File Under 2018 #3: The Strange Ones

Nominated for best narrative feature at the 2017 South by Southwest Film Festival, The Strange Ones is an alluring, albeit inconsistent feature debut for Lauren Wolkstein and Christopher Radcliff, adapted from a short film they made together in 2011.

In a lot of ways, The Strange Ones very much feels like both a debut and an expansion of a short film. Even at just 81 minutes it feels a bit stretched. So little happens through much of the film until all the ideas come together at once near the end.

Wolkstein and Radcliff definitely have promise as filmmakers. They can find and maintain a strong mood. They clearly have an eye for craft in terms of cinematography and editing. They have the impulse to show instead of tell, which while The Strange Ones doesn't do enough of either, it is the right impulse to have. I'm definitely interested in seeing what they do next and hopefully it will have a bit more meat on the bones.

This is actually a pretty difficult film to write about. There simply isn't enough happening. In trying to be mysterious, it becomes too emotionally distant, making it hard to connect on any level other than an aesthetic one. Because of that, it is even more difficult to recommend to anyone without the most artistic tastes.

What it's about: Two brothers with potentially strange powers [Alex Pettyfer & James Freedson-Jackson] travel across country under mysterious circumstances. When they become separated, the younger of the two begins working on a community farm, trying to start a new life. Their lies and troubled past catch up with them soon enough.

Unorganized thoughts:

• There are slow building films and then there is The Strange Ones. That isn't exactly a bad thing, depending on your environment and level of attention. It'll be a hurdle for many, though.

• The film opens in media res in an unsettling sort of way. With the general pace and lack of exposition, it starts you off without much of a handle.

• Both Wlkstein and Radcliff have extensive work as editors [mostly of their shorts] and it shows. The last act of the film, when it begins unlocking some of the mysteries, it does so almost entirely through its editing.

• Like an exceptional thriller Martha Marcy May Marlene, The Strange Ones confidently cuts to scenes where the place in time is not immediately known.

• I've never really liked Alex Pettyfer, but he actually works a bit better as the hardened tough guy than the young heartthrob. Perhaps as he gets older he'll find more roles that work more naturally for him.

File Under 2018 #2: Proud Mary

If you watched any of the marketing for Babak Najafi's Proud Mary, the obvious comparison that likely came to mind was John Wick. A respected actor later in their career becomes a super assassin in a stylish-yet-stripped down action flick. This genre has become a staple at the movies in this early year graveyard going back to Taken and the countless Liam Neeson films (hey! another one is out now!). These films that have become so over-the-top ridiculous that the John Wicks and Atomic Blondes have risen as a more honest alternative.

The next in line, Proud Mary, stars Taraji P. Henson in the title role. In some ways, holding it up against John Wick makes a lot of sense. For the many differences in the films, though, it is a bit unfair.

Despite what you saw in the trailers, Proud Mary really isn't the high octane shoot-em-up you'd expect. Henson gets plenty of opportunity to shine as a complete killing machine, but this is a movie much more about an internal struggle and character relationships than free fire.

But in that vein, the differences in how Proud Mary and John Wick approach dramatic stakes possibly shows why one succeeds and the other has ended up a bit off. The emotional core of John Wick is firmly tongue-in-cheek -- it is a terrible situation, certainly, but the consequences for the characters are taken to a different level of reality. In Proud Mary, the film really wants us to care for the characters in a way that the characters feel for each other. Not helped by soft piano music stamped over everything, its dramatic stakes quickly become melodramatic when they are supposed to live in a world more like ours than John Wick's.

I admit that many of Proud Mary's problems are related to expectations. There has been a lot of wondering why Screen Gems didn't promote the film more. My best guess is they were trying to sell a movie in a specific way that wasn't as much like the final product as they wanted it to be.

What it's about: Tajari P. Henson is a super assassin -- that is certainly the film's most important hook. While protecting a young boy who works as a drug runner for a Russian mob leader called Uncle, things go bad when Mary confronts the rival crime boss. Her actions and the unfortunate aftermath spark a turf war, bringing both physical and emotional turmoil into her and her loved ones' lives.

Unorganized thoughts:

• The film's Leon-esque relationship between an assassin and a child offers the more enjoyable elements of the film. At least when it is trying to be fun, that is. There is far more gravity when they are simply shooting the shit, whether about the proper attire to wear to a friend's dinner party or their preferred hot dog condiment. These small moments connect much better than when it goes for dramatic heft.

• Another thing you wouldn't exactly get from the film's marketing: Mary is far from a purely badass killer. The film is very invested in showing her as a character who is struggling to keep it all together, with mixed success. I appreciate them going for something a little more nuanced, but we don't know enough about who the character is to get why these specific circumstances affect her in this particular way.

• Much of the film's aesthetic is pretty generic. There's really no visual or narrative flair that sets it apart from other low-budget pot boilers.

• Another way it could have improved is jumping into the throwback blaxploitation elements that it was tangentially interested in. It simply wasn't gritty enough in that way.

• At the end of the day, Proud Mary is a film I simply wanted to be better. It isn't actively bad for the most part, just sort of there.

• To end on a positive note, Tajari P. Henson is predictably good, even in the film's less inspired melodramatic bits. There likely won't be many better performances in mediocre-to-bad films this year.

File Under 2018 #1: Paddington 2

I've gotten used to going to a movie theater alone, but there is nothing like going to a theater alone to see a children's film. Nothing else piques one's self-conscious than being the only single adult male in a large group of people. What is everyone thinking about me? Why am I here? When the pre-movie announcements tells the crowd to report suspicious characters, does anyone suspect me? I make sure to bring a notepad with me so people realize I'm that kind of weirdo and not that other kind of weirdo.

But when seeing a film like Paddington 2, once the film starts, that self-consciousness fades away and everyone is just having a good time.

Paddington 2 is good. It is really good. It is filled with heart and charm and is really well made and is about how being nice to people is a good thing. More movies should be Paddington 2.

What it's about: Fresh off the exploits of 2014's Paddington [which I saw, but I have basically no memory of], the cute little personable bear is living on a quaint little London street, everyone's favorite neighbor. It is soon to be his Aunt Lucy's 100th birthday and he must get her the greatest present ever. Because she always wanted to go to London but never got the chance, Paddington is set on buying a wonderful pop-up book from Mr. Gruber's antique shop. The film's villain, washed up actor Phoenix Buchanan [Hugh Grant with plenty of self-reference], steals the pop-up book and frames Paddington for the terrible deed. And Paddington is sent to prison. Yes, you read that right. Paddington's adoptive family set out to prove the bear's innocence, find the real thief, and restore balance to the wonderful world.

Unorganized thoughts:

• Didn't see Paddington? You don't have to. Primer: it is a bear that lives in human society for some reason and he loves marmalade. That's basically all you need to know.

• Did Wes Anderson secretly direct Paddington 2? Well, no, Paul King [of Paddington and cult British comedy The Mighty Boosh] did. But you could definitely be mistaken based on the style and art direction. This isn't a knock-off or some cheap sequel cash grab. There is some real filmmaking going on there. The highlight is a scene where Paddington breaks out of prison with a few of his new friends -- it is presented like a storybook, something out of Fantastic Mr. Fox or The Life Aquatic.

• The Paddington special effect is exquisite. It is obviously in a different context and probably isn't as technically complicated as the Planet of the Apes movies or The Jungle Book, but it is just as effective. Ben Whishaw's pleasant voice performance helps build the reality of the character.

• As for the human cast, they are exceptional. Sally Hawkins, fresh off the movie where she has sexual relations with a fish man, is wonderfully quirky as Paddington's adoptive mother. Brendan Gleeson plays Nuckle's McGinty, a tough-exteriored inmate with a heart of gold, probably the role for which he was born. The aforementioned Hugh Grant continues his resurgence as the hammy actor villain.

• Despite the awkwardness of my introduction, one of my favorite things about seeing a kid's movie in the theater is seeing how much fun the kids have -- it is especially nice when they are having fun at an actually fun movie. The kid in the row directly in front of me was reacting so exuberantly to the silly jokes that they landed better with me, too. The kid's parents kept telling him to keep quiet and while I respect proper theater etiquette, the shushing was the only thing bothering me.

• In terms of the Paddington Power Rankings [PPR], Paddington 2 ranks just below the promo photo meme that made Paddington look like a serial killer.

#1 1982: Time Bandits

Let me take you back to January 8-14, 1982. That week, the Cincinnati Bengals defeated the San Diego Chargers in negative 59 degree temperatures to with the AFC Championship, Honduras officially adopted a constitution, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson were elected to the MLB Hall of Fame, Kate Middleton was born, and Terry Gilliam’s fantasy adventure Time Bandits was the #1 film in America.

Part Princess Bride, part Bill & Ted, the premise of Time Bandits is as enjoyable as it is radical. Living a comfortable, all-too-boring life in the idyllic suburbs, young Kevin is surprised by a pack of time traveling wannabe notorious criminal dwarves who crash through a portal in his bedroom closet. Together, they go on increasingly dangerous escapades through time, rubbing elbows with the likes of Napoleon, Robin Hood, and the ultimate evil. With the perfect Gilliam style, it is highly satirical of consumer culture and a champion for the underdog. It is fun, irreverent, full of heroics, appealing for children and adults, and also a pretty big box office hit.

Despite being in half the number of theaters as its opposition in early January of 1982, Time Bandits grossed $8 MM more than the second placed re-issue of Disney’s Cinderella. Its $37 thousand screen average over the week is exceptional even by today’s standards.

This might just be hipsterism on my part, thinking the film is too interesting for mainstream audiences to get, but the success is a bit surprising. Time Bandits was incredibly ahead of its time in blending its caustic style of humor with fantasy and horror genre elements. Terry Gilliam was no stranger to comedy, obviously as part of the Monty Python gang, but taking that generally adult and highly absurdist humor and plopping it squarely into a kids’ film must have been pretty risky. As the 80s went along, this style would become more the norm in films like Gremlins and Ghostbusters and the oncoming PG-13 revolution. Sure, Time Bandits has something to owe to The Wizard of Oz and probably other films that came before, but the complete product still today feels fresh.

It is ambitious in its narrative scope and philosophical themes, audacious for creating legitimate heros out of thieves. It challenges child audiences in the best ways possible. The final thematic question of “why is there evil in the world” is a concept most parents would rather avoid, yet it has become an increasingly important one. Sure, the evils depicted in Time Bandits isn’t exactly on the same wavelength of what we see in the news today, though the cartoonishly heightened embodiment of Evil and his dimwitted henchmen can be legitimately scary and certainly cruel. The film doesn’t pull any punches in exploring death or hate.

The other interesting aspect of the film’s success is its cast. Yes, Sean Connery is in the film, but in a very minor role, basically just one scene, though likely enough for marketing purposes. There is a fun supporting cast all around, including Monty Python vets Michael Palin and John Cleese, as well as Ian Holm, Shelley Duvall, and David Warner. Again, none of them really household names, nor major players in the film. The entirety of Time Bandits is spent with a young boy and half dozen dwarves. If the film were made today, no doubt there would be some Snow White and the Huntsman CGI effects to implant known actors into the roles. Perhaps Warwick Davis would be cast, Peter Dinklage probably passes on the remake.

Unsurprisingly, the central cast is amazing and perfect for Gilliam’s sensibilities. Not only are they authentic to their roles, they are hilariously funny, full of personality and with great chemistry. OK, the child audience surrogate Kevin is a bit whiny, but the performances of David Rappaport [Randall], Kenny Baker [Fidgit], Malcolm Dixon [Strutter], Mike Edmonds [Og], Jack Purvis [Wally], and especially Tiny Ross [Vermin] are irreplaceable. Giving them a profile they’d never had before and sadly never would get again, this group completely relishes the opportunity. They give extremely confident performances without any pretension or self-awareness.

According to Terry Gilliam, the box office success of Time Bandits allowed him to complete and release his follow-up, the weirdo masterpiece Brazil. Of course, it wasn’t as seamless as that, but it is a bonus on top of how wonderful Time Bandits remains. In terms of the filmmaker’s career, it is in an interesting sweet spot of being his most accessible, mainstream film that doesn’t water down the style or voice of its unique auteur.