Gold

From what I’ve heard, “Gold” is very loosely based on a true story. Not particularly compelling on its own, the story eludes to hope and faith, gold and copper. It explores the luck and science of geology and mineral prospecting, thrown in with the backstabbing and greed of Wall Street. It holds the promise of something special, but ultimately is a wasted opportunity to tell what probably could have been a pretty cool biopic.

Kenny Wells (Matthew McConaughey) is a third generation prospector out of Reno, Nevada. The year is 1981, and times are tough for his small-time family business. Out of desperation, and with the inspiration of an alcohol-fueled vision, he flies to Indonesia to meet with Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramirez), a passionate hot commodity geologist fresh off a big find in the Ring of Fire. They forge a partnership and pseudo-friendship out of mutual interests (self-interests) and begin digging for buried treasure together.

When gold is struck, Kenny begins to change, as do all men in times of overnight success, or so the cautionary tale goes. He never strays too far from home, a used car salesman moving and shaking, marching to the beat of his own drum with an “I told you so” smirk on his face and his McConaughey Texas drawl coming out of his mouth. He spends most of the film sweating, with a ridiculous hairstyle and a paunchy gut, holding a drink of some variety, almost trying to be an unappealing typecast character for the time and place. It takes effort though, as McConaughey’s charming persona shines through even the worst costume.

Bryce Dallas Howard plays Kay, Kenny’s loyal girlfriend who really doesn’t have much of a place in the film beyond being the light at the end of the tunnel for all of Kenny’s tireless work. She follows him around like a lost puppy, but there isn’t really ever much depth to the relationship and it’s a wasted opportunity to have a dynamic scene or two. The real on-screen chemistry is between the business partners. McConaughey and Ramirez together share something undeniable, and with a beautiful backdrop of the Indonesian scenery, their excitement and energy for the elusive commodity is the highlight of the film for certain.

The story never really goes anywhere significant, from the opening narrative explanation of the family business, to the very boring and predictable ending. Some might say it is a happy ending, while others might disagree. Therein lies the disappointment. Poor writing because ultimately the characters weren’t made interesting or compelling enough.

Director Stephen Gaghan has written some gems (“Traffic”, “Syriana”), but as director, he is simply mediocre. Ironically, I would have liked to seen some of his trademark plot weaving, and intellectual ambiguity incorporated into the mix for “Gold”. Instead, the screenplay was written by Patrick Massett and John Zinman, a writing team that has done various television work, but nothing noteworthy. Gaghan’s next film holds some promise, however. In 2018, he will serve as writer/director for Tom Clancy’s “The Division” with Jake Gyllenhaal and Jessica Chastain in the leads. It could be a return to his early 2000’s glory for him.

“Gold” won’t be seeing any awards, nor should it. I had it on my watch list last year with a powerhouse team on paper, but the story isn’t anything we haven’t seen before, and there’s just not enough substance. McConaughey and Ramirez are fantastic, don’t get me wrong, but acting alone is only a piece of the puzzle. Gaghan needs to stick to writing, it’s definitely his wheelhouse. “Gold” is worth skipping. You’ll be richer if you do. 5/10.

Split

There is a certain expectation when viewing an M. Night Shyamalan film. He is the modern master of suspense, but has been so inconsistent that you don’t know which identity will show up. Will it be a well-written, Hitchcockian film, or a sloppy, disappointing mess? Perhaps the anticipation of which Shyamalan shows up will be enough to satisfy your thirst for entertainment, but it was merely a distraction for me.

Art imitates life as Shyamalan takes on DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) as the centerpiece of his latest attempt to thrill and chill. Kevin (James McAvoy) has twenty-three distinct personalities, all competing for his attention. Collectively called “the horde”, they range from a nine-year boy to a proper British woman, and some are more docile than others. When Dennis kidnaps three young women as an offering for the looming twenty-fourth personality, it is a struggle for survival and escape.

James McAvoy is fantastic in a role that was originally intended for Joaquin Phoenix (I would have loved to see that). He is a young boy, an old lady, a gay fashion designer, a ruthless pedophile and a scared man who knows he is mentally ill all in one. Now, we don’t get a chance to see all twenty-three personalities (or is it twenty-four?) but the ones we do meet are meticulously created and acted. McAvoy puts on a clinic in what certainly was a whole lot of fun for him to perform.

The sparse supporting cast is comprised of three scared, young women and an elderly psychiatrist, but our lead is Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy). She teases a secret from the very start of the film as there is something not quite right about her stoic demeanor. We are treated to a narrative description of DID through the eyes of Dr. Fletcher (veteran actress Betty Buckley), who is treating the afflicted man and attempting to break through his disorder to find the real Kevin.

Shyamalan is an interesting writer/director. About a third of his films are fantastic, a third is disappointing, and a third are awful. His next project gives me great hope however. He’s resurrecting the old HBO franchise, “Tales from the Crypt”. As a young’un, I was enthralled by the creepy stories and cautionary tales, as cheesy as some of them were. It is entirely possible that a series of thirty-minute vignettes is exactly what M. Night needs to get back on track with his artistic expression. Coming out later in 2017, this is a series you definitely need to keep on your radar.

I’m a fan of Shyamalan, and won’t give up on him. There is a bubbling excitement that I get every time I sit down to watch one of his movies, and although it usually ends in disappointment, there is always that hope that the twist will be a gem. I found myself predicting and guessing throughout the whole film, and in the end, was left feeling cheated, which was much more of a letdown than a typical bad movie delivers. Maybe Shyamalan needs to collaborate so that the endings that he probably finds clever are more reflective of his potential.

“Split” is entertaining. It goes off the rails a bit with some of the back stories, and the ending is disappointing, but anticipating the twist (if you can call it that) and enjoying McAvoy’s portrayal of multiple, eccentric characters is good enough for me. I would skip “Split” and watch last year’s “The Visit” instead if you want a thrill. Unless you already know the twist. 5/10.

The Founder

The nostalgia of progress during a simpler time resonates on the screen as Ray Kroc builds the fast food empire of McDonald's from scratch. A little persistence, innovation, salesmanship, and cutthroat business acumen are on display in all their 1950's American Midwest glory. The innovative changes to the quick and cheap dining experience were inevitable, but it was Kroc who ultimately blazed the trail for the Burger Kings, Dairy Queens, Jacks in the boxes, and Carl's Juniors of the world. Perhaps even Subway and Taco Bell owe Kroc a show of gratitude as the "Speedy" system was ultimately the reason for the vast improvements to the process.

I'm getting ahead of myself. In 1954, traveling salesman Kroc (Michael Keaton) was struggling to find the next big thing, and milkshake machines weren't cutting it. As luck would have it, he came across Dick and Mac McDonald (Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch), owners and operators of McDonald's, which prided itself in streamlined efficiency. Kroc became fascinated and knew he had to have a piece of the business. The difference between the two parties being the scope of vision. Kroc saw the franchise potential, and when the McDonald's monster began to grow, the brothers were left in the dust. It's really a portrayal of capitalism at its best and worst. Empires can be built with vision and grit, but there is always collateral damage, whether intentional or not.

What I liked about the film was the no-nonsense approach to the man. He was flawed, but driven. Like so many successful pioneers of industry, his ambition consumed him and destroyed relationships and caused him to make decisions that a moral or ethical man might see as just plain wrong. But Keaton played the character well. Nothing exceptional, and if I'm being honest, a little more subdued than I was hoping for, but a good performance nonetheless. Offerman and Carroll Lynch were fantastic as the brothers, and played off each other with a natural ease that is harder than it looks.

Let's be real though, the real star of the film is the "Golden Arches" itself. McDonald's is clearly the titan of the fast food industry with its billions and billions of burgers sold. In fact, its profitability and global presence is astounding, and likely part of most Americans' childhood experience. the evolution of the familiar brand and its franchise model is the draw, and director John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side, Saving Mr. Banks) knows it. The film is full of some great dialogue and interplay, and although predictable and without action, it is inspiring and beautifully done.

Maybe I'm biased (okay, I know I am), but films of this nature are typically my favorite. Not necessarily biopics, but dramatic human interest stories. Ray Kroc is an American icon. His life and his demeanor show a certain historical impact, and how it translates to the screen is the artistry in the form of moving pictures. The actors and the crew come together to paint what is essentially a very moving and magical experience. I feel like every well done drama adds a certain piece of contemplation or vision to the viewer, and just might influence their lives even if just a little bit.

The Founder isn't a strong enough entry to win major awards, but it deserves to be mentioned in the company of the best films of the year. It is a wonderful and tragic story, and just might fly under the radar and snag a few nominations this week. Time will tell. 8/10.

Hidden Figures

Based on the remarkable true story about the space race in the 1960’s, “Hidden Figures” is a clever double entendre referring to the complex and cutting edge mathematics as well as the unsung heroes who helped put the first American rockets into space. Spanning the crucial years between Sputnik’s pioneering launch in 1957 and John Glenn’s record-breaking triple orbit in 1963, it is a touching and light look at race relations in Virginia, the power of teamwork and human innovation, and an inspiring story for women and minorities in the science and mathematics fields.

Katherine (Tajari P. Henson), Dorothy (Octavia Spencer), and Mary (Janelle Monae) are a mathematician, a computer scientist, and an engineer for NASA in a time and place where it was unheard of for an African-American woman to contribute to a competitive and white-male dominated industry. They deal with racism and sexism as they strive to simply use their talents to contribute to one of the greatest human achievements in history.

Blending elements seen before in “Good Will Hunting”, “Apollo 13”, “A Beautiful Mind”, and “Remember the Titans”, this is a film that could easily be mistaken for one of Ron Howard’s biopics, with one stark exception; the tone is considerably more upbeat and family friendly. Even the issues of racism and sexism in the workplace are dealt with using kid gloves, which I must say, made it a much more entertaining and triumphant story. The film could have easily dwelled on the plight, but instead chose to celebrate the achievements of these three innovative women through humor and charm, with each of them breaking different yet equally important barriers.

Al Harrison (Kevin Costner) and Paul Stafford (Jim Parsons) play good cop/bad cop and do an admirable, albeit archetypical job in supporting roles. The true beauty however, is in the manner in which the inequity of the time is shown, and the grace and patience by which the women handle their lots in life.

The rest of the supporting cast is filler. Lots of white men with glasses, white short-sleeved shirts, and ties. An army of NASA nerds. Kirsten Dunst, Mahershala Ali, Aldis Hodge, and the impossibly handsome Glen Powell (John Glenn) all contribute with intentionally subtle yet effective performances.

Director Theodore Melfi (“St. Vincent”) handles what could have easily gone off the rails, in a terrific way. Balancing all of the elements of the film nicely, it isn’t too heavy on the math, the racism, or the historical implications. It delivers a handful of powerful speeches that might border on the Disney side of inspiration, but they are effective nonetheless.

“Hidden Figures” is one of the most well-rounded films of the year, with a natural appeal to nearly every audience. I was particularly impressed with Tajari P. Henson’s performance, and would put her into the top five performances of the year in the Best Actress category. I expect there may be a few other nominations, and it may be a critical dark horse as we approach the Academy Awards, particularly after its successful opening weekend box office haul (over $22 million, knocking “Rogue One” out of first place).

The historical story is incredible with frighteningly simplistic technology in contrast to recent developments in jet propulsion, materials, and space innovations. I would strongly recommend this film to the younger generation as both a history lesson and a model of perseverance. 8/10.

Golden Globes Preview

Tonight's the night. After numerous lesser publicized (but valuable nonetheless) awards already given out, the official (OK, unofficial) "Pre-Oscar" awards celebration is upon us. Two parentheticals and a quotation in one sentence? Masterful writing if I do say so myself. Anyhow, here is my prognostication in all of the film categories. The awards for television are rolled into the show as well, but I won't be touching that since most of my TV viewing is confined to sports, Jeopardy!, and a variety of toddler shows on Netflix.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) are the voters for this particular award, and they are comprised of 100 journalists who cover film and television for international outlets. According to a source (Chris McKittrick, about.movies.com), it isn't as prestigious as it may seem. The journalistic requirements are simply to publish four articles in the particular year of the awards show. That said, it is a strong indicator and influence on the Academy Awards, whose membership exceeds 6,000. I don't mean to belittle the achievement, but the winners' qualifications can be dubious in my humble opinion. Without further ado, here are Pilskog's Picks for the year as well as potential ramifications for the big show.

Best Screenplay. Perhaps the most accurate and absolutely talent-filled category of the evening, this is a tough call. Do you give the award to the creepy Nocturnal Animals and fashion designer-turned film auteur Tom Ford? Or the up and coming Barry Jenkins for the beautiful Moonlight? Maybe the brilliant and inspiring Damien Chazelle and the critic's darling La La Land? Taylor Sheridan is a talented writer of gritty fare, but Hell or High Water is a bit too simple and depressing (although it is a fantastic film). No, my pick is Kenneth Lonergan and what I consider far and away the best film of the year, Manchester by the Sea. It is heartfelt, executed to near perfection, and cinematic storytelling at its grandest. I could imagine reading this story on a rainy day by the window and getting lost in the narrative. That is the hallmark of great writing. Who will win? Either Chazelle or Jenkins in a possible upset. My money is on Chazelle.

Best Picture - Animated. This one will bug me, and will likely bug me at the Oscars as well. Moana is the strongest animated film of the year, despite some less than spectacular digital execution. The story, music, and feel-good tone is what separates it from the film that will win; Zootopia. Maybe it's the father of a young child in me, but I wasn't impressed by its mature and often mean-spirited mood. Moana was a beautiful film with music by wunderkind Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Best Supporting Actor. I get the Jeff Bridges hype. He's gruff, entertaining, and sounds awesome as a cowboy. But is he worthy of recognition for a role he's done dozens of times before? I say no. He may very well win the award for his turn as the... gruff cowboy sheriff in Hell or High Water, but I prefer Mahershala Ali for his part in Moonlight. I was a little surprised that Aaron Taylor-Johnson was nominated for Nocturnal Animals over his slightly stronger co-star, Michael Shannon, but I foresee the Academy remedying that oversight. Bridges will win because most critics are afraid to stray too far from the perennial favorites. Ali is a personal favorite of mine however.

Best Supporting Actress. I'm not a Nicole Kidman fan, never have been. There. I'll say it. I do however, appreciate the other four actresses. Perhaps the strongest performance of the year is Viola Davis for her absolutely authentic turn as the housewife of an abusive working class man in the 1950's. Michelle Williams was excellent as usual, and the fact that her screentime was kept to a bare minimum helped her cause, but I think she loses a tight race with Davis. I hope she wins, and I predict she will.

Best Director. This is an extremely tough category this year. Fortunately for the nominees, J.A. Bayona wasn't recognized. Maybe his film wasn't eligible due to timing, but he will win the Oscar come March. That said, Damien Chazelle has to be the favorite right now. This year's Golden Globes may reward him for the snubs of Whiplash last year, and rightfully so. The other nominees did a commendable job, but Chazelle's film was more ambitious. His choreographed uncut sequences blew me away and showed just a glimpse of his beautiful mind. Personally, I am excited to follow him over the course of his career, it is sure to be something special. Should win, and will win.

Best Actor - Musical or Comedy. This is the weakest group of nominees in recent memory. No less than three of them don't even deserve nominations, and therefore, this is Ryan Gosling's to lose. Deservedly so, his triple threat performance in La La Land is remarkable. Singing, dancing, acting. I've been a fan of his work for some time now, and he will finally get his due. He has a long career ahead of him, so expect more Oscar nominations (one this year), and a win somewhere down the line (not this year).

Best Actor - Drama. Casey Affleck delivered a performance of a lifetime in Manchester by the Sea and I don't see him losing any Best Actor awards from here until the end of the season.

Best Actress - Musical or Comedy. Emma Stone is fabulous in La La Land, and she will win. Her only real competition is Annette Benning, but let's be honest, Stone is not only the darling of the season, she gave the best performance (see Ryan Gosling).

Best Actress - Drama. Not quite as easy a pick as musical or comedy. This category might be the most wide open with Amy Adams and Natalie Portman as the front-runners, but Jessica Chastain holding a real chance to turn an upset. It will depend on some of the intangibles earlier in the night, and the tone of the voting members. We might see the old school tried and true safe winners, in which case Natalie Portman wins. Or we might see the open-minded, unbiased recognition of individual performance, in which case Adams or Chastain will win. I have a feeling that Portman will win, but I'm pulling for Adams. I really think it was a great role, even if it was in a genre that doesn't usually win awards.

Best Picture - Musical or Comedy. La La Land. No brainer from a critic's and an audience member's perspective. The nominees were a bit of a head-scratcher. Florence Foster Jenkins and Deadpool have no business even being nominated. Admittedly, I haven't seen Sing Street or 20th Century Women yet (don't judge - this is my second job). I can't imagine the musical juggernaut doing anything other than dominating the awards show. It is inspiring, appeals to all audiences, and is generally well-done. The perfect combination to appeal to just enough critics and academy members to win.

Best Picture - Drama. This is really a two film race. Manchester by the Sea and Moonlight. The latter has been making waves at recent awards, and may appeal to the diverse audience. The former is my pick. The other three nominees are all commendable, yet not top tier quality. All worthy of viewing, but I wouldn't even put Hacksaw Ridge in the top five, much less top 10. Nocturnal Animals and A Monster Calls should have been included. My pick? You should already know by now. Who will win? Manchester by the Sea. It's going to head into the Academy Awards with a Golden Globe push, and will win the awards that it truly deserves.

Well, there you have it. Predictions and opinion locked. Enjoy the show :)

A Monster Calls