Granite Mountain

Originally titled “Granite Mountain,” the film developed an identity crisis during its creative process that I just can’t seem to understand. “Granite Mountain” is a very strong, serious title that is directly telling of the incident and purpose of the film, while “Only the Brave” seems to diminish the realism and drama in favor of more Hollywood-friendly box office bait. The film itself is a worthy addition to the pantheon of fallen heroes’ films, however, and is particularly timely given the recent surge of massive wildfires on the west coast.

Based on the tragic true story of the Prescott, Arizona wildfire deaths in Yarnell of the Granite Mountain Hot Shots in June of 2013, the story is ripe for a retelling. The Prescott Municipal wildland fire department, led by the grizzled veteran chief Eric Marsh (Josh Brolin), is vying for the sacred and prestigious title of “hot shots” through a grueling series of training events, evaluations, and personnel turnover. It became the first municipal department granted that status in 2012, and joined the front lines during the fire season.

Josh Brolin, Miles Teller, Taylor Kitsch, James Badge Dale, and Jeff Bridges headline an all-star cast of macho outdoorsmen, and Jennifer Connelly adds a strong, soft, feminine element that is a welcome complement (you can almost smell the sweat and stink of the men). Teller stands out as Brendan McDonough, the new recruit who is trying to prove his worth both in the fire line, and at home. his character is a vulnerable underdog, not overly dramatized or made to stand out. It’s a welcome move by the screenwriters Sean Flynn and Ken Nolan (“Blackhawk Down”). The men are raucous and irreverent, but there is a heroic endearment to their cause, and the purity of man versus nature is evident in the sweeping vistas of unsullied land (referred to as “fuel” by Brolin’s Marsh), and the raging flames or scorched earth that smokes in the aftermath. The contrast is beautiful and tragic, and adds a real sense of awe to the picture, which could be a nature documentary just as easily as an action biopic.

Director Joseph Kosinski (“Oblivion,” 2019’s “Top Gun: Maverick”) takes the blaze head-on with realistic action scenes and avoids the cliché heroic action scenes in lieu of a more natural approach. This is after all, the story of twenty men who found themselves in an unthinkable scenario for which they tirelessly trained to encounter. It would almost seem poetic if it weren’t so tragic.

The film seems to go on, and on, and on and begins to seem a bit lost in a smoky loop of testosterone, bravado, sweat, and grime after a while. The heat is nearly palpable, and the desert furnace could have been showcased a bit stronger, but the audience’s focus is snapped back to full attention as the final sequence begins to unravel.

The ending makes it all worth it, and although the writers are transparent and on the record as saying they dramatized the final sequence (as well as Jeff Bridge’s character), I found their liberties to actually add to the emotional effect of the tragedy.

This is a good film that will likely earn strong reviews, but lackluster box office results, which is a shame. Had it been marketed as simply “Granite Mountain,” there may have been a stronger draw. The final sequence of events is worth the long run-time, and I’m a sucker for these types of stories; a tear or two may be shed. If you’re planning to go to the movies this week, this is a strong contender. 7/10.

Blade Runner 2049

It’s hard to believe it’s been thirty-five years since Ridley Scott introduced us to the revolutionary Philip Dick adaptation of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” that has gone on to establish one of the strongest single-film sci-fi cult followings in history. Let me be one of the first to say, it’s worth the wait.

Fast-forward to a new generation of science fiction. Set thirty years after the original, we find a new Blade Runner named K (Ryan Gosling) hunting down Replicants (genetically engineered slaves who are superior to humans in many ways) and enforcing the law in the dark, dystopian setting created by Ridley Scott so many years ago. It’s challenging to summarize the plot without spoiling critical revelations, but essentially K is slowly unraveling a long-kept secret that could change everything the world knows about humanity and the role of the Replicants.

Director Denis Villeneuve (“Prisoners,” “Arrival”) is a visionary master of film. He teams up with Ridley Scott to recreate the original world, while injecting a coolness and modern beauty to the narrative. Roger Deakins, the finest director of photography not to win a cinematography Oscar, captures in mesmerizing fashion the hauntingly bleak landscape with a nuance that can only come from decades of experience. At nearly three hours, “Blade Runner 2049” seems as if every shot is deliberately stretched out for a few extra seconds, and for the first two-thirds of the film, it is magical and entirely appropriate to capture the mood. Throw in Hans Zimmer with yet another brilliant and chilling score, and you have what might be the best sci-fi film of the year (hold your horses, a little George Lucas flick is coming in December).


Your first question may be, “do I need to have seen the original?” Well, to that I say not exactly, but it may be slightly confusing if not. The film does a fine job of standing on its own two feet, and pays beautiful tribute to the original, but it’s mostly in source recognition and not storyline. The world of the original is the context required to enjoy the film thoroughly, but you won’t get lost.

Screenwriters Hampton Fancher (“Blade Runner”) and Michael Green (“Alien: Covenant,” “Logan,” “Green Lantern”) weave some depth into what might be an otherwise standard tent-pole sequel. They don’t linger too long on any particular sequence, and deliver in the end what is quite satisfying and tidy. Philip Dick would be proud.

Where “Blade Runner 2049” excels exceptionally is in its austerity and subtlety. Manipulation of color hues, deliberately long and sometimes uncomfortable pauses, and sound editing that builds suspense all create a majestic vision of a future that frankly, I don’t want any part of.

There are elements of futurism that are incorporated, but the tone remains gritty, dirty, dark, and almost retro-technological. Massive metal buildings, corroded and sun baked. Sterile building interiors with emotionless and depressed people mingling with Replicants and holographic companions. It’s all very imaginative, yet grounded in the loneliness and lack of human connectivity that is a growing fear in our own society.

“Blade Runner 2049” is an outstanding creation that does not disappoint. My only real gripe is that it goes on a bit longer than maybe it should, but I can appreciate Villeneuve’s vision, and although epic in length, it works pretty well. By the end, the visual and audio journey makes the traveler a bit weary, but ultimately it is the coolest film of the year thus far. 9/10.

Battle of the Sexes

Although the film’s disposition is already common knowledge to those in the sports community, or who have followed the progression of the feminist movement since the early 1970’s, film making team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (“Little Miss Sunshine”) are able to convey the plight of the fight for sports gender equality in an intriguing, yet emotionless fashion, or what I’d like to call, “Disney sports drama light.”

Emma Stone reunites with Steve Carell to rekindle their remarkably strong on-screen chemistry in a recreation of the infamous 1973 tennis farce famously dubbed the “battle of the sexes.” Twenty-nine-year-old Billy Jean King (Stone) is convinced to accept a publicity stunt challenge by fifty-five-year-old Bobby Riggs (Carell) during a time when women’s sports were relegated to backseat status. The media circus culminated in a predictable and lackluster competition that although viewed by millions, wasn’t anything particularly surprising or revelatory. Don’t get me wrong, what Billy Jean King accomplished in her life inspired Title IX, paved a way for more robust awareness of LGBTQ rights, women’s equality, and so much more during a time when frankly, misogynistic behavior was commonplace and accepted.

There are some tremendous life lessons to be learned from sports, perhaps that’s why I’m so fond of inspirational sports films as a genre. In the case of “Battle of the Sexes” however, the lessons have already been learned, and the film just doesn’t seem particularly compelling.

Tennis as a spectator sport doesn’t quite have the appeal as, well, any other sport, and to the film makers’ credit, the sport itself is minimized in lieu of a more concerted attempt to convey the public sentiment toward athletics at the time. This leads to a severely anticlimactic finale in which there is so little tension that the viewer is ready to fast forward through the athletic event straight to the inevitable narrative caption, which seems written thoughtlessly and provides no insight into the real effects of the events.

It wasn’t a terrible film, however. Emma Stone shows again that she is one of the most talented young actresses in the industry. A severe make under puts her right at home in the 1970’s, and nearly all of her physically attractive qualities are hidden, forcing her to rely on a tense ball of emotional fire in her eyes (behind some hideous glasses) instead of using her typical charm. She plays the role exceptionally well, but it is quite dull and understated by nature. King seemed to be an introvert, hiding her true sexuality and repressing her happiness in deference to the social norms of the day.

Steve Carell is still hard to take seriously in any dramatic role, and he plays Bobby Riggs with an aloof swagger that never truly creates the antagonist the audience deserves. He’s too nice and is likeable from beginning to end, and that severely undercuts the value of the opposition. I have to add, Fred Armisen falls into the same category as Riggs’ nutritionist. It was a distraction to see him with a serious face on the tennis sidelines. Sorry Fred, you’ve just done too much comedy to be taken seriously.

The subject matter is worthy of a biopic, but the combination of 1970’s, tennis, and comedic actors taking on serious roles just kind of ruined it for me. I know there will be some who appreciate the film because they lived through the time, but for me and perhaps the younger generations, there isn’t anything shocking or earth-shattering about the idea of a woman beating a man in tennis. Of course, the match meant so much more than that, but unfortunately the film doesn’t. 5/10.