Film Review: 12 Strong (dir by Nicolai Fuglsig)

Posted on January 20, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

12 Strong begins with a montage of terror.

The World Trade Center is bombed in 1993. Planes are bombed. Ships are attacked. Bill Clinton gives a speech in which he impotently condemns Al-Qaeda. Finally, we reach September 11th, 2001. Captain Mitch Nelson (Chris Hemsworth) is playing with his daughter when she suddenly looks up at the TV behind him. “Look, Daddy,” she says. Nelson turns around and sees The World Trade Center on fire.

Even though he’s recently announced his intention to retire, Nelson reports for duty. Despite the skepticism of his commanding officer (Rob Riggle), Nelson and 11 others are sent into Afghanistan. Their mission is to meet up with a warlord named Abdul Rashid Dostum (Navid Negahban) and to capture territory from the Taliban. Nelson is initially given 6 weeks to complete this task. Nelson replies that he’ll get it done in three, before the harsh Afghan winter makes it impossible to move through the mountains.

Among the actors who make up Nelson’s team: Michael Shannon, Trevante Rhodes, Austin Stowell, and Geoff Stults. Fortunately, the cast is made up of familiar faces. Even though you might not learn everyone’s name, you still feel as if you know them because you’ve seen all of them playing similar roles in other movies. (After his performance in Moonlight, it’s a bit disappointing to see Trevante Rhodes playing such a minor supporting role in his follow-up but still, he’s a charismatic actor and he has enough screen presence that he definitely makes an impression.) Somewhat inevitably, Michael Pena plays the funny member of the team. It’s not a 21st century action film without Michael Pena providing comedic relief.

(That’s actually a little unfair to Michael Pena, who is a good actor and who gives a pretty good performance in 12 Strong. It’s just that he’s played this role so many times that it’s almost become a cliché that every action movie will feature Micheal Pena making jokes.)

When the team first meets up with Dostum, there’s immediate tension between the supposed allies. As Dostum puts it, the United States only cares about getting rid of the Taliban but they don’t care about what will happen afterward. When Dostum looks at Nelson, he immediately announces that Nelson does not have killer eyes. Everyone else on the team has killer eyes but not Nelson. Dostum and his men are even less impressed when they see the Americans struggling to ride the horses that are required to get through the mountains. Will Nelson win Dostum’s respect? Will he develop the eyes of a killer?

You probably already know the answer to that. There’s really not a single moment in 12 Strong that you won’t see coming. As soon as Dostum says that Nelson needs to prove himself in battle, you know that he’ll get a chance to do just that. As soon as another soldier talks about home, you know that he’s going to be seriously wounded. When you first spot the child soldiers among Dostum’s forces and you see one of them give Nelson a nervous smile, you know that child’s probably going to be one of the first casualties of the attack.

12 Strong is a predictable movie but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad one. It’s a well-made film, with the cast all giving strong performances and director Nicolai Fuglsig doing a good job with the battle scenes. My heart was racing during the film’s final battle. New Mexico doubled for Afghanistan and the film features some truly stunning shots of the mountainous landscape. The film even makes a point about why, after 17 years, there still doesn’t appear to be any end in sight to the War in Afghanistan.

Clocking in at 2 hours and 9 minutes, 12 Strong is probably about thirty minutes too long. It’s a predictable movie but it’s well-made and the fact that it’s based on a true story does make it a bit more poignant than it would be otherwise. It’s not a bad war film, particularly for January.

Film Review: Bridge of Spies (dir by Steven Spielberg)

Posted on October 30, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I saw Bridge of Spies last weekend and I’m a little bit surprised that I haven’t gotten around to writing a review until now. After all, this is not only the latest film from Steven Spielberg but it also stars the universally beloved Tom Hanks and it’s currently being touted as a possible best picture nominee. (Mark Rylance, who plays an imprisoned spy in this film, is also emerging as a front runner for best supporting actor.) The screenplay was written by the Coen Brothers. (Oddly enough, films scripted by the Coens — like Unbroken, for instance — tend to be far more conventional and far less snarky than films actually directed by the Coens.) Even beyond its impressive pedigree, Bridge of Spies is a historical drama and by now, everyone should know how much I love historical dramas.

And the thing is, I enjoyed Bridge of Spies. I thought it was a well-made film. I thought that Tom Hanks was well-cast as an idealistic lawyer who stands up for truth, justice, and the Constitution. I agreed with the pundits who thought Mark Rylance was award-worthy. It’s become a bit of a cliché for Amy Ryan to show up as an understanding wife but it’s a role she plays well and she made the most of her scenes with Tom Hanks. Steven Spielberg knows how to put a good film together. This really should have been a film about which I rushed home to rave.

And yet, at the same time, I just could not work up that much enthusiasm for Bridge of Spies. It’s a good film but there’s nothing unexpected about it. There’s nothing surprising about the film. Steven Spielberg is one of the most commercially successful directors in history and the American film establishment pretty much orbits around him. He’s good at what he does and he deserves his success. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a subversive bone in his body. Bridge of Spies is a lot like his previous Oscar contender, Lincoln. It’s very well-made. It’s the epitome of competence. But there’s not a truly surprising or unexpected moment to be found in the film.

And I have to admit that, even as I enjoyed Bridge of Spies, I still found myself frustrated by just how risk-adverse a film it truly was. After all, we’re living in the age of Ex Machina, Upstream Color, and Sicario. Bridge of Spies is a good movie and, in many ways, it provides a very valuable history lesson. (The film’s best moments were the one that contrasted the U.S. with the cold desolation of communist-controlled East Germany.) But, overall, it just didn’t make a huge impression on me. It was just a a little bit too safe in its approach.

Film Review: Whiplash (dir by Damien Chazelle)

Posted on December 3, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I really only need five words to review Whiplash:

J. K. Simmons kicks ass.

He so seriously does. The deep-voiced character actor, beloved by fans of Allstate Insurance, Spider-Man, Jason Reitman, and the Coen Brothers alike, has been memorable so many times in the past that it’s easy to take him for granted. However, with Whiplash, he proves himself to be not just a distinctive screen presence but to be a brilliant actor as well. There’s a lot of good things about Whiplash but, ultimately, it’s Simmons who makes the film something more than just another promising indie film.

Simmons plays Terrence Fletcher, the legendary and feared conductor of the Schaffer Conservatory jazz band. (We’re told that Shaffer Conservatory is the best music school in the country. Of course, in a real life, the best music school in the country is located at University of North Texas, where I studied Art History but still enjoyed occasionally listening to the One O’Clock Lab Band.) As played by Simmons, Fletcher is both a genius and a sadist. When he talks about music, he does so with a passion that makes it impossible not share his love for all that jazz. When he conducts his band, he does so with a cruelty that makes you question if the music is worth the cost of the emotional stability of the people playing it. When he hears that someone is out of tune, he responds by reducing a musician to tears. When he says, “Not my tempo,” it’s both a critique and a threat. The fact that he’s creative and quick-witted with his insults does nothing to lessen the pain that they cause.

Fletcher’s latest protegé/victim is a talented 19 year-old drummer named Andrew (Miles Teller). Andrew shares Fletcher’s love for jazz but nothing can prepare him for the lengths that Fletcher will go to manipulate him. Whether it means insulting Andrew’s father (Paul Reiser) or casually threatening to give Andrew’s spot away to another drummer, Fletcher’s nonstop and often viscous criticism makes Andrew a better drummer but also threatens to destroy his sanity.

Director and screenwriter Damien Chazelle understands that those of us in the audience have seen literally hundreds of films about intense teachers and the students that they teach. Chazelle cleverly manipulates all of our expectations. The minute that we expect Fletcher to say something encouraging or to reveal himself to actually be a compassionate mentor, Simmons instead barks out another insult or regards Andrew with a withering glare. And, as we wait for Andrew to stand up to Fletcher or prove his mentor wrong, we are instead forced to admit that Fletcher’s approach does seem to be working.

When, towards the middle of the film, Andrew crashes his car while rushing to a jazz competition and then attempts to play the drums with both blood on his suit and a broken hand, you can’t help but both admire his determination and fear where that determination is going to take him.

As I said at the beginning of this review, there’s a lot of good things about Whiplash. As you might expect for a film about jazz, it has a great soundtrack. Miles Teller gives a great lead performance, one that may be overshadowed by J.K. Simmons but which — along with his work in The Spectacular Now — indicates that Teller is an actor to watch. (We’ll just forget the fact that he was also in Project X.) Some of the film’s best moments don’t even involve J.K. Simmons, instead they’re just scenes of Teller obsessively drumming until his hands are bloody.

But, ultimately, it is J.K. Simmons who truly elevates this film. Simmons makes Fletcher into a truly fascinating villain, one who constantly leaves you guessing. By the end of the film, you may not like Fletcher but you definitely can not get him out of your head.

Ultimately, the success of Whiplash stands as a tribute to the talent of J.K. Simmons.

Film Review: Love and Honor (dir by Danny Mooney)

Posted on January 1, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Love and Honor tells a simple but effective story.

Taking place in 1969 and opening with footage of the launch of Apollo 11, Love and Honor tells the story of two soldiers, Wright (Liam Hemsworth) and Joyner (Austin Stowell). Wright and Joyner are serving in Viet Nam together and, even as the war grows more and more unpopular in the U.S., both of them remain true believers.

Shortly before they’re scheduled to take a week of R&R in Hong Kong, Joyner receives a break-up letter from his girlfriend, Jane (Aimee Teargarden). Joyner decided to use his R&R time to fly back to the U.S. and ask Jane to marry him. As Joyner explains it, as long as he returns to his unit at the end of the week, he won’t be charged with going AWOL. Wright impulsively decides to accompany him.

What happens next shouldn’t surprise anyone who has ever seen a film set in the 60s. Wright and Joyner returns to the U.S. and discover that Jane has fallen in with a bunch of activists — led by the smug Peter (Chris Lowell) — who spend all of their time organizing rallies and publishing an underground newspaper. While Joyner pursues Jane, Wright falls in love with Candace (Teresa Palmer). In order to impress Candace, Wright claims that he and Joyner are actually deserters as opposed to just being two soldiers on R&R. While Wright’s lie impresses Jane’s new friends, it also proves to be a lot of trouble once Peter starts to get jealous.

Love and Honor, which came and went without much notice last March, is a surprisingly sweet and likable film. Liam Hemsworth and Teresa Palmer have a lot of chemistry and Austin Stowell is so likable as Joyner that it’s easy to overlook the fact that his character’s story arc doesn’t really make much sense. Finally, Chris Lowell is properly hissable as the film’s self-righteous villain.

I imagine that some politically minded viewers might be a bit annoyed with the fact that all of the film’s political activists are portrayed as being shallow, flaky, and hypocritical. (Then again, some would argue that this was the most realistic part of the entire film…) Love and Honor uses the politics of the 60s as a plot device but it never explores any of those issues in any sort of depth. But, to be honest, who cares? Sometimes, a romance is just a romance and we, as viewers, are all the better for it.