baileykerr Reviews

Schindler's List (1993)

Spielberg's best film

[10/10 · 18 August 2016]

I understand that as someone who considers herself a movie buff, it is a great sin that I had not seen Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List before last Sunday afternoon. In my defense though, the film came out when I was one year old. I was too young to understand the subject matter much less to bring into a movie theater. Well, I have atoned for my sins and finally watched the movie. I turned it on expecting it to be a film that I know I should admire but for some reason am not grabbed by. On top of that, I have usually associated Steven Spielberg with Jurassic Park, E.T., and Hook before I can even allow myself to recall that he directed Saving Private Ryan much less other films on its same level of dramatic intensity. Point being, I was not expecting Schindler's List to move me. Well, not only did it hurt me to watch for all of the intended reasons, it stirred up an anger and sympathy in me unlike any film I have ever seen before.

This is the only true masterpiece that I have seen by Steven Spielberg. Here he develops a careful touch in evoking outrage and fear through the quieter and even more casual (for lack of a better word) moments. He does not take the easy way when it comes to getting the audience to sympathize with the victims of the Holocaust. He shows every excruciating detail, emphasizing that the most horrifying aspect of this section of history was not what was being done to the Jews, but how the people committing these crimes against them felt about it. He does not even paint our main hero of the film to be a morally superior individual looking to change the world.

Oskar Schindler (played splendidly by Liam Neeson) is the main hero of this film (as I'm sure you could guess). He is the reason that 1,100 Jewish men, women, and children were able to escape the damnation of Auschwitz. He uses an artillery factory in Czechoslovakia as a cover to give these people work, keeping them out of the government's clutches. However, he is no Martin Luther King, Jr. Helping people is only his main priority in the last third of the film. Beforehand, Jewish people were, at best, cheap employees for his startup enamelware factory. In one early scene, a gentleman comes into Schindler's office to profusely thank him for the job. Soldiers of the S.S. nearly killed him, but his status as an employee at Oskar Schindler's factory made him "essential to the war" thus sparing his life. Schindler shows little acknowledgement of the gratitude. Quickly shaking this employee's hand then waving him off. The impression this moment leaves on Schindler is only to inquire with his accountant, "Did you notice that man had one arm? How is he useful in my factory?". Who would have guessed that this insensitive individual would turn out to risk and spend everything in the name of saving the lives of others? Later mourning that he did not save enough people? I certainly wouldn't have.

Ralph Fiennes playing Amon Goeth puts the film on a level of brutal historical honesty that I have never seen before. He wakes up in the morning and goes to his bedroom balcony, carrying his rifle like a fresh cup of coffee. He carefully aims at one of the prisoners then shoots, killing her merely for target practice. After patting himself on the back for keeping up his skills with a gun, Goeth goes back inside thinking nothing more of the murder he has just committed. This is his morning routine in the same way that anyone else would wake up, check their watch or phone, then get up to make coffee, etc.

Strangely enough, thanks to Spielberg's marvelous direction, this is not Amon Goeth's most sickening scene. During one his shifts, Goeth is rampaging a Jewish ghetto. In this mass, stroboscopic shooting which lights up the hallways like a fire, Goeth takes a cigarette break complaining to a colleague "I wish this night were over". His colleagues agree; they would like their shifts to end so they can go home to their wives and families, to read their books, put on music, anything just as long as it means they get off work as it is being a particularly annoying shift this night. There is no word to describe the level of consternation, anger, disgust, and countless other similar emotions that I felt in that singular moment. I had to pause the movie and collect myself, remembering that Goeth and his cronies cannot hear me screaming at them, condemning them for not only what they did but for feeling no remorse.

In some of the best Holocaust movies I have seen, the Nazis are loud, filled with pride for their blonde-haired, blue-eyed glory, and become quickly frustrated with any Jews who they come in contact with. There is little to their characters except for the uniforms. In this film, they are parallel to humanity. They enjoy music, partying, joking, and complaining about work like most people. To the rest of the world, their work is one of the most unforgivable crimes in history, but to them it is a day at the office. It is "paperwork". The fact that Steven Spielberg takes the time to bring up that side of them is profoundly poignant. It is through those less obvious moments of atrocity that Schindler's List ascends to a whole new level worth of respect.

The best film I have ever seen about the Holocaust and probably one of the best movies I have ever seen period. Thank you Steven Spielberg for your time, effort, and dedication toward respecting the victims of this heinous and hellish event in history.

For more reviews, please visit my blog Art Scene State at the following link: http://cinemasmarts.blogspot.com/

Suicide Squad (2016)

I'd give it a C

[7/10 · 18 August 2016]

There is a house (or asylum) in New Orleans where some of the most notorious DC Comic villains reside. They call it Arkham Asylum. Maybe you're familiar with it. The film opens with a glimpse into the daily lives of imprisonment for the most marketable members of the cast, Deadshot played by Will Smith and Harley Quinn played by Margot Robbie. Deadshot stands in his cell undoubtedly wondering where he went wrong with his life while Harley Quinn begins her descent into constant flirtatious death threats. These are two of the members of the Suicide Squad who the movie chooses to focus on the most; while I thought they had interesting backstories, I wish that the rest of the squad had gotten expanded instead of compacted.

Suicide Squad is under the impression that this is a story-driven movie. But when the characters are cut down to make room so that a complicated, unexplained plot can commence, it leaves a comics-ignorant viewer (such as myself) pleading ever-so-slightly to care about what happens to the characters. I cannot speak for the viewers who attended this movie as DC comics fans, but I heard some laughter in the audience of the screening I attended so maybe this film plays out like an inside joke I wasn't in on.

After we get our introduction to Will Smith and Margot Robbie, the plot commences when Amanda Waller (Viola Davis, also known for her work in Doubt and The Help) meets up with who I'm assuming are government officials to tell them about the other members of the Suicide Squad. Davis speaks about how Superman's death is a tragedy of unpredictable proportions. Not only does his loss leave a hole in the heart of the good people of Metropolis, but this means that the next Superman could be the ultimate weapon. As one military official puts it, "if Superman had decided to fly down, rip off the roof of the White House, and grab the president right out of the Oval Office, who would have stopped him?". Could this kind of behavior be the product of the next Superman's ideals? Our main characters aren't sure, but they know they need to take precautions against that now. "This is World War Three" as Amanda Waller puts it. So who better to call than our main anti-heroes? Probably Batman since he is responsible for rounding half of them up and he competed against Superman in Batman vs. Superman. Or maybe Wonder Woman because she is Superman's female equivalent. Or Aquaman even if he is useless on land. But this isn't a movie about them, this is a movie about the some of the most powerful villains in the DC Comic Universe. That is who the audience paid to see.

And for a film made specifically to center around these delightfully devious people (or in one case, creature), I surprisingly did not learn a great deal about them. We saw how Deadshot and Harley Quinn fought and interacted with everyone else, we got brief backstories on each of the others, and we even got the Enchantress who became a villain because of Amanda Waller's task at hand to get the Suicide Squad together. There were fights and plot-points galore, but why would I care about these ultimately confusing plot-points that hop out of nowhere when I have great characters who I'm dying to know more about? I'm not asking for Christopher Nolan type exposition, but more than I received.

Let me put it this way. Of the year 2014, Guardians of the Galaxy was one of my favorite movies. Why? Because the story was everyone wants a purple orb and it's up to our heroes to make sure that none of the villains obtain it. This simple plot line enabled the movie to focus on Peter Quill and Gamora's lost childhoods, Rocket's sense of humor and sadness that he is not entirely connected to any species, Drax's inability to pick up on metaphors, and even Groot's optimism and willingness to help. Suicide Squad briefly focused on the main characters but then hurried in an unnecessarily all-over-the-place story. One of the characters became a villain trying to destroy the world, Rick Flagg was ordered to keep secrets from the squad for unknown reasons, the impending "World War Three" was never explained but was the main point propelling the movie, a subplot about having to save Amanda Waller and her crew, and a subplot about the Joker trying to break Harley out of the prison.

Now, does any of what I said above mean that the film was bad? Not at all. I loved watching the characters and learning what I could about them, the visuals were the right amount of DC universe-dark, the fight sequences were decent, the soundtrack was perfect, and it even gave us Jared Leto as the Joker who, in my humble and nonofficial opinion, gave a better, more unsettling performance than Heath Ledger did. I'm glad I saw this film and believe it deserves a 75% score. All I can say is I'm definitely looking forward to a sequel.

PS: Rotten Tomatoes? I want to ask you something personally. You gave a genuinely entertaining film like Suicide Squad a 26% score, yet gave Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates 38%? Is someone paying your critics to dislike DC Comic movies? Or were you drunk while watching Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates and therefore much more forgiving? I don't get you sometimes… For more reviews like this, please see my blog, Art Scene State at the following link: http://cinemasmarts.blogspot.com/

Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016)

Fun movie with fun characters

[8/10 · 18 August 2016]

Ricky Baker is a thirteen year-old delinquent of the New Zealand foster care system. He is under the delusion that he is a thick-skinned gangster, constantly spouting "I didn't choose the skuxx life, the skuxx life chose me". He is not too much of a delinquent that he is unlikable but he doesn't have a heart of gold either. He is not the brightest bulb in the lamp but picks up on necessary lessons quickly if the right people are around to teach him. He is wildly obese, clueless as to how to survive in the wilderness, and he even commits destruction of property in an attempt to convince the foster care system that he is dead (he never had a chance of being successful with that last one). Ricky Baker could have easily been written as an obnoxious dead-weight of a kid-character. What makes the Hunt for the Wilderpeople so fun to watch is that he is funny and as much as his past hurts him, he doesn't spend his time moping about it. What makes the film even more fun to watch is his partnership with the rugged, primeval Hec played by Sam Neill (finally a role where he does not wear that obvious smile silently screaming "Can you tell I'm the villain of this picture?").

Now onto the story. Ricky has been placed in a home with new foster parents, Bella and Hector or "Hec" for short. The two connect with the primitive way of living, hunting down boars with only knives, containing essential skills for surviving in the forest (or "bush" as the New Zealanders call it) before possessing skills for housekeeping and such. Bella is excited to have Ricky stay with them and shows it often with motherly affection while Hec is, of course, not so keen to the arrangements. He is closed off and the more grizzled of the couple.

Early on in the film, Bella unfortunately passes away, causing the foster care system to determine that Ricky must be placed in a new home. Hec is not pushing Ricky out the door but he has thrown it open to indicate that Ricky should pass through it at some point. Ricky does not want to go back into the system. What is his best course of action then? Leaving a note claiming that he has burned himself to death in the property barn, leaving a drastically unconvincing dummy of himself in the barn, burning the entire barn down instead of only the dummy as he intended, then running away in the bush with few supplies and even less knowledge on how to ration. Of course. I'm surprised I didn't think of that first.

Ricky's scheme to run away causes Hec to come get him, which causes Hec to break his ankle, which causes the two to be stuck in the bush for a few weeks, which causes the foster care people to begin a search under the accusation that Hec has kidnapped the boy, and the story spirals from there. Throughout the film, I kept thinking to myself that if this were to happen in real life, chances are quite strong the main characters would not survive as long as they do. But I found myself smiling, laughing, and interested in their welfare. Why? Because the movie gives a shrug and casually prefaces "I know this is out there. But I'm here to tell a good joke or two. Not to please the public". And surprisingly through that attitude, it pleases a majority of the public.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople is exceptional at recognizing one essential element of comedy; putting interesting characters into a funny situation and watching how they specifically handle it. One small but well choreographed scene finds Hec and Ricky running away from men who want to hand them over to the police. They manage to get back into the forest, then decide that the only thing to do to keep them both out of the government system is to survive in the bush. They begin to run away. After two steps of running, Hec's bad ankle and Ricky's obesity cause them both to come to a grinding halt, panting like they just sprinted for one hundred meters. After a few seconds of panting, they agree that a "fast walk" would be equally effective then begin their journey again.

While I am not sure this film deserves its 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I definitely enjoyed myself. It had elements of Wes Anderson in there, it stayed only as long as it needed to, and it followed silly yet grounded characters who I wanted to see achieve happy endings in a great story. Suspension of disbelief, thy name is Hunt for the Wilderpeople.

For more reviews like this, please see my blog at the following link: http://cinemasmarts.blogspot.com/

Hands of Stone (2016)

Not terrible, but unfocused

[5/10 · 18 August 2016]

By the last half an hour mark of Hands of Stone, I was thinking about my grocery list. By the last ten minutes, I was checking my watch to see how much longer it would be until I could use the restroom. As I watched this movie, I was sure of what the film was going for. It was trying to be a typical inspirational sports movie about the little guy who starts out with a big ego and nothing but the clothes on his back who becomes somebody that the kiddies can look up to. What I was unsure of was how the film chose to get there. This is the cinematic equivalent of a Pinball game. Story starts here, goes over there for a few seconds, shoots to the top for a second, falls down to the bottom in a flash, while there is little aim or consistency in the game-play.

The film starts as famous boxer trainer, Ray Arcel (Robert De Niro), walks into the sepia-lit boxing ring of Madison Square Garden. He is there to observe Panamanian competitor Roberto Duran (Edgar Ramirez) at the request of his manager. Arcel is there to make Roberto a "champion" as Roberto is described as "wild" and in need of direction. He is a highly skilled boxer, but is somehow not champ material for reasons that we ironically do not see until later. Why ironically? Because the whole reason Ray Arcel is supposed to train him is to get Roberto's career on track, yet somehow causes his social-thereby professional-decline as the movie goes on. I have seen plenty of biopics where at some point the lead character falls on hard times and needs reassurance to never give up (half the time, that's why they have a lead love interest). But I have never seen a biopic where the character falls into that state because of the very reason that is supposed to make him better and inspirational to the audience. From my point of view, that makes Hands of Stone fairly pointless. Maybe even more like the plot to an episode of South Park than to a Hollywood sports movie.

But back to the game of Pinball. Let me preface this little analysis by acknowledging that the screenwriter/director Jonathan Jakubowicz evidently knew a great deal about the lives of these characters out of passion for their stories. The problem was either he was attempting to put focus on too many little aspects that he in the long run he should have cut or he started with a longer, more flowing narrative and cut too much of what he should have kept in order to shorten the running time. Instead of a story propelled by the relationship of Duran and Arcel, we got maybe five scenes of the two of them during Duran's training and a hundred other scenes that did not add up to anything.

Case in point, in the beginning of Duran's training with Arcel, Arcel takes the time to explain the difference between technique and strategy. As Arcel describes it, technique is the name for how you implement strategy and strategy is the overall battle plan for the fight. In a later scene, we see a little bit of what Arcel is talking about. During their first fight as a team, Duran goes to the corner of the ring to take a break and get coached like any other boxer. But right before he continues the fight, Arcel always combs back Duran's hair. Why is this? We find out later that it's to make Duran look like he "just got out of the shower"; if he looks "fresh" during a fight, it will drive the other fighter crazy every time. "Ahh strategy" Duran replies impressed.

These are the kinds of scenes and moments that the film should have spent more time with. Instead, we got the obligatory love interest, an out-of-nowhere hospital scene, an unnecessary death scene, a sub-conflict with the mafia, a meeting of the long-lost father scene, and hundreds of other moments that added up to nothing substantial leaving for a confused and boring product.

If I were to watch this movie again, it would be for one reason; the boxing scenes. Here is where the direction and cinematography truly shine. The pacing, the editing, and the acting are all exactly appropriate to reflect Duran's frame of mind during each individual fight. In the beginning when he is confident (bordering on conceited) of his ability, the pacing is quick yet the shots are observant. And when Duran hits his lowest professional point, the shots are longer, slower, but still carrying the same level of intensity. I would love to put this movie on again for those scenes alone, I would just keep the fast forward button nearby.

For more movie reviews, check out my blog, Art Scene State at the following link http://cinemasmarts.blogspot.com/

Lawless (2012)

Eh...

[4/10 · 22 September 2012]

This movie was a movie that made no impact on the human race whatsoever. The acting was wooden (except for Guy Pearce who was more like a cartoon character), it was stop-and-go pacing meaning that there were too many pointless scenes, and it took too much time for too little information. I feel like this movie started out with a good script with possibly creative ideas for execution, but then good ole Hollywood interfered and turned it into this. There were two romances in it that had nothing to do with anything. There was a scene where it is implied that something traumatic happens to one of the female characters; it was never addressed again. Also, the villain barely had a motivation for committing the acts that he did. All in all, it was not a terrible movie, but it could have been a whole lot better.

Year One (2009)

Just... bad

[2/10 · 16 July 2012]

This movie seemed like a bad Judd Apatow copycat where the producers decided at the last minute to make it take place during the age of Neanderthals. There were only two jokes that made me chuckle and that was with the wheel and Michael Cera claiming his girlfriend could not be sacrificed because they each lost their virginity to each other. Other than those, none of the jokes brought anything new to the table. None of the characters were likable and it went on 1 1/2 hours too long. This looks to me like the result of extreme cinematic laziness and this is one of the few movies that I thought was a waste of my time. Thank the Gods I watched it on TV and didn't pay for it

The Secret Life of the American Teenager (2008–2013)

Really?

[13 November 2011]

I was in high school two years ago. Therefore, I can say for a fact that high schoolers do NOT talk the way these kids yammer on and on. Sure, sex is PART of a teenager's darker "secret life" sometimes and they can talk about it a lot, but it's either joked about or discreet. These kids talk about sex like it's health class. The characters are pretentious and the problems keep repeating over and over again. Maybe I went to a good high school but I don't recall kids getting pregnant every week. If I wanted to describe all the ways this show is addictive and awful, there would be no end to this review. The best recommendation I can give it is watch it if you want a good hour-long laugh.

Country Strong (2010)

More like "Country Weak"

[13 November 2011]

I feel like this movie has potential to be good. The actors are obviously trying but the writer/director just doesn't deliver which completely throws off the intentions of each character. What I mean is, it's bad enough that the music is astonishingly boring, but that no character is given any development makes the movie even worse. Therefore Gwyneth Paltrow comes off as whiny because why she started drinking is never explained, Garrett Hedlund and Leighton Meester appear pretentious because they have no history to explain their on-off minor rivalry, and Tim McGraw appears to just be bossy because there's no push for him to make Gwyneth Paltrow's character a more popular star. I feel no sympathy for the characters because there is no real story behind any of them which makes the long scenes feel even longer. When something thin is being stretched out beyond it's limit, it shows by either becoming looser or ripping apart. This movie doesn't completely rip apart, but it comes terribly close (emphasis on "terrible"). I do not recommend this movie to anyone, especially country music fans.

50/50 (2011)

One in a million

[13 November 2011]

This movie is a drama/comedy (a dramady if you will) about a 27 year old man, named Adam, battling cancer. On the surface, I expected something similar to "Funny People"; funny moments here and there, a lot of forced jokes and drama, and a relatively thin storyline. That is not at all the case for "50/50". I have seen dramadies attempted before and the only other movie that successfully balanced the comedy and drama while having them reflect off each other was "Little Miss Sunshine". This movie makes us laugh because it is not afraid to point out the irony of cancer while also giving us healthy doses of the pain that Adam is going through. No scene is unnecessary or overdone in this movie, Will Reiser went through almost everything we see in this movie and even before I read that in the trivia section, I felt that from every angle. The directing was very organized especially when Adam finds out that he has cancer; after the doctor says "Cancer" everything goes blurry for Adam because that is all he hears and right away, the audience knows that all he is thinking about is the life he might not get to lead. The pacing is detailed and very precise at when to slow down or place emphasis on a character or situation. Lastly, the acting was phenomenal, especially from Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He does a sensational job in this film with displaying how alone and scared his character is in this situation without overdoing either side. The most powerful part is the night before Adam goes into his surgery and he is having a nervous breakdown in the car. When he calls his therapist and lists all the things he hasn't done yet, that was when I started crying (which is a rarity for me). This was a very well put together cast and a very well put together movie. If it doesn't get an Oscar (especially for Joseph Gordon-Levitt), then the Oscars have no taste!

Cellular (2004)

Efficient as well as suspenseful

[9/10 · 12 January 2011]

This movie is fantastic!! This is my favorite action movie next to "Taken". This is because it explains everything about the characters quickly, everything has a purpose, the suspense keeps up throughout even after seeing it multiple times), and no make-out scenes. It also has a nice blend of comedy to mix things up. I'd like to list an example for this one but I don't want to spoil anything. The acting was also very believable even when the movie was unrealistic. For example, Kim Basinger kept literally shaking which is one of the body language signs that one would exert in a situation where they are freaking out. All in all, a great movie and if you haven't seen it then your life is empty.

Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)

Eh... great visuals, bad screenplay

[6/10 · 20 December 2010]

I gave it a 6 out of 10 mainly because the visuals were beautiful. The costumes were fantastic and, of course, the paintings were phenomenal, and the actors casted were just right for the characters. But the screenplay was very unorganized. The only reason I could completely understand the motives of each character was because I read the book. For example, the book explains that Griet never takes off her bonnet because that would reveal her insecurities. But when Vermeer sees her hair, she unexpectedly feels free to let her guard down, that's why she goes into the alley with Pieter and let's him in physically. The movie did not cover that therefore all the audience got was an necessary love scene. Overall, the screenplay was the only thing that I found awful. Everything else was superb.