Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!

Category: Reviews Page 46 of 63

Musings on Academy Award Nominees One Day Before They Are Announced

AMC Theater, Chicago, 50th Annual Chicago Film Festival.

AMC Theater, Chicago, 50th Annual Chicago Film Festival.

It’s one day before the Academy Awards nominations are officially announced, and I’d like to put my 2 cents’ worth in, before the experts weigh in.

It seems a foregone conclusion that we are going to see “Boyhood” nominated for many things, including “Best Picture.” I was driving along when a radio disc jockey who had just viewed the Golden Globes asked his listeners to let him know if he should rent “Boyhood” or stream “The Affair” that night, not having seen either. I wanted to call in and tell him to view the latter, because “Boyhood,” while a great achievement in following the real people for so many years, was meandering, overlong (2 hours and 45 minutes) and not that riveting. That said, Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke did well with the material and it would not surprise me to see them be nominated, either.

Four other films that we can expect to see mentioned and nominated in various categories are “The Theory of Everything,” the bio-pic about Stephen Hawkings that makes him come off as a bit of a cad, I thought; “The Imitation Game,” with Benedict Cumberbatch; “The Grand Budapest Hotel” with Ralph Fiennes; and Michael Keaton and/in the film “Birdman.” I expect that “The Theory of Everything” with Eddie Redmayne, who portrayed Hawkings, or Cumberbatch, who portrayed the computer genius at the heart of cracking the “Enigma” code, will win the Oscar, and deservedly so, but I was wrong about a lot of categories at the Golden Globes just past, and now we have Clint Eastwood eking out a Director’s Guild nomination (DGA) for “The Sniper,” which does not start playing till tomorrow.

Another category that seems to be wide open is Best Foreign Film. At the October Chicago Film Festival, all the buzz was about France’s entry “Force Majeure” and Israel’s “The Gett” and neither won the Golden Globe. Go figure.(Of the two, “Force Majeure” was far more entertaining.)

There are so many great performances from actors this year, especially the men. Good luck in picking those to round out the nominees other than Redmayne and Cumberbatch. You might see Bill Murray (who wandered onstage during the acceptance for “The Grand Budapest Hotel” even though he wasn’t in it) for “St. Vincent” and I was and am a fan of Robert Duvall from “The Judge” (who was nominated in the Best Supporting category and did not win the Golden Globe.) Steve Carrell from “Foxcatcher” was mentioned prominently earlier in the season and was nominated for a Golden Globe, also. And what about Ralph Fiennes from “The Grand Budapest Hotel” or Michael Keaton in “Birdman,” who DID win the Golden Globe?

As for women, my personal favorite is Felicity Jones as the long-suffering wife in “The Theory of Everything,” but Kiera Knightley’s scientist helping crack the German code has a shot, and some say Meryl Streep as a witch in “Into the Woods” is deserving, although I think she has had earlier stronger performances and probably will not prevail, if nominated. (*Personal disclosure: the only one mentioned above that I have not yet seen.)  Two others mentioned frequently are Jennifer Anniston for “Cake” (a woman suffering from intractable pain) and Julianne Moore for her portrayal of a professor suffering from early onset Alzheimer’s. Reese Witherspoon is a good bet to be nominated for “Wild,” a film that I found incredibly boring, but one in which Ms. Witherspoon did a credible job of hiking through the desert and teasing us that something might actually happen (which, sadly, it did not.)

I finally did rent “Boyhood” and got exactly what I expected. I can sum up the message as, “Is that all there is?” It will probably win, and my predicting (or preference?) career will take yet another hit.

Tonight, we are going to wade through a Liam Neeson night, with 2 of his older films. He is a seasoned veteran experiencing fame as an action hero late in life, and I couldn’t be happier for him.

If you want to know what the most ENJOYABLE films of the year were, for me, go back a few entries. These were NOT the ones that we’ll see competing for Oscars, necessarily, but I enjoyed them the most. And I’m sure I forgot a few.

We’ll find out tomorrow who gets the nod from the Academy, but the historical brouhaha over LBJ’s actual relationship with MLK seems to have torpedoed whatever momentum that  film had, going in, and it seems that “Foxcatcher’s” miffed Mark Schulz (Steve Carell is frequently mentioned as a Best Actor nominee for that fine film—which needed some editing but was very good) may have done that film a disservice by taking to Twitter to condemn its director (Bennett Miller) and the entire project, supposedly because he didn’t like the homo-erotic vibes that the film did contain.  I was very impressed with Channing Tatum’s and Mark Ruffalo’s acting in the film—more so than Carrell’s, which was more a case of heavy-duty make-up and underplaying than actually excelling in the part. It’s still a good rental and including it in one or more categories wouldn’t surprise me, but the only 2 sure things seem to be “Boyhood” and “The Theory of Everything,” with “The Imitation Game” right up there, as well.

After that, it’s anybody’s guess whether Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel” or “Foxcatcher” or “Into the Woods” or “The Sniper” or any of a number of fine films (“Night Crawler” with Jake Gyllenhaal; Joaquin Phoenix”s most recent foray into weird portraits, or yet another underdog in the competition) will triumph.

Looking forward to hearing the nominees tomorrow.

New Review from “Legend in Dark Fantasy” for KHAKI=KILLER

KHAKIKiller[From the online magazine “Nameless” by William F. Nolan (“Logan’s Run”) comes this brand-new review of KHAKI=KILLER]:

 

Here is book three in Connie Wiilson’s award-winning  paranormal thriller series, following The Color of Evil and Red Is for Rage.

The story is set in a high school (Sky High High School) in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and the complex plot involves a serial killer, kidnap victims, a pregnant teenager, a dying girl, a climactic Mano-a-Mano fight on a bridge, a collapsing staircase, and a main protagonist (Tad McGreevy) who possesses a special power (Tetrachromatic Super Vision) that allows him to read good or bad auras.

Wilson keeps the action moving briskly in a tight time frame from December of 2004 into June of 2005.

Having been a teacher for more than 30 years, she knows her subect. (Her first book, in 1989, was a volume on teaching for Performance Learning Systems, Inc.)

Says Wilson, “My true inspiration for this book was a double homicide that took place in the real-life setting of Cedar Falls, Iowa.”

Wilson’s style is non-intrusive, grounded and smooth.  It more than gets the job done in holding a reader’s attention from front page to last.

I’d advise you to grab a copy of Khaki = Killer for yourself and one for the teenager in your family.

Trust me: you won’t be sorry.

(William F. Nolan, reviewer, and author of “Logan’s Run,” Nightworlds” and numerous other novels and short stories.)

Most Enjoyable Movies of 2014

Let me begin this rant by admitting that I did not go see “Boyhood,” on purpose. I spoke with a close friend who said it was boring, pretty much unscripted and rambling, although an interesting concept.  I decided that the perfect way to see it would be when I had the ability to fast forward through the boring parts—which, to hear this extremely well-versed movie fan tell it—was most of the film.

 

The other film I missed that many like was the “Lego” movie.

Unfortunately, I did not miss “Guardians of the Galaxy.” I insisted we rent it, despite my instinct that it was going to be really uninteresting in that overly CG way. I became very bored very fast. So did my spouse.

I’ve been reading the “Best Movies” lists printed in magazines like “People,” “Entertainment Weekly” and “Time.”

Wow. These lists are absolute crap, for the most part, especially “Time’s. Here are the films “Time” listed as “Best” of 2014:

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” – mildly amusing. Definitely not THAT great!

“Boyhood” – See comments above.

“The Lego Movie”   – ” ”

“Lucy” – Been there. Done that. An interesting premise, but not a “best” of this or any other year.

“Goodbye to Language” – WHAT?

“Jodorowsky’s Dune” – Say What, again?

“Nightcrawler” – the first film on this list I can get behind.

“CitizenFour” – This doesn’t really seem like it belongs on a movie list, being about Edward Snowden and more accurately a documentary.

“Wild Tales” – Uh—–no.

“Birdman” – This one has everyone buzzing about its Oscar potential, and there is no question that the acting is uniformly great and should be rewarded. Otherwise, the long tracking shot? Meh. The drummer instead of a real soundtrack? Annoying. It did raise some important topics, such as critics and their biases, and discussed them well, so it does have that going for it, but it was definitely not one of my most enjoyable films of this year.

Here are 10 or so that were:

“The Imitation Game” – This British film is far and away the most superlative production I saw this year, with a performance by Benedict Cumberbatch that deserves the Oscar for Best Actor.

 “Gone Girl” – Well done all the way around. Absorbing. Haven’t read the book, but loved this movie.

“Night Crawler” – the only movie on “Time’s” list that deserves to be there. Jake Gyllenhaal does himself (and us) proud as the skeevy sort who profits from taking pictures of accidents and murders and other seamy things in a dingily-lit Los Angeles. .

“The Fault in Our Stars” – Yes, it’s weepy , but it is wonderfully weepy and I saw it 3 times.

“The Judge” – I am still trying to figure out why other critics felt it necessary to rain on Robert  Duvall’s (and Robert Downey, Jr.’s) parade by belittling the female roles and not thoroughly enjoying this tour de force acting class for its wonderful plot.

“The Theory of Everything” – The movie, itself, moved slowly at times, true, but Eddie Redmayne’s acting was terrific, as was Felicity Jones’ as his wife. Nominations, for sure.

“Foxcatcher” – This one needed some editing, but Steve Carrell’s performance is a revelation, as is Tatum Channing’s.

“The Drop” – Our last chance to see Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) in a wonderful film.

“Get On Up” – Chadwick Boseman playing James Brown not only acted, but danced his heart  out, but I think it was released too early. I also would mention “Selma,” which I have not yet seen.

For the last couple of films of 10 , I’d run in “The Well,” due out in May, a film by new-comer Tom Hammock about a post-apocalyptic world where water is the most precious commodity. Also, since documentaries seem to have made “Time’s” really bad list, we might add “The Look of Silence,” about the massacre of over a million Filipino men and women suspected of being Communists in the 60s, killed by their own neighbors. [For more about this riveting documentary, check the archives of Weekly Wilson.]

Others I enjoyed:  “Whiplash,” “November Man,” “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” “Force Majeure” (foreign film). I’ve heard great things about Julianne Moore’s performance as Alice, who is suffering from early-onset dementia and about “Cake” (Jennifer Anniston) and “Into the Woods” (Meryl Streep) but these I have not yet viewed.

Highly over-rated was the actual film of Reese Witherspoon walking across the desert (“Wild”). Yes, Reese, herself is good and deserves a nomination but the film was not interesting; I found myself checking my watch at intervals, which is never a good sign. Plus, nothing ever really happens, despite many teasing situations. I did not enjoy “Life Itself” which follows us through the final, agonizing days of Roger Ebert’s tortured battle with cancer. I cringe thinking of it even now. “Interstellar” was going along well until the confusing and unsatisfying  end, and Israel’s “The Gett” (foreign film) about a woman seeking a divorce was boring, boring, boring. “Snowpiercer” had a few moments, as did “A Walk Among the Tombstones” (Liam Neeson) but just avoid all the movies “Time” singled out, unless you are a real masochist and want to be terminally bored by 80% of them, with the exceptions noted above.

 

The Christmas Cats in Silly Hats: “Life Is Great; This Book Is Better”

 

I was checking on Amazon to see if there had been any “new” reviews of the newest Christmas Cats book. I’ve sent out about 20 FREE copies, and I even experimented with setting the price (temporarily) down to 99 cents in Kindle, as per instructions in one Webinar I recently sat through.
After the Webinar, I decided to keep the price of Book One (“The Christmas Cats in Silly Hats”) in Kindle permanently at 99 cents, because the 2 illustrators were, at the time, a high school student (Andrew Weinert) and a Venezuelan nanny (Emily Marquez Vlcek) NOT the professional illustrator who now handles those duties (Gary McCluskey of Rhode Island).
Now, as someone who taught in Silvis (IL) for close to 20 years, I recognize the surname of 2 of the young friends of Andy’s who have, apparently, decided it would be great fun to make merry at his expense. “Lampo” (Tom and Steve) was a name I was familiar with, and I remember that one of them I hired to tutor son Scott before he took algebra in 9th grade. That particular brother, one of 2 who graduated Valedictorian of their United Township High School class(es) and became engineers, was a recent graduate and looking for work. What year was that, you say? Well, it was BEFORE I opened my Sylvan Learning Center #3301 in 1986 and my son (who is now 47) was getting ready to enter 9th grade, having just completed 8th grade, so YOU figure it out. (A long time ago).
Andy always did have a good sense of humor.
Apparently, his friends do, as well.
Thanks for the FIVE-STAR reviews, guys! I really need them! You can’t even advertise your book or books on various “FREE” sites until you have something like 15 five-star reviews, and getting them is like pulling teeth. And I was delighted to see that I had 4 five-star reviews of “The Christmas Cats in Silly Hats.” But, I must add, the SECOND book in the series (“The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats”) was just named one of the 7 Best Books of the Year from a Chicago author by the CWA (Chicago Writers’ Association) in October. Yes, I know: I don’t “live” in Chicago. But I DO have a condo there and daughter Stacey uses it as her crash pad to fly out of Midway, so I’m allowed to enter, anyway, and they picked 7 books that were “non-traditionally published” and mine was one of the Honorable Mention ones out of literally hundreds (OK….not quite hundreds. All right, 75. Well, maybe it was 71, but it WAS more than 7.)
Here are the reviews that I enjoyed tonight on Amazon for “The Christmas Cats in Silly Hats,” which, by the way, is the FIRST book in the series and will be on sale at various venues around town, including the Festival of Trees and the Moose Lodge in Geneseo on Dec. 7th, but never again in the Book Rack because there was absolutely NO foot traffic. None. Zip. Zero. AND a mean teenager shoved her cell phone in my face and was rude when I asked what happened to my expensive poster(s) and the like, so forgetabout THAT place in the future, but you might check Book World (South Park) at the holidays (signing there 1 to 3 on December 6) and/or Amazon or Sean Leary’s new “online bookstore,” which I can never find or I’d give you the link.
So, without further ado: the reviews. And yes, I WILL be reading these reviews aloud during “Read Local” at the Bettendorf Public Library at 7 p.m. on December 10th.
And, by the way, the very first and oldest book in the series (“The Christmas Cats in Silly Hats”) is permanently 99 cents on Kindle. If all of the effects of this book are true (Latin? Potty training?) you might want to pick one up for your kids!
So, I go out there to read the reviews, and I am here to tell you that I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars I purchased this book for my two young beautiful daughters. They were acting like chi chi batty …, November 19, 2014
I purchased this book for my two young beautiful daughters. They were acting like chi chi batty boys before I bought it – and I was very concerned about their mental states.After I purchased this book, my two year old instantly became potty trained and learned Latin. I heard that Andrew Weinert really goes by ‘Randii Weinert’ – and has subliminal messages in his drawings to force children to not be as chi chi – or batty.

Thank you so much Andii Weinert for everything you do for the kids. Now if only he would read his own book – so of course – he can cure his own chi chi batty boy problem – the world would be a better place.

Thanks again!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Reading this book together resolved the beef between rappers Stitches …, November 19, 2014
Reading this book together resolved the beef between rappers Stitches and Young Jeezy. They realized they can both be snow men with silly hats.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A work of Art, November 19, 2014
By far the best book about Christmas and cats. I used to be an atheist dog lover, but now I’ve seen the error of my ways and joined the local congregation, sent my dog to the pound, and adopted a litter of 7 kittens.
Life is great, this book is better!
The art brought tears to my eyes.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars, November 19, 2014
I can’t even.

New Review of “Khaki=Killer” from Andy Andrews on “True Review” Website

KHAKI=KILLER by Connie Corcoran Wilson. Quad Cities Press (www.khakiequalskiller.com), 2014, 235 pp., no price listed, ISBN 978-0-982444-82-5. Click here to purchase.

Tad McGreevy, the young protagonist of KHAKI=KILLER and in the previous two novels in the series, is back. The task this time: track down two missing girls, Heather Crompton and Kelly Carter. Both were abducted by sociopath and Vietnam vet Declan Hunter and taken to an underground bunker. Declan doesn’t appear to want to kill them – but simply wants to keep them hostage, as he claims too many people have “deserted” him in life.

Meanwhile, the clown psychopath Pogo is still after Tad for the events in the previous books. But Tad’s visions, based up on Tetrachromatic super vision, allow him to “see” the color of evil and ID evil (which he sees as the color of khaki).

Wilson moves the plot along with a lot of subcharacters/plots from the previous two novels. She keeps you in suspense and the Pogo character remains terrifying.KHAKIKiller Andrew Andrews

“Force Majeure” is Front-runner for Best Foreign Film Oscar

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjjzVbTBF8o
”Force Majeure,” a joint Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and French foreign film, is one of the front-runners for an Oscar nod in the Best Foreign Film category this year. Directed by Ruben Ostlund (“Play”), the movie is the story of a family of four that goes on holiday to a ritzy ski resort (Les Arcs in the French Alps, but augmented cinematically), only to find that, just as skiing itself can be a dangerous sport, relationships within a family unit can be unpredictable and risky.

The film covers five days with Tomas (Johanne Kunke), his wife Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongslo) and their two children, a small boy Harry (Vincent Wettergren) and his older sister Vera (Clara Wettergren).

There are also a few minor characters who enter the drama, including an old buddy of Tomas’, Matts (Kristofer Hivju), a divorced man in his forties vacationing with his twenty-year-old girlfriend, and a free-spirited married woman who expresses little concern for traditional convention(s).

The turning point of the film occurs when the family is seated at an outside restaurant and a “controlled avalanche” becomes not-so-controlled. All those who had been dining suddenly flee for their lives. Tomas, in particular, grabs his cell phone and his gloves and hot-foots it away from the table, leaving Ebba, his wife, to grab both children and pray.

As it turns out, the avalanche does not reach the chalet and Tomas returns to the table to rejoin a not-very-happy wife who comments later in the film that Tomas is “always running away from” his wife and children. The white fog from the near avalanche is as eerie as in movies like “The Fog” and, later, during a ski excursion on their final day (Sisla Dagen/Final Day), it also appears to hold all sorts of dangers for the family of four, but their patriarch insists that he will lead the way and all will be well as they ski down a slope where they can barely see their hand in front of their face.

Tomas—not unlike other men in real life—won’t admit what has occurred.

Ebba says, “It’s so weird that you won’t admit what happened.”

Tomas responds, “I want us to share the same view.” He also expresses the opinion that he wants to “put it all behind us,” which seems quite convenient, since he has come off as a bit of a cad. This “let’s sweep it under the rug and forgetaboutit” attitude is prevalent in many marriages, whether short-term or long-term, and the attitude never fails to breed resentment when it surfaces. In fact, when a situation cannot be discussed, openly and candidly, [but must simply be “forgotten about”,] for many personalities (like Ebba’s), the effect is to create a situation that cannot help but erode the relationship, whether that relationship is a marriage or simply a friendship. Some of us need to get things out in the open and talk about them. Others—especially if the situation might reflect poorly on them—-refuse to talk about it. That is part of the foundation on which this film’s issues rest.

The title “Force Majeure” comes from a legal term where an unforeseen event prevents a contract from being fulfilled.

Ebba cannot seem to put the frightening ordeal out of her mind. In fact, she seems to be experiencing a bit of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), reliving the event for Matts and his young girlfriend Fanny (Fanni Metelius) and the woman traveling alone who discussed her more “open marriage” philosophy and tells Ebba that she purposely left her kids home with their father as a welcome vacation from them.

“They need therapy,” says Matts to Fanny after Ebba shows a video of the event that puts the lie to Tomas’ tendency to minimize the event and dismiss it as a “force majeure.” This former buddy of Tomas’ even offers an extremely lame excuse for why Tomas might have run away, saying, “The enemy is this image we have of heroes” and suggesting an alibi along the lines of: “You were going to save yourself to dig them out…right?”

When Ebba trots out the story of Tomas defection under stress, Tomas says, “I don’t share that interpretation of events,” and adds, to his upset wife, “You’re entitled to your own interpretation.”

This inability to admit the truth nearly drives Ebba to distraction When Tomas finally does break down and admit that he is “a bloody victim of my own instincts,” telling Ebba that he hates his weaknesses, he has a near-breakdown. That wakes the children and becomes a scene requiring the wife (Ebba) to act as the steadying hub of the group, calming everyone down. She seems “the strong one.”

In a later skiing scene, Tomas has his chance at redemption when Ebba must be carried to safety. Matts also gets an opportunity to act responsibly and maturely in a scene on a bus being driven rather recklessly, when he instructs the panicked riders to exit in an orderly manner.

It was interesting to me that the only person who stayed on the bus was the risk-taking married wife and mother involved in a dalliance with another single tourist. She refused to consider herself a “bad” mother or wife because she was vacationing without her children and not adhering to society’s marital norms. She was the only one of those on the bus who toughed out the driver’s incompetence and took the risk (and, as a result, didn’t end up having to walk halfway down a mountainside when Ebba panicked and insisted that the bus driver let them all out).

It seemed that Ebba was being depicted, at this point, as being a bit of a ninny who over-reacted to things. I wondered how the film-maker could have it both ways: either she is the strong center of the family hierarchy or she is a personality who panics at the merest hint of danger.

Which is it, for Ebba?

The avalanche is considered a metaphor for small situations that snowball out of control. There have been comparisons to Ingmar Bergman’s 1973 “Scenes from a Marriage.” Ostlund won a Jury Prize at Cannes. “Entertainment Weekly” in its October 31st issue has termed it “a quietly devastating tinderbox psychodrama.”
The film is a comment on marriage, in general, since Ebba is heard talking to a girlfriend on the phone. Her comment is: “You’ve been in a relationship for five years and you want to fool around. I understand.”

So, to sum up, the film confirms the view that women, almost in a matriarchal fashion,  hold a family together, but hope for more support from the men in their lives (who often behave like overgrown children). These scenes were both psychologically revealing and humorous, as a resort employee has occasion to watch Tomas losing it.

It also gave us a sad glimpse into the psyches of small children who think their parents might be going to split. Both children are shown listening to their parents arguing and crying. Little Harry admits aloud that he is afraid his parents are going to get divorced.

The movie also made a good point about how, in a crisis, we sometimes do not behave as admirably as heroes do in the movies. The boredom of marriage, with its repetitiveness and the humdrum chores that accompany it, is aptly portrayed, both in scenes where the youngest child, Harry, is acting “owly” and in scenes involving preparation for bedtime. The bloom is off the rose. This is a family that must share space (in one case, they are all shown in the same bed) and, while there are rewards to having a family unit, those rewards do not come without sacrifice. The randy behavior of Matts and Fanny is in stark contrast to the ho-hum nature of Tomas and Ebba.

The movie, which has beautiful photography by Fredrik Wenzel and Fred Arne Wergeland using an ARRI Alexa, had a great message for all partners, whether male or female, who are in a long-term (or short-term) relationship: “Admit what you did when you’re wrong.” It is thought-provoking and both humorous and serious. Only the ending proved anti-climactic and was a bit of a let-down, but this solid, provocative film with solid performances from all, will give movie-goers much to ponder.

“The Look of Silence” Documentary Is Powerful Testimony to Man’s Inhumanity to Man

 

The heinous massacre of anyone who had been affiliated with the Communist party in Indonesia is the subject of “The Look of Silence,” a documentary directed by Joshua Oppeheimer that was produced by such important documentary and filmmaker names as Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”), Werner Herzog and Andre Singer. It is a joint production from Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom that tells a harrowing story every bit as horrible, in its details, as the Holocaust.
Indonesia’s transition to the “New Order” in the mid-1960s, ousted the country’s first president, Sukarno, after he had spent 22 years in power. One of the most tumultuous periods in the country’s modern history, it was the beginning of 31 years of Suharto’s presidency.
Described as the great puppet master, Sukarno drew power from balancing the opposing and increasingly antagonistic forces of the army and the Indonesian Communist Party, or PKI. By 1965, the PKI extensively penetrated all levels of government. The army lost power as the PKI gained it and this led to a coup.
On September 30, 1965, six of the military’s most senior officers were killed by the 30 September Movement, a group from within the army, and the Indonesian government was overthrown by the military. Within just a few hours, Major General Suharto mobilized forces under his command and took control of Jakarta.
Subsequently, over one million citizens who were on lists as being Communists were rounded up, hands bound behind their backs, and either killed immediately or imprisoned until they could be systematically exterminated, much like Auschwitz but in a much bloodier and more primitive fashion. It was a method no less systematic and inhumane testifying  once again to man’s inhumanity to man. The PKI, which was officially blamed for the crisis, was destroyed.
The film follows a local optometrist, Adi, age 44, whose brother Ramli was murdered in the anti-Communist purge. His mother and father’s lives were totally shattered by the brutal slaying of their oldest child. As Adi’s mother says, it was only Adi’s birth two years later that saved her sanity.
One interview subject says, “We did this because America taught us to hate Communists.”
The politically weakened Sukarno was forced to transfer key political and military powers to General Suharto, who became head of the armed forces. In March 1967, the Indonesian parliament (MPRS) named General Suharto acting president. He was formally appointed president one year later.
Suharto’s pro-Western “New Order” stabilized the economy.
However, those whose mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children were brutally murdered for no offense other than affiliation with the Communist party, the memories do not fade. They must live next door to those who murdered their beloved family members. We learn, as the film progresses, that Ramli, was gathered up, bound, and initially imprisoned. Trucks would take loads of 30 prisoners per truck each night and either hack them to death, throwing their remains into the Snake River, or, in some cases, the victims would be buried alive.
One survivor, Kemat, describes how he jumped from a truck with his hands bound behind his back and escaped through a warehouse. He reminisces, “Ramli was screaming for help saying, ‘They’re going to kill us.’”
“Were there any spectators watching the trucks taking people to be murdered?” asks Adi.
“No. Everyone was too frightened to watch,” says Kemat. “I thought, ‘I’m about to die. I’d better accept it. I’m going to be beheaded, my body and head thrown into the river. And then I ran.”
Adi, the protagonist, decided to search out each of those responsible for ordering the murders or implementing the murders of his brother and others (simply for being members of the Communist party). He used his vocation as a traveing optometrist as entrée.
As we learn, “In many cases, entire families were eradicated, and it happens to this day. Some Communists were starved to death in prison or released periodically to be killed by the local citizens.” The group responsible for the executions was Komando Aksi. Adi searches and finds Amir Hasang and Imang, leaders of the Death Squad in one city.
Not only are these perpetrators not ashamed of their actions, Inong, aged 72, who was the leader of the village Death Squad, appears onscreen as a bit of a loon, repeating that he would take two cups to the executions in order to drink human blood from the severed jugular veins.
“If we didn’t drink human blood,” says Imang, “we’d go crazy. Many went crazy. Drink your victims’ blood or go crazy.” He adds, “Human blood is salty and sweet.”
Imang also claims that he “only cut once.” pantomiming the use of a machete to cut a victim’s throat, but then adds, “Once I cut off a woman’s breast. It was just like a coconut inside.” He pantomimes how he would use a machete on a woman, and his wife giggles while he does so.
“But I thought you said you only cut once?” reminds Adi.
Imang becomes hostile. He says, “I don’t like deep questions. It’s over. Everything is safe now. The past is the past.” He also shows a book with sketches depicting how they killed their neighbors. There is absolutely no remorse or regret shown by anyone who, firsthand, either ordered the murders or committed them. The exception is one murderer’s daughter near the end of the film, who murmurs, “Sadistic” and semi-apologizes, saying, “Adi, we apologize. We feel the same way you do. We knew nothing about this.”
Aside from this one lone young woman, who appears to be about Adi’s age, nobody else—especially those who actually committed the crimes—shows any remorse or expresses regret. In fact, the head honcho at the time, Secretary General of Komando Aksi, expresses the opinion that he should be thanked for his actions and perhaps receive a free trip to the United States—perhaps to Disneyland—maybe a cruise.

It’s nearly impossible to believe how callous the killers are.

We also learn that children in school are indoctrinated with propaganda that teaches them things such as, “The Communists had to be killed because they were sleeping with each others’ wives.” The entire schoolteacher snippet is ludicrous in justifying the mass murder of 1,000,000 people.
Adi tells his small daughter and son that what they are being taught is all lies. One teacher actually says, “Some of the Communists want to be killed.” The teacher adds, “The Communists were cruel, so the government had to repress them. Their children could not work for the government or be in the Army.” [Actually, after the actions of Komando Aksi, there weren’t that many Communists left alive.]
There are extensive film clips of the Death Squad leaders explaining in great detail (and often with laughter) how they would systematically murder men, women and children. Their excuse, “I was only following orders.”
We learn that Adi’s brother, Ramil, who was then a young Communist male, was initially stabbed repeatedly in the shoulder and stomach (The Death Squad members laugh at the memory of his intestines spilling from his stomach.) He managed to crawl through the rice paddies back to his parents’ house, where he asked his mother to help him and make him a cup of tea. While she attempted to attend to his grievous wounds, the Death Squad Komando Aksi members—who received the names of their victims from the Army—returned to her house and promised to take her son to the hospital. She begged to go with him and offered two cows to barter for Ramli’s life; they refused.
Rather than taking Ramil to the hospital, he was taken back to the Snake River where he was stabbed repeatedly and then flung into the river, where he clung to foliage and begged for help. They fished Ramli out and cut off his penis. (The men demonstrated how this maneuver could be done from behind, with a push of the boot to the victim’s butt to push the corpse to the ground where the body would bleed out.) The victims’ bodies were then thrown into the Snake River. (Villagers would not eat any fish from the Snake River for two years, knowing that the fish had been feeding on human remains.)
Those in power made it appear that the people were rising up spontaneously to exterminate the Communists, in order to protect the image of the Army nationally and internationally. This was not true. The Komander Aksi members got lists of 500 to 600 victims’ names nightly from the Army and acted on that information.

When the Secretary General of Komander Aksi is seen onscreen, he seems completely unconcerned about his role in ordering the purge, saying, “That’s politics. Politics is the process of achieving your ideals.” This man continues to be head of the Legislature, since 1971 and says, to Adi, in a threatening manner, “Do the victims’ families want the killings to happen again? Sooner or later, it will happen again.” The message to Adi (who refuses to divulge his last name or city of origin): “Drop it!”
Throughout the film, the insistent messages are these:
1) The past is past. Forget about it. Don’t speak of it
2) I was only following orders.
3) Revenge for these murders will be taken by God after death.
One of the most revealing moments comes when Adi visits his Uncle (his distraught mother’s brother). He learns that his uncle was a guard and, in fact, in charge of guarding Ramil the night he was killed. Adi’s uncle is now 82 years old. The uncle protests, “I was just a guard. They came and took truckloads of 30 at a time. I was just told to guard the prisoners. I did not help! I did not take a machete and murder people!”
But, objects Adi, couldn’t his uncle have tried to defend his own nephew, Ramil?
“I did it to defend the state. Better just to follow orders,” says the elderly uncle.
When Adi later tells his mother that her own brother was complicit in the savage death of her son, Ramil, she is shocked at the sadistic news, saying, “I never knew this before.”
Some notable quotes from the film that illustrate Point One (above):
#1) “Because Joshua makes this film all the wounds are open. Forget the past. You want us to be open, but how can we be? I don’t want to remember. It’s covered up. Why open it up again? What are you trying to do? Just leave it? Let it go. Leave it to God.” (From various speakers)
The revenge motif (Point #3 above) is voiced this way, “It’s up to God to punish those who hurt our friends and family. It’s not up to us.”
This mini-Holocaust makes you instantly think of Auschwitz and the Nazi Death Camps, and those who made it obviously do not feel safe in Indonesia even now.
Nearly all the end credits (other than Joshua Oppenheimer) are listed as “Anonymous” because those who contributed video and reminiscences to this film still fear retribution. “The Look of Silence” is a joint production of Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom and it’s an eye-opening film.

“The Well” Is A Post-Apocalyptic World Movie with a Message for Our Time

Writer/Director Tom Hammock has been the production designer on 25 films, including “You’re Next” and “The Guest.” His directorial debut with “The Well” put all that experience to good use, as he selected the perfect location, costumes, music and cast for this post-apocalyptic  drama about survivors trying to stay alive in a dust-bowl-like world where water is the most precious commodity.
The movie is horror. It is thriller. It is social commentary. It is a reversal of all the normal stereotypes. And it is good—very, very good!
The film was shot in an area 2 hours outside of Los Angeles between December 1st and December 18th as quickly as possible, using 45 grueling set-ups in an 8-hour day. At the heart of the movie is a 17-year-old leading lady, Haley Lu Richardson as Kendall. When hired, Richardson had only one previous screen credit: an Arizona matches ad. (Richardson also appeared recently in an indie comedy, “The Young Kieslowski.”)
Had there not already been a movie entitled “Kick Ass,” this part would qualify. Richardson’s background in dance helped her to perform strenuous fight sequences. She is a real find. She appears in every scene of the film and the entire story is told from her point-of-view.
Hammock has created a dry desert world of Mad Max-like appearance, but without the larger-than-life characters of that franchise. These characters are real people who are desperately struggling to survive while a greedy water baron named Carson sets out to systematically exterminate all of them. He calls them hangers-on, saying, “If they’re alive, they’re consuming my water, and they can’t consume my water without my consent.” Carson is central to the story and is well-played by veteran character actor John Gries (“Taken,” Napoleon Dynamite”), whom Hammock met at a genre film meet-up in the L.A. area that Hammock hosted.
As we are told, “If the company drains all the water away from the aquifer, they control the whole valley.” Kendall, the 17-year-old survivor and her boyfriend Dean (played by Booboo Stewart, depicted as dying from kidney failure), is told by her boyfriend, “There was a time when a man owned the land, he controlled the water, but things are different. He who controls the land controls the water.”
This is a modern-day parable regarding wealth (in this case, water) and its unequal distribution. It is timely, making the film rise above generic film genre categories and become commentary on the world around us today. Ironically, oil is essentially worth little in Hammock’s world, while water is the most precious substance after a 10-year drought devastates the area. With a real drought ongoing in California, the theme is even more current.
And that Australia-like desert which is one of the biggest “characters” in the entire production? It’s near where Tom Hammock grew up, 2 hours north out of Los Angeles. All the farms are actual houses that were abandoned by their owners when the land, planted in alfalfa, turned to dust. (The script’s reference to years prior when rice paddies flourished had me initially wondering if the film location was somewhere in Asia.)
Carson and his red-haired daughter Brooke (well played by “America’s Top Model” contestant Nicole Fox) and crew view their task of killing all the settlers in the valley in these stark terms: “Think of it as the extinction of a species…You have to kill them. The vagrants only suffer. If it weren’t me, it’d be someone else.” They even take a minister along with them (Michael McCartney) who pronounces, “Pray for each of these desperate thirsty souls. Ten years of no rain.”
Since Kendall (Richardson) spends much of the film either hiding from Carson and his men or actively overcoming them in hand-to-hand combat, rifle or samurai sword in hand, the cinematographer, Seamus Tierny, did a great job properly lighting her as she crouches in a dark attic shrouded in a foil wrap to fool the heat-seeking machines the searchers use, or fighting men twice her size in stark sunlight in the next. (When asked about the lighting, Hammock said, “The majority was lit by a white sheet and a pizza box.”)
All of the normal power structures in the film are turned upside-down: it is Kendall, the female character, who is doing all the fighting (not completely new, since “The Hunger Games” and “Divergent”). It is her boyfriend, Dean, who is weak. Plus, ironically, it is water, not oil, which is the source of all conflict.
Kendall and Dean, her boyfriend, have an old Cessna airplane hidden away that they hope to use to escape to a more favorable climate, but they first must find a distributor cap that fits. Much of the story concerns Kendall’s efforts to find this distributor cap, an homage to the original Road Warrior film.
The rest of the story is Kendall foraging or checking on or rescuing a small boy at a nearby farm, Albie (Max Charles). Kendall struggles not only with the exterminators who wear truly horrifying outfits (and, at times, gas masks) but also with her own compassionate impulses. As the cliché says, “No good deed goes unpunished,” which proves true more often than not in the plot, co-written by Hammock and Jacob Foreman.
The costume design by Emma Potter is terrific, as is the spare musical score by Craig Deleon, who often scores for Michael Bay or Apple commercials. There is also an ongoing, menacing wind sound. Director Hammock, when asked what was most daunting about the filming, cited the windy dust storms in the area, as well as achieving the defining image of the leading lady coated in oil. They put Haley in a flesh-colored wet suit and made the oil out of black children’s paint, but the temperature was still in the thirties—cold and uncomfortable for their determined actress, shown submerged in the slimy stuff in the movie’s most famous still.
This is an excellent, entertaining psychological study on a par with “The Babadook” in that neither is straight horror. Each is a well-drawn psychological thriller—but the Uma Thurman-like “Kill Bill” action vote goes to “The Well.”

Don’t miss it. This enterprising young director should be going big places in his film future.
“The Well” premiered at the L.A. Film Festival. It played at the Chicago Film Festival on October 19th; a production deal is nearing completion.

“Creep” Is Low-Budget Horror Flick in Film Festival “After Dark” Series

“Creep” is a low-budget horror film directed by Patrick Brice, who also wrote the story with Mark Duplass, one brother of the duo Jay and Mark Duplass (“Jeff, Who Lives At Home,” 2011).

While “Jeff, Who Lives At Home” was a funny film that used well-known actors like Susan Sarandon, Jason Segel and Ed Helms and seemed to have a budget of some substance, “Creep” most resembled “The Blair Witch Project” in terms of its herky-jerky hand-held camera work and what had to have been a spectacularly low budget.

 

The film begins with an online offer made to a cash-strapped filmmaker on March 21,2012 to come to a remote cabin for a day’s filming. The pay will be $1,000 for the day. Filmmaker Aaron Franklin (played by co-writer/director Patrick Brice) is also told: “Discretion is appreciated” (whatever that means).

 

It is telling that the duo of Patrick Brice and Mark Duplass both wrote the story, directed the story and played the two leads. In that respect, it reminded me of “The Editor” from Canada, another schlocky horror film where the director was listed performing nearly every duty from wardrobe to star. A two-person cast, think “The Babadook,” can make a successfully spooky psychological thriller on a low budget, but this isn’t it.

 

Jay Duplass did not have a big role in Mark Duplass’ project this time out, as he is busy filming television’s new drama “Transparent,” among other projects.

 

Upon reaching the cabin in the woods (wink, wink, as the write-up says) Aaron meets Josef (portrayed by Director/Writer/Actor Mark Duplass) who seems sincere when he tells Aaron that he is dying of cancer and wants to make a tape for his unborn child, much like Michael Keaton did in the movie “My Life.” However, shortly after explaining that this was why he summoned the filmmaker, Josef suggests that they adjourn to the bathroom, where Duplass’ character (Josef) proceeds to take off his clothes and get in the bathtub for what he terms “a tubby.” The audience tittered— who wouldn’t?

 

When Aaron seems surprised and tentative, Josef (Duplass) says, “This is a journey into the heart. We’re going to go a lot deeper places than this.”

 

Well, yes and no.

 

Besides periodically donning a wolf’s head mask which Josef has dubbed Peach Fuzz and intentionally trying to startle the filmmaker at every turn (“I’ve got a weird sense of humor, man.”) the pronouncements that Josef makes (“Death. It’s coming. There’s nothing that we can do.” “I love wolves. A wolf loves other wolves and, yeah, it occasionally murders things.”) make him seem like a loon, which the audience realizes immediately. Aaron, however, is not as quick a study. The smattering of tittering continued throughout the film; if straight psychological tension like the excellent film “The Babadook” was the goal, the film missed its mark.

 

After (finally) managing to break free of his client and return home, a series of CDs and messages are sent to Aaron by Josef and Aaron is so alarmed by them that he calls the police, telling them he is being stalked by a man who is “really weird and super creepy.”

The police, of course, are about as effective as usual, which means not at all interested in Aaron’s tale of an unknown harasser (Aaron never bothers to learn Josef’s last name!) who, as it turns out, did not own the cabin in the woods at all, but only rented it.

 

One line near the end of the film (Josef to Aaron) is: “It just seemed dumb that you would just sit there and not look behind you.”

 

My opinion? It just seemed dumb, period.

“The Imitation Game” Is Strong Oscar Contender for Film And Best Actor (Benedict Cumberbatch)

“It’s the very people that no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine.” This refrain is repeated constantly throughout the film “The Imitation Game” as we watch Benedict Cumberbatch, ( a 3-time BAFTA nominee), inexorably move towards an Oscar nomination for Best Actor of 2014.

American audiences will know the 38-year-old Cumberbatch best from either his role as Little Charles Aiken, the slightly dim son of Chris Cooper, in “August: Osage County” or from “Star Trek Into Darkness 2.”
He also appeared in 2013’s “Twelve Years a Slave,” (Best Picture of 2013). His breakthrough role was as Stephen Hawking in “Hawking” (2004). British audiences have enjoyed him as Sherlock Holmes in “Holmes” (2010) and in a number of television roles.

For me, watching the very British film in Chicago at its Premiere here, it was like watching Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) and his buddies from television’s “The Big Bang Theory” try to crack the Nazi codes that will help the British and the Allies win World War II—only without the humor. The extreme intelligence, the arrogance, the emotional state that co-star Keira Knightley refers to as “fragile narcissism” is most analogous to Sheldon from television, even if that role is played for laughs and this one evokes the opposite of laughter.

The movie is based on a book by Andrew Hodges (who helped write the script) called “Allen Turing: The Enigma.” It is the true story of how a half-dozen genius mathematicians, logicians, cryptologists and computer scientist banded together at Bletchley Park in the south of England to figure out how to crack the German Enigma Code.

Every morning at 6 a.m. the Germans sent out a coded message. Unfortunately, the various combinations were 159 million million, which meant that it would take 10 men 20 million years to try to figure out just one missive. And the codes were changed each day; so deciphering one code would not help with the next day’s transmission.

At movie’s end we are told that cracking the code saved 14 million lives and shortened the war by at least 2 years. Alan Turin, however—an odd duck if there ever was one—was offered a choice between incarceration for being homosexual or chemical castration. This was his reward for saving the lives of millions. [It seems fitting that Queen Elizabeth saw fit to pardon him, posthumously, in 2013.]

And it seems quite fortuitous that a film that comes down on the side of gay rights is being released this year, when marriage equality is sweeping the United States. Just as last year’s Best Picture film had a topic that voters could get behind (anti-slavery), so, too, does this one. It seems inevitable that it will be nominated; it is very well done.

Add in the feminist point of view with Keira Knightley as the sole woman brainiac asked to work on the project.
When asked why she wants the others on the project to like her by Turing, she says, “I’m a woman in a man’s job and I don’t have the luxury of being an asshole.” Now, you have a double threat in the movie theme department. You can make that a triple threat when you add in the anti-war/anti-violence message (“Humans find violence deeply satisfying.”)

Morton Tyldum directed (“Buddy”, “Headhunters”) a script by Graham Moore and Andrew Hodges (Hodges is also the author of the book on which the film is based).

The film explains that wartime Britain was starving. Although the United States was dropping 100,000 pounds of food daily, the needed foodstuffs were being bombed into oblivion by the German blitz. If the dispatches between the Nazi headquarters and their troops could be decoded, it would be “like having a tap on Hitler’s intercom.” And genius mathematician (but extremely poor team player) Alan Turing, who conceived the concept of an early digital computer (“Christopher”) and built it form scratch, was the man portrayed as almost singlehandedly responsible for the breakthrough the team makes [after a random comment in a bar gives them a fresh insight].

Following their success, in this film from our British friends at Black Bear Productions, the film tells us that the Normandy Invasion, Stalingrad—really, nearly any major battle you can name from WWII—was made “winnable” by knowing the German strategies from decoding their messages beforehand, thanks to the Bletchley Park team that worked to decode Enigma after the device was smuggled out of Berlin by Paris intelligence. (Maybe the filmmakers should also put up a notation that, without the French stealing the machine in the first place, there wouldn’t have been any machine to work on decoding?)

So, as the script puts it, the British needed to “maintain a conspiracy of lies at the highest levels of government.” They managed to do just that and to keep it a secret for 50 years, but the strong warning about more wars was one reason the successful government project was classified as Top Secret for so long. (What if another war broke out and another code-breaking team needed to be assembled?)

The film opens wide on November 21st. Pro feminism, pro tolerance (and anti-homophobia), anti-war. This film and Cumberbatch’s strong performance in it will be top contenders in this year’s Oscar race.

Page 46 of 63

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén