Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Movie Review: "Good Kill"

"Drones aren't going anywhere. In fact, they're going everywhere."

At the heart of Good Kill is the above line of dialogue, said by an Air Force commander to newly stationed personnel, in a depressingly matter of fact manner. It's a lament for sure, but more in the vein of a Wal Mart manager who slightly disagrees with superior decisions, but goes along anyways for the sake of their career. We see this commander drink liquor at his desk - an act which may be more widespread in military bases than most would think. How the hell else do you get through this job?

And, never forget, it is a job. This fact is presented as a mentality and loose justification for the events in the film. You go along withhorrific and morally grey acts because "it's your job". When that excuse doesn't work, you're told if you don't kill them, they'll kill you. Or 9/11. Or Murica. Or all of the above. Where's the scotch?

Andrew Niccol, director of greater movies that force us all to question things like Gattaca and Lord of War, attempts a return to form after such anomalies as In Time and The Host. I can't explain what happened during those years, but he seems to have lost an edge. Or rather, mistaken his previous edge for a current anger.

Ethan Hawke leads a small crew of Air Force pilots who, based on the outskirts of Las Vegas, control weaponized drones over the Middle East. In between investigations and semi controlled kills, they talk and bicker about the politics and morals of what they're doing. For them, a joystick that helps to unleash fire from the sky is their water cooler. And their talk? Well, it's awfully straight forward and rarely well thought out. Basically, it does approximate water cooler conversation.

When the team starts getting missions from an unnamed CIA official - the clone of Snidely Whiplash - via speakerphone, the office chat only ramps up, as does the kill count. They throw around sarcasm when given a war crime like task, as it seems to be the only defense they have.  When we see the result of their strikes, it's eerily quiet. We're hearing what the team is hearing. After months of doing this, it must start to feel like a dream than a game.

By the time we meet our "hero", he's already burnt out and depressed, beginning to drink himself into a coma and on the verge of a divorce. It's not really the authorized off the books murder that's getting to him, but the disassociation of it all. I think he can still feel, but would rather feel more. Deployment was better, he suggests. To be deployed is what he wants. Face to face judgment, I suppose.

In the end, Hawke commits two righteous acts that can be said to be both the fault of those above him and dangerously ambiguous as to the message of the movie. He essentially becomes a full blown product of this system of war - a drone of his own maybe - taking it upon himself to execute what (and who) he wants. Both actions might be seen as heroic, but are done in such clumsy and twisted ways that it's hard to decipher how the film feels and, ultimately, how we should feel. Misplaced ambiguity and cliche conclusions make for something very confusing.

Good Kill is an exercise in near meaningless ranting, rarely providing anything to chew on other than blunt force talking points. Everything it tries to express about drone policy and war in general is done so at high volume, but comes off with frequent static and repetition. Lots of repetition, actually. Droning, you could say.

2.5 / 5 *s

Good Kill opens May 22nd in New Orleans at the Zeitgeist.

Friday, June 13, 2014

An Exercise in Exorcism: "The Dance of Reality" Review

Jodorowsky's Dune, a documentary of interviews about Alejandro Jodorowsky's planned adaptation of 'Dune', is about 90 minutes of talking that feels like 2 1/2 hours of wonderful flashbacking. Jodorowsky, even when subtitled in English, has such a command of words; every sentence spoken by him is evocative and filled with purpose. Mundane moments of casually meeting someone are made alive and important, with every detail necessary to the story. This is a man not worried about time, but still concerned enough to not waste it.

Why isn't he making more movies?

When the conversation of who was to direct Man of Steel was held, the first names to jump to my mind were Clint Eastwood and Alejandro Jodorowsky. Both men have vastly different styles and agendas when it comes to making film, but they do share a certain reflective quality, a thoughtfulness, that I was looking for in a Superman story (which I still liked, by the way). Actually, the hero would've been a mere vessel for the filmmakers, as they explore themselves the more they examine the star.

Seriously, why isn't Alejandro making more movies?

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

The Clones of Josef K: "The Double" Review

In the book 'Kafka Goes to the Movies', an author investigates journal entries and letters, written by Franz Kafka himself - the tortured soul behind 'Metamorphosis' and 'The Trial' - to piece together his thoughts and feelings regarding the new form of entertainment: cinema. Someone who wrote such nightmarish prose, filled with anxiety upon anxiety, would surely have a perspective more critical than that of the masses. Would he even be able to enjoy watching this parlor trick?

Actually, yes. Yes he was.

According to the book, he wrote about his time watching moving pictures - some as simple as a young woman looking pretty - with *shock* joy. And it's joy at something superficial, too. Amazing. If Kafka could time travel, would he be stuffing his face with popcorn, laughing at Michael Bay robot testicle jokes?

It's scary to think of, but might be easily explained with, ironically, Kafkaesque logic. At least, I hope it can.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Decayed Contrast: "The Great Flood" Review

As I sat in a theater filled with mostly middle aged festival goers, halfway through The Great Flood, I came to some conclusions:
  • Bill Morrison is THE filmmaker who could possibly settle the digital vs. film debate.
  • People make their own stories, with or without a camera being present.
  • Intent isn't always relevant.
It's amazing the kind of work and study that went into this movie - hours upon hours of footage, carefully chosen sequences edited in specific order, music scored along with it all, etc. When I add the three bullet points above, the images presented take on startling depth. Who is responsible for this depth? The original cameramen? The modern editor? The people and objects depicted? The effects of time on the film stock itself?

All of the above.