MIDNIGHT SPECIAL is a Riveting Sci-Fi Father/Son Story

MIDNIGHT SPECIAL Review:

- Writer/director Jeff Nichols has quickly become one of *the* guys to watch in cinema. His films - though to date, they've been lower budget - overflow with narrative ambition. MIDNIGHT SPECIAL is perhaps his most ambitious movie yet. It mixes the heightened, slightly-surreal drama of his previous films with a throwback, Spielberg-esque vibe - calling to mind the Amblin movies of the 80's that so often featured a kid or kids on the run from evil forces. But where the Nichols of it all comes into play is that MIDNIGHT SPECIAL is also an ultra-intense, spiritually-rich meditation on fathers and sons, destiny and fate. Like some of Nichols' other films, there are parts of the movie that work better than others. But mostly, this is a cinematic journey well worth taking - a film that feels both personal and epic, a sci-fi adventure that you won't soon forget.

The movie centers around a young boy named Alton Meyer (Jaeden Lieberher) - who was born with super-human powers. He seems attuned to all kinds of invisible frequencies, and has psychic powers that make him nearly omniscient. The film throws us right into the middle of a crucial turning point in young Alton's life. He is on the run. His father, Roy (the great Michael Shannon), and his father's childhood friend Lucas (Joel Edgerton) are driving him away from multiple pursuers. Their destination is foggy - they are simply going where Alton tells them they need to go, to fulfill some as-yet-to-be-revealed higher calling. But there are many who want to find Alton and take him away from his protective father. For a time, Alton was raised by a cult in his Texas hometown - led by a charismatic leader (Sam Shepard), who now wants to reclaim his messianic figure by any means necessary. In parallel, the government is aware of Alton and wants to bring him in for tests. A government scientist (Adam Driver) leads the hunt.

Once again, Michael Shannon's intensity is a great match for Nichols'. Shannon anchors the film with a searing performance - playing a father utterly dedicated to protecting his son. But that drive to keep Alton safe comes into direct conflict with the rapidly-materializing reality that the boy is meant for some higher purpose - a purpose that will likely separate father from son. And so, MIDNIGHT SPECIAL becomes a somewhat haunting meditation on fatherhood - on the idea of bringing someone into this world that you must eventually part with. Shannon is fantastic here. He often plays larger-than-life, but he also acquits himself well to everyman.

The rest of the cast is also excellent. Lieberher does a great job as Alton - he fluctuates between seeming like a regular kid and having a tangible otherworldly quality about him. Edgerton is also really good as Shannon's erstwhile companion. He seems so natural as a down-home Texan that it's hard to believe he actually isn't one. Suffice it to say, his performance made me picture him as a perfect Stu Redman in an adaptation of The Stand. Kirsten Dunst is another huge standout. She comes into the picture later in the film - playing Alton's estranged mom - but she makes a huge impact and is at the center of some of the movie's most memorable scenes. Coming off of her phenomenal work in Fargo Season 2, Dunst continues her hot streak with another great performance. Adam Driver is doing something much different here than we've previously seen from him. Unlike his twitchy performance on Girls or his angry/emo portrayal of Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens, here he plays a subdued, inquisitive scientist - a guy who goes against the grain of his employer's aggressive, often ruthless modus operandi. And Sam Shepard is a lot of fun - pretty much the best there is at playing a Southern-fried badass.

But ultimately, this is Nichols' film. MIDNIGHT SPECIAL absolutely drips with atmosphere and pounding intensity. It feels like Nichols is doing a sort of Marvels-like take on the superhero genre, filling his cinematic canvas with street-level views of the fantastic - giving us imagery designed to elicit maximum awe and wonder. In an age where CGI-porn action movies often take their own wizardry for granted, Nichols seems to be deliberately trying to channel that old-school, Spielberg sense of grandiosity. And he succeeds pretty spectacularly. The filmmaking in this movie is like a live-action version of something Alex Ross might paint - an apocalyptic vision of one family's fight against rapidly-encroaching doom. Meanwhile, the movie's brimming intensity is only accentuated by its thunderous score.

Where MIDNIGHT SPECIAL perhaps falters a bit is in its endgame. In similar fashion to the recent 10 Cloverfield Lane, the movie almost goes too big with its grand finale, giving us too much when all we needed was a quick hint of the bigger picture. This movie - like 10 Cloverfield - keeps its secrets relatively close to the vest throughout its running time. The exact nature of Alton's powers and origins is kept vague - and really, it's mostly beside the point. So the big finale feels a little out of place given what most of the movie has been to that point. And whereas the mystery around Alton adds to the tension of most of the film, the finale makes us ask various plot-related questions that threaten to overshadow some of the film's deeper themes.

MIDNIGHT SPECIAL works best when thought of as a father-son movie that also happens to channel the vibe of 80's Spielberg sci-fi. If you think too hard about the details of the plot, the movie definitely reveals itself to be a bit thin. But as a quasi-metaphorical, quasi-spiritual journey - it soars. Nichols is one of those filmmakers who, quite simply, knows how to hold an audience in the palm of his hand. He makes even the movie's more slow-burn sections feel positively riveting. I can't wait to see what he does next.

My Grade: A-

EXODUS Is Dazzling But Ultimately Hollow Biblical Epic

EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS Review:

- Let me start with this: Ridley Scott is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. His list of stone-cold classics is long - he's directed not only some of the best, but most influential movies ever made: Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator. The guy is a legend (and he also directed Legend), and yet, in my opinion, he rarely gets a fair shake these days. People seem eager to take him down a peg, and critics seemed all-too-eager to bash his latest, EXODUS, before they'd seen it. There was a lot of early talk about the film's seemingly whitewashed cast, a controversy that continued up to and through the film's release. And Scott did himself and his movie no favors with his gruff, ill-advised response to the criticisms. Here's my thought: the casting in this film feels decidedly "off," and it is an issue that filmmakers need to seriously look at as they go into production on a movie. In 2014, we are more than ready for more diverse casts - in general, and notably in situations where the setting and characters are *supposed* to be non-white. It's strange and slightly troubling that all of the key Egyptian characters in EXODUS are played by white actors. That said, I also don't think that this is an issue that needs to completely dominate discussion of the film. Sadly, diversity (or lack thereof) is an issue that plagues many, many movies. I could start any number of reviews with a dissection of the film's casting from a diversity-perspective, but going down that road can often lead to an exercise in absurdity. Clearly, there are cases where casting crosses a line of inappropriateness. But where, exactly, is that line? EXODUS arguably toes it - but I also am not sure that it crosses it in egregious enough fashion to warrant true outrage, calls for boycotts, etc. I won't go into my exact reasons here. I'll simply say this: Scott and the rest of his team could have done better - they could have created this movie with more of an eye towards diverse and appropriate casting. But I also don't think that that these concerns need to negate all other discussion of the film. There's plenty more to talk about, and from here on out ... that's what I'll attempt to do. I'll just end with this: I suppose my original thought here was - as a huge fan of Scott, I'm not yet ready to burn him at the stake for some ill-advised decisions and comments. The man has done great films with diverse casts in the past. He helped bring to life one of the greatest female action heroes in cinematic history in Ellen Ripley. I think he can and will do better.

So ... EXODUS. In a year in which we've already seen one epic retelling of an apocalyptic bible story in Noah, Exodus arrives clearly ready to awe us with big, blockbuster visuals and a fantasy-epic take on the story of Moses. As compared to the trippy, surreal Noah, EXODUS is by far the more straightforward of the two films. The problem is it may be *too* straightforward. The film goes to some very dark thematic places, and poses a lot of tough questions about the nature of the old-testament God and the justness of the devastation he wreaks upon the Egyptians. But the film barrels forward at such a determined clip - trying to cover as much ground as possible in its 2 1/2 hour running time - that it rarely pauses to fully address the complicated questions of morality and faith it puts out there to us (Noah, in contrast, is almost fully *about* grappling with these questions).

In EXODUS, God takes the form of a wide-eyed ten-year-old British boy, who speaks to Moses in visions with an ominous, anger-laced, almost eerie sense of righteousness. This is a God who doesn't mince words, who shows no mercy, no quarter, and no pity, and who seems to spite the Egyptians for the fact that they worship other, false gods. In other versions of the Exodus story (i.e. The 10 Commandments), the Egyptians' faith in their gods seems affirmed by magical abilities (see: the famous scene, drawn from the bible, in which the Pharoah's magicians turn their staffs into serpents). But in EXODUS, the Egyptian gods are shown to be false: there are no magic powers, prayers to them prove ineffectual, and even the Egyptians seem less-than-confident in their potency. In fact, the Egyptians prefer science over faith - as the ten plagues devastate their people, Ramses II listens intently as a scientist provides logic-based explanations for the various afflictions befalling their people. Only when the plagues escalate - culminating with the killing of the Egyptians' first born - is there no denying that the plagues are in fact the works of a vengeful, all-powerful god.

In Noah, the devastation of the flood took on a new horror thanks to the visual force of modern f/x. The same is true here, as the plagues truly feel horrific and bloody and nightmarish. It's one thing to read vague bible verses listing out the plagues in sequential order. But to see rivers run red with blood, locusts devouring crops, total darkness, and firstborn children dying suddenly in the night ... well, it's a lot. Scott assaults us with the plagues, and does so without interjections in which Moses is shown asking Ramses to "let my people go." And so, the plagues come off as a merciless, genocidal punishment. Sporadically, Moses does question their ferocity.

But only sporadically, and soon enough, the questioning stops - Moses becomes God's loyal messenger, and the film seems to stop grappling with the concepts it had previously put out there. Ultimately, EXODUS comes across as thematically thin - we don't get a great sense of what drives Moses, what drives Ramses II, and what drives this version of God who is the film's most intriguing, yet elusive, character.

Christian Bale is excellent as Moses. Bale was born to do epic, and so he's a natural to be this most epic of characters. Bale gives a great sense of gravitas to numerous scenes - whether it's stopping an accusatory Ramses from lobbing off his sister's hand, to training the Hebrews to fight as an army, to commanding his people to have faith and cross the seemingly-uncrossable Red Sea. Moses is most intriguing though in the film's early going, when the script takes its time and effectively establishes the strong but slowly fraying relationship between Ramses and his adopted brother Moses. This entire early portion of the film is perhaps its strongest - early on, the movie takes its time and builds up the relationship and rivalry between Moses and Ramses, and this unique look at their relationship is compelling stuff. Later, however, the film leapfrogs through large portions of Moses' story. His relationship with his eventual wife, Tziporah, for example - Moses meets her while in exile, she gives him some furtive glances, and moments later they're exchanging vows and declaring their undying love for each other. Also rushed through is Moses' reaction to meeting his long-lost brother, Aaron - there is none, really. It's indicative of the movie's tendency to present something tantalizing but then brush over it without a real narrative or emotional payoff.

Joel Edgerton is getting the most flack from industry-watchers for being cast as Ramses II. He's a pale Australian playing an Egyptian pharaoh. However, that issue aside, he's great in the film. He plays Ramses II as a preening narcissist, a dude who broods whilst wrapped in a giant python. Edgerton has quickly become a favorite actor - I'd yet to see him play a villain, but he excels at it here, and is a co-MVP of the film along with Bale. Whitewashing aside though, the movie does have some oddball casting going on. Notable actors like the great Sigourney Weaver pop up (in her case, as Ramses' stone-faced mother), but barely make an impact. Same goes for Aaron Paul as Moses' right-hand-man Joshua, whose role is more extended cameo than anything of substance. Ben Mendelsohn is good as a corrupt Egyptian viceroy - a source of some rare humor in the film. But even Ben Kingsley seems adrift as an elder Hebrew, whose main role is to reveal to Moses his true origins.

This is, ultimately, the story of Bale's Moses vs. Edgerton's Ramses. And the movie does a nice job of setting both up for a battle of wills, culminating in a truly epic confrontation in the midst of the parting Red Sea. And Bale and Edgerton make for great adversaries - both act the hell out of their parts. The problem is that the bigger story around them gets glossed over -, and the larger themes raised by the story largely ignored - so that the film can focus primarily on its central brother vs. brother confrontation. It's a fine angle to take on the story. But this story, I think, demands something more. It's one of the defining stories about a vengeful God in the old testament. And Moses' role as God's messenger feels like it isn't explored to its fullest potential here. The fact is, the biblical story is in many ways a head-scratcher. And so part of the purpose, to me, of re-imagining this sort of story is to attempt to make sense of the narrative's lessons. How are these ancient stories relevant to us today? To reduce this story - with all of its complex questions of morality, faith, etc. - to a more standard war epic makes this movie feel less-than-necessary. The bible is allegory, and the allegory seems mostly lost here. And so, those looking for insight or meaning in this movie may not find much of it.

What they will find is a film that is truly eye-popping from a visual perspective. Scott is a master of creating rich, evocative visuals - and this movie looks amazing. In 3D, in particularly, the Egyptian landscapes come to life with towering structures, sweeping deserts, massive crowds filled with all manner of lavish costuming, and ornately-decorated palaces and halls that make Game of Thrones look like Days of Our Lives. This is old-school epicness, and the grandeur is often awe-inspiring. Scott also delivers big-time on the big f/x. The plagues are visceral and haunting. The precursor to the plague of Blood involves packs of rabid crocodiles chomping down on people and animals and leaving the water red with their remains - all conveyed in a fantastically-realized sequence. The parting of the Red Sea here feels truly, awesomely epic. Everything in EXODUS looks like a million bucks, and every penny of the film's budget is seemingly there on screen.

Scott is still the absolute best in the biz at epic visuals - even when burdened with problematic scripts, a Ridley Scott epic is always worth seeing on as big a screen as possible. Strangely, that's why a comparison between EXODUS and Prometheus may be warranted. Like Prometheus, EXODUS is mesmerizing to look at. But also like Prometheus, the film introduces *big* questions that it sort of shies away from as the movie progresses - leaving the film feeling oddly hollow.

Like I said, I am not about to count out Ridley Scott - either as a filmmaker or as a person worthy of admiration. EXODUS nails the visuals, but, like a few of other Scott's recent films, a combination of script and overall storytelling issues keeps the movie from achieving the iconic thematic resonance of classics like Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator. Still, Scott's visual imagination makes his movies must-sees for film fans - even when not firing on all cylinders, there is enough here to remind us why he's one of the best.

My Grade: B

ZERO DARK THIRTY Is a Riveting Account of the War On Terror

ZERO DARK THIRTY Review:

- Zero Dark Thirty is one powerhouse of a film - a riveting mix of CIA procedural, real-life recent history, character-based drama, and ultra-intense actioner. Between this and The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow is having one hell of a second act. She's making damn good movies - films that are ultra entertaining narratives that also have an immediacy, a relevance, an of-the-now electricity, that is unrivaled. What's so amazing to me about Zero Dark Thirty is that it serves as both a fact-based account of a landmark moment in recent US history, and as a smart, measured, non-politicized examination of that moment - of its implications on the national psyche, and on the psyches of those directly involved in the op. The op, of course, is the years-long hunt to find and kill Osama Bin Laden in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It's a remarkable story on a number of levels, and Zero Dark Thirty brilliantly captures the many facets of what unfolded. Featuring several incredible performances, a no-nonsense yet still-multilayered storytelling style, and a pulsing intensity that leaves you on the edge-of-your-seat, Zero Dark Thirty is one of the year's best films, hands-down.

Bigelow's film focuses in on Maya (Jessica Chastain), a spitfire CIA agent who was recruited directly out of high school. Her whole career has been focused on one thing - finding Osama Bin Laden. And now, as she's shipped off to Pakistan - where Al Qaeda prisoners are kept in lockdown, tortured for any intel they might possess - she finds herself at the epicenter of that search. Bigelow opens the film on a haunting note - playing audio feeds of phone calls from the WTC on 9/11, playing snippets of news reports - reminding us of the horror of that day. With one fell swoop, she sets the stakes for this film. The evils perpetrated by Bin Laden and his agents are now fresh in our mind as we flashforward a few years, where the hunt for the terrorist mastermind continues.

But that hunt is going poorly. The CIA keeps coming up against dead-ends, and their methods of information extraction - cringe-inducing torture among them - are producing few useful results. In Pakistan, Maya meets Dan (Jason Clarke) - the site's chief torturer and information-gatherer. She also begins working with Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) - a world-weary analyst. They're all under the purview of Joseph (Kyle Chandler), their supervisor, who has grown cynical and short-tempered after so many of his efforts to decimate Al Qaeda have fallen flat. However, the arrival of Maya gives the group a new spark. Dogged and determined, she becomes obsessed with a potential lead that she believes is the key to finding Bin Laden - a courier named Abu Ahmed, who is said to be Bin Laden's personal messenger. Find him, and find Bin Laden. Easier said than done, sure, but Maya refuses to back down or give up. And her persistence and force of personality ends up sending shockwaves all the way to Washington, where the intel she uncovers, eventually, leads to the now-famous nighttime raid on a walled Pakistani compound.

Jessica Chastain is phenomenal as Maya. It's one of my favorite performances of the year, because it's somehow both naturalistic and hyper-dramatic all at once. Maya feels like a real woman, a fully-fleshed-out character, who has plenty of quirks and flaws but who you can't help but admire and root for. Chastain gives her the essence of the down-home girl-next-door who's also sort of a genius, and also just a tad crazy. But man, when it comes time for the big, dramatic scenes ... Chastain is also able to go big and knock 'em out of the park. If this was any other actress, we'd probably be complaining about overexposure of late. But Chastain is so good that you can't fault Hollywood for casting her whenever possible. Another big revelation here though is Jason Clarke as Dan - one of the most subtly interesting and complex characters in the film. Dan is, on one hand, a laid-back, friendly, easygoing dude, who calls everyone "bro" and amuses himself in the Pakistani desert by affectionately playing with monkeys he keeps around the CIA base. And yet, he wearily partakes in savage sessions of torture, inflicting great harm on his prisoners even as he buddies up to them. It's a fascinating dynamic, and Clarke plays it to perfection. It's funny, because in Chastain and Clarke we sort of get an microcosm of America in a post-9/11 world. Conflicted, filled with a mix of rage and empathy, left with lingering fears, and consumed by a desire for closure. Both characters also embody the film's naturalistic, non-judgemental storytelling style. Bigelow never tells us what to think of these people, never hits us over the head with judgement. She simply presents this story and these characters as is, and lets us take away from them what we will. That said, she also gives us a lot to chew on. The big issues - the politics of torture, the hopelessness of winning over religious fanatics, the debate of whether to use the carrot or the stick - it's all here. The movie makes you think, deeply, about these issues. But it doesn't do your thinking for you, and never talks down to or lectures the audience.

There are a ton of other standouts in the cast. Mark Strong brings heavy-duty gravitas as a CIA bigwig who reams his lieutenants for not bringing him enough terrorists to kill. James Gandolfini is the been-there, done-that old hat who sees in Maya the kind of vim and vigor that, perhaps, he once had. Joel Edgerton is badass as a gruff Navy SEAL, and Chris Pratt of Parks and Recreation provides some comic relief as a SEAL who gets his kicks from well-timed gallows humor (he blasts Tony Robbins on the way to kill Bin Laden). The previously mentioned Jennifer Ehle is also a standout, especially as she begins to form a sisterly bond with Maya and becomes a confidante. Kyle Chandler is a good foil for Chastain, and Harold Perrineau - of Lost fame - is also solid as a CIA techie.

I mentioned Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as two of the Navy SEALS from the squad that raids that Pakistani compound. I should also mention that, as intense as the movie is for much of its running time, Bigelow and team take it to another level during the last-act SEAL raid sequence. Even though we know the end-results, it's an incredibly-shot, white-knuckle ride that is exciting and terrifying, while also being strikingly un-glamorized and stark in its realness.

Bigelow and writer Mark Boal divide the film into titled chapters, and it's an effective tactic. The chapter structure allows the film to jump from year to year, location to location, in a seamless manner. Despite a long running time, the movie zips by with a relentless pace. And the tension builds and builds - as the spycraft, interrogations, backroom politics, and personal struggles mount ... culminating in that breathless raid in Pakistan. Boal and Bigelow attack the story from all angles - we see the war on terror as fought from the halls of Washington D.C. to the deserts of Afghanistan to the streets of London to the villages of Pakistan. We see the techies, the suits, the muscle, the soldiers, the SEALS, the moles, the spies, and everyone in between. This is sprawling, epic storytelling. But it's also of-the-moment and journalistic. The movie leaves a lot unsaid, but everything is in there - sometimes between the lines, sometimes on the expression of a character's face.

As for the debate on the movie's depiction of torture - to me, it's a non-issue. Some in government are criticizing the movie for implying that torture led in some way to the discovery of Bin Laden's location. In my view, the movie keeps things open for interpretation, and also goes to great pains to show that torture alone does not tend to yield actionable results. In fact, two of the key pieces of intel that propel Maya's hunt  forward come from bribes, not torture. That said, I also think it's silly and naive to act as if torture never works as a means of extracting information. Do I support it in most instances? No. But I'm also not going to claim that it can't ever be effective. In any case, ZERO DARK THIRTY handles the issue deftly - showing the emotional toll the practice takes on those who utilize it, and those who condone it as accomplices. It also shows torture in a brutal manner that makes us see it for what it is. There's no fantasy-revenge element in the torture scenes (as you might find in more over-the-top fare like "24"). It's brutal to the point that we sympathize with some of the victims, and hope for them to divulge information and be cooperative so as not to put themselves through such cruelty.

This is a movie that smartly opens up the debate on torture, on national security, on counterterrorism, on foreign policy - but not in a biased or judgmental manner. Instead, it looks at the cost that the war on terror had and has on the lives of the people in the trenches, and on the national psyche over the course of the decade since 9/11. This is a movie that shows us the world as it was and is. It's exciting, riveting, intense-as-hell ... but it also hits at a level of truth that few movies do, combining the thoroughness and intelligence of a great magazine expose with the drama, intrigue, emotion, and action of a great cinematic thriller.

Kathryn Bigelow is on fire right now, making the best, hardest-hitting real-world dramas in the biz. ZERO DARK THIRTY is a gut-punch of a film - a must-see nail-biter and conversation-starter - bad-ass, thought-provoking, smart, and poignant. A highlight of 2012.

My Grade: A