantage of a portal into the brain of actor Malkovich…and literally venture inside and out.
In the very adult themed, romantic comedy-drama Anomalisa, Kaufman’s first animated film (co-directed by Duke Johnson), a self-help writer named Michael Stone (voiced by David Thewlis) checks into a Cincinnati hotel one weekend to attend a conference of telemarketers. He is to be the main speaker, while at the same time promoting his book, “How May I Help You Help Them?”, aimed at an audience of phone sales people. We soon learn Michael has true fans among the telemarketers, including two ladies sharing a room right down the hall.
A technician adjusts the two primary puppets that serve as Michael and Lisa. Note the stabilizing clamps as the puppets are very slightly moved for the stop motion camera.
Once Michael is situated in his room, his loneliness and insecurity prompt a call to an old flame living nearby. Without getting into specifics, the two meet in the hotel bar only to realize why they previously broke up. Michael suffers even more. He should be rehearsing his speech for the next day, but matters of the heart and hormones dominate his thoughts and actions. Director-writer Kaufman takes us along on Michael’s journey of self satisfaction, from pondering his image in the bathroom mirror to shopping for an adult sex toy in a downtown store. He even hooks up with one of his fans, Lisa, voiced by Jennifer Jason Leigh. In addition, Michael has nightmarish fantasies.
Kaufman has said that with Anomalisa he aimed to make us forget we are watching an animated film and accept the characters as real. He succeeds, sure enough, except when he reminds us we ARE watching stop-motion puppetry. For sure, these puppets resemble humans, but their clearly hinged bodies are obviously robotic. A favorite scene: Michael’s lower face unhinges and falls to the floor. He merely picks it up and reattaches it.
Now that is surreal, very symbolic, and wickedly funny.
——————————
GRADE on an A-F Scale: A-
‘The Revenant’ triumphs as realistic, gritty survival epic
By Steve CrumForgive me, Charles Portis and John Wayne, but The Revenant should be subtitled True Grit. However, labeling this gritty action spectacle “revenant” is also very apt since it refers to “one that returns after death or after a long absence.” That definition fits the epic, 2 hours-36 minutes, factual saga told in The Revenant.
Adapted from Michael Punke’s The Revenant: A Novel of Revenge, the screenplay was co-written by the director, Alejandro G. Iñárritu (director and co-writer of last year’s Oscar winner, Birdman) and Mark L. Smith. The original story is based on the real life experiences of legendary fur trapper Hugh Glass. The “revenge” aspect plays out between Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his nemesis, fellow trapper John Fitzgerald, portrayed by Tom Hardy.
By the time Glass is faced with survival, driven by revenge, he has experienced a Sar Ah (Native American tribe) attack and slaughter of his hunting party (they are hunting for pelts in the Louisiana Purchase wild) and then an unbelievably vicious bear mauling. Surely I am not spoiling the plot since that bear sequence is repeatedly shown in the trailer. Abandoned and left to die by Fitzgerald, Glass is on his own, crawling at first, fighting snow, more Indians (this time the Arikara), and starvation. DiCaprio has little to say during the second third of the movie, since he is literally alone. That his character’s throat was damaged during the bear attack reduces his voice to raspy whisper. Yet DiCaprio speaks loudly with his eyes and body language. Glass’s goal is to survive, eventually reach civilization, recover his health, and then wreak havoc on Fitzgerald.
A real plus of The Revenant is its expansive cinematography focusing on the gorgeous waterways, forests and mountains of the story’s setting of Montana and South Dakota circa 1823. Surprise, surprise. Actual filming was in 12 different locations encompassing three countries: the United States, Canada, and Argentina. Check out those repeated shots angled upward into the tall trees. Let’s give cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki his due here. 
Iñárritu’s realistic approach to filming, sans any computer generated effects, added to the difficulty of shooting on location. It took its toll on everyone involved, including the cast. (Several crew members quit or were fired during the production.) Natural lighting was used. The result is telling, a visual treat. Be forewarned that the visuals are sometimes realistically ghastly.
Don’t expect a passionate love story or even Leonardo batting a passing eye at some lady of the trail. This is a man’s man movie absent of romance—or even comedy. (OK, there is a tad of humor when Glass encounters a friendly Indian midway through.) Alert, however. There is a female-driven sequence that turns out to be a plot definer. Other than that, it is grit-on. 
It is also my choice for Best Picture Oscar of 2015, even though it is opening nationwide today. (The Revenant qualifies since it had limited openings late last year.) Add another Best Director Oscar honor for Iñárritu. And DiCaprio’s performance is Best Actor worthy. The Revenant is quite an achievement. ——————————
GRADE on an A-F Scale: A
Like its elderly characters, ‘Youth’ is slow-gaited but has rewarding moments
By Steve CrumThere is a whole lot of meditating and reflection aka deep thought going on in Youth, a dramedy that has already been heralded and crowned at Cannes. I cannot give the film that much praise, but there is a definite point of view expressed here, albeit a bit depressing. The search for life’s truth by both Youth’s elderly and youngish adults is rampant in this film, as its 124 minutes crawl along in search of answers.
Youth is a handsomely photographed, well acted movie. It is also distant and uninvolving. The lack of emotion of the characters’ demeanor is perhaps best characterized by the sex play between a long-married couple, which occurs in the woods as Michael Caine’s Fred Ballinger and Harvey Keitel’s Mick Boyle hide behind a tree to observe. Previous to the husband and wife’s woodsy display of lust, they were sullen and hardly said a word to each other. Perhaps that is Italian director Paolo Sorrentino’s point. (He also wrote the screenplay.) By the time a married couple is way past retirement age, the passion becomes play acting, and the sexual act is mechanical with rehearsed sound effects.
The problem with Sorrentino’s unwavering premise it that an audience watching his story has to endure a dozen or so such emotionless characters who seem to be searching for their lost passion of life, libido and otherwise.
For central character Fred, a successful composer-conductor, coping with his depression takes some unique turns—from hand conducting cattle through a chorus of mooing on a hillside to soaking in an indoor pool with his pal Mick as they ogle a 20-something, nude Miss Universe who has chosen to join them at the pool’s opposite side. Mick and Fred are vacationing at an upscale resort, which somewhat resembles the Grand Budapest, and located in the Swiss Alps. Clientele is mixed, but heavily seniors. So many elders are there, in fact, the resort keeps doctors and nurses on staff for regular health checkups. At times the resort appears to be an assisted living abode. A rather plain Jane prostitute sits in the lobby, on call for any older gent in need of her special aid. What a logical, original touch.
Early in the story, Fred is visited by an emissary of Queen Elizabeth who requests he conduct for her his beloved operatic composition, “Simple Songs,” but it is not to be. The real reason why he refuses is eventually disclosed, but it now appears Fred is bitter, antisocial, and solidly retired. His long time pal Mick, however, does want to perform again—and the sooner the better. He wants to direct a new film, and several writers have checked in at the resort to be a part. Two actors show up regarding the movie, Jimmy Tree (Paul Dano) and Brenda Morel, played by Jane Fonda in coarse, unflattering makeup. Fonda is pretty terrific as the outspoken actress. Rachel Weisz is very effective as Fred’s daughter, Lena, who is her father’s assistant. She is also married to Mick’s philandering son.
Throughout Youth, the young adults essentially ask, “What is life?” as their elders wonder, “What was life?” “I’ve grown old without understanding how I got here,” Fred laments. By film’s conclusion, we and Fred better understand.
—————————-
GRADE on an A-F Scale: B-