Everest

Everest is based on Jon Krakauer's best-selling novel "Into Thin Air". Let me preface this review with a statement. I don't understand mountain climbing. I mean, I understand the thrill and challenge of battling nature, the beauty of the majestic vista, and perhaps the physical demands of the endeavor. No, I don't understand putting your life at risk to do something that is cold, arduous, and where all you get at the end is the prospect of turning around and doing it again in reverse. The top of a mountain is cool and all, but it's not worth it to me.

Anyhow, back in 1996, climbing Everest seemed to hit its peak in popularity as the extreme sporting event, and as a result, there were dozens of thrill-seekers lining up at base camp to see if they were up to the challenge. Krakauer (played by Michael Kelly) joins a guided tour led by the savvy and compassionate mountaineer Rob Hall (Jason Clarke). The group includes arrogant Texan Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin), nice guy mailman Doug Hanson (John Hawkes), and a small assortment of unnamed others. They are a group of experienced climbers and they spend a full month preparing and training once they reach Nepal. We quickly realize that there are just too darn many people trying to climb this mountain, including guides Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Guy Cotter (Sam Worthington). Now, there is a serious camaraderie among the climbers, even if they are competing for their livelihood (literally and figuratively). At one point, there is mention of a sixty-five thousand dollar payment for leading the climb, which illustrates quite a few things about the gravity of the ascent.

Ominous foreshadowing and a series of unfortunate events as well as bad decisions lead these climbers into the perfect storm, and all they have to rely on for survival is each other and their sheer determination.

The problem with this type of film, and when I say this type, I mean characters bundled up in a nearly unrecognizable mass of clothing (see also astronaut suits, military uniforms, scuba divers), is that once the action starts, it is difficult to keep track of the characters, which diminishes the tension and empathy. If it were me, I would have given each of the characters a bit of flair. Maybe not anything as obvious as a "Hello My Name is..." sticker, but some brightly colored object or something.

The cinematography and direction is beautiful, and the chill of the icy wind literally permeates through the theatre seat, leaving you feeling as chilly as the men with frost-covered beards wrapped in North Face jackets. Unfortunately, the character development is minimal and ultimately confusing as bundled men stagger through whiteout conditions, so their fate is less intense, and more "better you than me." I can't knock the acting or the direction, or the setting, or even the story. It's heroic and tragic. Man versus nature at its most gripping, but it is still self-inflicted punishment (see my opinion of mountain climbing). The reasoning given over and over for why they climb a death trap mountain isn't good enough for me. "Because it's there" is cute and macho, but not compelling.

In any event, I'm a bit conflicted on rating this film. It was beautiful, well-acted, and tragic. But the unsympathetic cynic in me thinks, "What do you expect when you climb a snow-covered rock 29,000 feet in the air with a summit temperature ranging between -20 and -35 degrees Celsius and 1/3 of your oxygen diminished by atmospheric pressure?" I mean, really. Throw in unnecessary roles by Kiera Knightley and Robin Wright, and you have a sadly over-ambitious artistic disaster film. It moves slowly, which provides ample mood, but also eliminates any opportunity for intense action sequences.

Overall, it was entertaining but a bit frustrating. The rating slip is based on my flaws, not the film's. 6/10.

The Visit

Why do we go to the movies? More particularly, why do we go to horror movies? Fear is as undesirable an emotion as, say, grief, or loathing. The answer is simple. Movies are evocative of emotions. We know this. They stir in us a range of emotions in an environment where it’s OK to close your eyes, and where you know that it will be over in a finite amount of time. There is the piece that it’s not real as well. Scary movies just do it for some people, and others can’t seem to stand them.

I’ve often said the hardest films to do well are sci-fi and horror, and M. Night Shyamalan has resurrected from a dismal sci-fi attempt (“After Earth”) to brazenly take on what he does best; horror. It’s hard to believe that it’s been sixteen years since the sensational “The Sixth Sense” which was an absolute horror juggernaut in both critical and consumer success. Well, after a string of less impressive fair (to be fair, “Signs” and “The Village” were fun), he’s back with a whole new original horror film, written and directed with his trademark quirk and a few upgrades.

Siblings Becca and Tyler are sent by their single mother to rural Pennsylvania (Shyamalan’s stomping grounds for all his films) to spend a week with her estranged parents. Things go fine until the geriatric couple begin exhibiting odd behavior. The upgrade on Shyamalan’s technique is that the film is done in the trendy found footage style, with Becca an aspiring documentary filmmaker, so the events are recorded through her trusty camcorder. Many of the more pivotal moments are shown in the trailers (unfortunately).

Keeping with tradition, Shyamalan hides a twist until just before the end, and maybe the massive anticipation made it a bit disappointing, but his imprint reverberates through the aftermath. Shyamalan is a cerebral thriller tactician through and through. I’m coining a term here; post-dated fear. What that means is that although the events in the film aren’t particularly remarkable, he forces you to reflect on what could have happened with hindsight, and if you knew then what you know now, the film is absolutely frightening.

This is what sets “The Visit” apart from every M. Night film except for “The Sixth Sense”. His others held twists; some clever (“Signs”, “The Village”), some a bit ridiculous (“Unbreakable”, “Lady in the Water”), but on the drive home, I literally shuddered.

Maybe I’m overthinking the whole thing, but I suppose that’s my job. If a particular scene or jump moment sticks with you, then that makes the writer or director happy. Job well done. But it’s rare that the whole premise of a film sticks with you and that’s what Shyamalan accomplished. It’s his rare talent, which I sincerely hope he continues to stick to his wheelhouse.

The casting was great. The elderly couple, Nana (Deanna Dugan) and Pop Pop (Peter McRobbie) deliver chilling performances in what must have taken an excruciating number of takes, and the kids, Becca (Olivia DeJong) and Tyler (Ed Oxenbould) are convincing as siblings with their witty banter and chemistry. A bit too precocious perhaps, but acceptable.

With a paltry five million dollar budget, this is a surefire box office smash. It’s a fun time if you like to see scary movies, but it won’t win any Oscars. Pay attention, and enjoy the fear factor after the film ends. 7/10.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E

Guy Ritchie takes a page from Steven Soderbergh in this hip, sleek spy caper based on another recycled idea. There is something nostalgic about the Cold War era on the silver screen, and although I never saw the original television show of the same name, the story has very generic qualities. KGB spy teams up with CIA to stop a nuclear threat in Europe. There are Nazi scientists, British Intelligence, deliberately placed outdated technology and vehicles, and beautiful exotic locales.

Uncle starts with a short, cleverly crafted Post-WWII history lesson in the form of the opening credits. Now that we're up to speed, we find Agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) rescuing an East German defector named Gaby (Alicia Vikander), while being pursued by the Ivan Drago of KGB agents, Illya (Armie Hammer). After some obligatory action scenes, the two professionals are thrown together and forced to collaborate in an attempt to prevent a nuclear war being propagated by a wealthy Italian shipping magnate. Hi-jinx ensue, and through twists and turns, double and triple crossing, and the contrasting suave Cavill and blunt Hammer keep reminding us of just how different the Cold War countries are portrayed on film, and perhaps the ideas that we have grown accustomed to without questioning.

Here's a riddle: What do British, American, Swedish, and French actors have in common? They play American, Russian, German, and Italian roles in this film. Only Hugh Grant plays his own nationality as the British Intelligence officer coordinating the United Nations of the Cold War spy game. I felt like I was watching Black Hawk Down (a mostly international cast playing Army Rangers and Special Forces). Cavill's American English is a bit too forced. Much like Christian Bale from American Psycho, his intonation and accents draw attention to his speech and not in a good way. By appearance, Cavill has the look of the next James Bond, and I don't make that comment lightly, but it's too bad he'll be busy playing Superman for the next half decade. Armie Hammer does his best Russian accent, and it works, but isn't entirely believable. He has the physicality of an action star, but every time I see him in a role, there is something preventing me from accepting him. It's possibly a personal bias, and he has a slew of films coming out in the near future, so I'll give him another shot. Alicia Vikander has come from seemingly nowhere to strike Hollywood hard this year. The amazing Ex Machina, working with Ritchie on UNCLE, the upcoming Oscar-bait flick The Danish Girl, and starring opposite Bradley Cooper in Burnt gives her an impressive year that will certainly lead to a strong acting presence in the future.

Guy Ritchie has a very unique style, but I have been disappointed by his slow decay into conformity. His first two films were brilliant; Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch. They reeked of freshness much like Tarantino's films did right around the time of Pulp Fiction. Unfortunately, Ritchie's budget increased, his ideas dried up, and his creativity stalled (Madonna?). His recent Sherlock Holmes films had some of his typical great camerawork, but otherwise sort of shunned his trademark edginess and dropped him down a notch in my book. The Man From U.N.C.L.E unfortunately continues this downward spiral. It's like if Steven Spielberg were to do a Will Ferrell comedy. Doesn't really work. I would definitely go see it, but it's not his wheelhouse. Guy Ritchie may be moving into a new phase as a director, and has a King Arthur revision coming out next year. I don't like it. I miss the garbled British slang, gangster crime stories from his early years, and maybe we'll see that again someday.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E is a bit of a head-scratcher for me all around. Cavill and Hammer didn't need to do this film, and Ritchie was the wrong pick. There had to be a feeling that it wouldn't be profitable, so the question is, what was so attractive about this project? Maybe it was the timing and the money, or maybe it looked better on paper. It's earned roughly half of its $75 million dollar budget domestically, and will likely make up the difference and more internationally, but it just didn't work for me. I do like Henry Cavill though, and would endorse his candidacy for the next James Bond. 6/10.