Luce

First Hit: I left the theater slightly confused about this film, and today, the following day, I’m still confused.

The confusion about this film is around the question; what was the coalesced point?

To set the stage, Luce is a young black senior in High School. His parents Amy and Peter Edger (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth respectively) adopted Luce as a seven-year-old orphan boy from a war-torn country. Amy couldn’t pronounce his name, so Peter suggested giving him a new name, they came up with Luce, which means light.

Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) is smart, and from the beginning of the film, he’s shown in this light by always doing his homework, getting excellent grades, being head of the debate team, and giving amazing speeches. Despite this, there is a sense and feeling that all this is a show by Luce, that there is an underlying agenda. So what is it?

This film touches on multiple issues, but because it doesn’t focus on one, the point is never crystallized.

Is the film about Harriet Wilson’s (Octavia Spencer) perceived dislike for Luce and others? After completing a writing assignment where the students were to take on a character and create a story, Luce chose to write about revolution and violence. Upon reading this, Wilson goes into his locker, finds and removes a bag filled with illegal fireworks. Attempting a discussion with Luce turns into an antagonistic argument. Discussing this with Amy, Wilson shares her concern that something may be going on with Luce and that they need to pay attention.

Amy and Peter’s discussion of this issue leads to highlighting some of the difficulties in their relationship through how they each attempt to elicit the truth from Luce but fail. His response is that he loves the subject of the class but Wilson is out to get and demean people.

That Wilson is black, Luce is black, and Luce’s closest friends are of mixed races. Was the film about racism? Yes and no. The film talks about racism, and in a scene when Luce enters his teacher’s home, Wilson gives him a sure fired lecture on what it means to be black and black in today’s society. So is this what the film is about?

Is the film about the truth? The film addresses fact in multiple ways, from the absence of telling or sharing information to outright lies. When Amy and Peter attempt to get information about the paper, and even the fireworks from Luce, there is a dance of misguided parries of questions. That Amy and Peter speak being truthful, the not sharing of the information they know with Luce is deceitful in its own way. When Amy and Peter lie in front of Wilson and the school principal, truth flies out the window.

Is the film about manipulation and control? Towards the end of the film, Wilson brings this subject out into the open by stating that Luce might be manipulating all of their behaviors. This is a good step in the movie because I, and maybe others in the audience, suspect this from the very beginning. However, Luce, when needing to seem sincere and apologetic, he makes his behavior very believable.

There are examples (or instances) of manipulation, one being with Luce’s possible girlfriend Stephanie Kim (Andrea Bang). At one point, Amy seeks to speak with Stephanie about what happened to her that caused Wilson to demean her in class. Stephanie begins telling a story about an event at a party. Her telling the story is powerfully believable. But was it real or was this really manipulation of Amy by Stephanie? Or, was all of this created by Luce? Was any of this genuine, part of it correct, or was the subject a way of manipulating people?

When Wilson queues up Stephanie to share the truth of a sexual incident at a meeting with Amy, Peter, Luce, and the school principal, what happens appears to be manipulated. And is it manipulation by Luce when he calls Amy “mother” or “Amy” based on what is going on at that moment?

The whole film is always on the edge of sharing the truth about Luce, the strain between Amy and Peter about adopting versus having their own child. The law around the searching personal property, how some people seem to have a light shined on them naturally, or is it really earned? How race factors into perceptions of people.

The ending gives little clue to the real intent of the film and only slightly more about Luce.

Harrison Jr. is very successful at creating an enigma of a person. His smooth transitions in a single scene from accepted kindness to a penetrating stare and back again were excellent. Watts was solid in this role as a mother, protector, and caring, engaged parent. Roth was fascinating as the father who carried resentment of not having his own child but also loving his adopted son, Luce. Spencer was almost as enigmatic as Luce. At times, I believed she had a slight grudge, and at other times, she felt thoroughly sincere. Bang was convincing in her telling the story of an incident to Amy, yet also elusive in what her true feelings were. J.C. Lee wrote the screenplay from his play. I’m not sure why I ended up with confusion after seeing this film. Was the basis of my confusion the screenplay or the direction by Julius Onah.

Overall: The film had promise, and I’m not sure what it delivered.

The Glass Castle

First Hit:  I cannot conceive of having a life like the one described in this film.

This is the story of how Jeannette Walls (Brie Larson, Ella Anderson, and Chandler Head) survived her upbringing by Rex (Woody Harrelson), an alcoholic father, and Rose Mary (Naomi Watts), an unconventional artist mother, to find her own truth and path through life.

Jeannette, her two sisters Lori (Sarah Snook, Sadie Sink, and Olivia Kate Rice), Maureen (Brigette Lundy-Paine, Shree Crooks, and Eden Grace Redfield), and brother Brian (Josh Caras, Charlie Shotwell, and Iain Armitage), never had much of a home as their father and mother spent all their time running from place to place. This dysfunctional family headed by two non-conformists had great dreams and never could put any of them into place.

“Glass Castle” refers to the all glass home Rex designed and never built. This one of thousands of ideas he had for his family. During non-drunk and lucid moments Rex could be an amazing father and mentor. I especially loved how he gave each of the kids the belief that they could pick a star as their own exclusive birthday present.

However when he was drunk or in a bipolar raging state, he was awful to everyone. Rose Mary did her best to temper his expressive raging, however she was an enabler of both the violent and homeless behavior.

After a failed attempt by Rex to get clean and hold a job, the children decided to raise themselves while staying clear of their parents' behavioral issues. This bond between the children was amazing and in the last scene of the film, a Thanksgiving dinner, it was clearly expressed.

I liked the way the scenes shifted from present day back to when the kids were growing up. The actors they chose to play the younger versions of the children were great.

Because the film rarely answered how and when did the family get food and clothing, I kept wondering about these primary subjects throughout the movie.

Harrelson is excellent as the bi-polar father who is an alcoholic, smart, and loved his "goat" Jeanette. His fits of rage as well as his lucid kind moments were well done. Watts is interesting as the mother. I struggled to buy her performance as being solid. At times she seemed disengaged from both the character and from the film. However, it could have been meant this way as well. Larson is very good as the grown daughter with a huge resistance to fully embrace her past. When she finally embraces her past, the shift in her character was perfectly done. Ella Anderson and Chandler Head were great as the younger Jeannette. Sarah Snook, Sadie Sink and Olivia Kate Rice, as Jeannette's older sister Lori, were wonderful. Brigette Lundy-Paine, Shree Crooks and Eden Grace Redfield as Maureen, Jeannettes' younger sister, were perfect. Finally, brother Brian as played by Josh Caras, Charlie Shotwell, and Iain Armitage; all were excellent and very engaging. Destin Daniel Cretton and Andrew Lanham wrote a strong script from Jeannette Wall’s own book and story. Cretton's direction did a good job of taking us through Jeanette’s story.

Overall:  This was an amazing story of persevering through a chaotic childhood.

The Book of Henry

First Hit: The story and acting was wonderful and deeply touching.

Susan Carpenter (Naomi Watts) is a single mother of two boys Henry (Jaden Lieberher) and Peter (Jacob Tremblay). Susan is a waitress at a small café and her co-worker and best friend is Shelia (Sarah Silverman). Together they are tackling life as it comes to them with an occasional glass of wine.

Early on we learn that Henry is an extraordinary boy. Smart, way beyond his years, he’s about things being fair. When his brother gets picked on by a bully at school, Henry is there. When he figures out that his neighbor and classmate Christina (Maddie Ziegler) is being sexually abused by her step-father Glenn Sickleman (Dean Norris) who happens to be the Police Commissioner in their town, he wants to do something about it.

Henry calls help lines and speaks to the school principal but she says that there isn’t anything to do because of Glenn’s connections and that Glenn is looked up to in the community. Henry is focused and incensed that nobody is helping his sweet neighbor.

Henry is the adult in this family and shows this because he's invested their money wisely and his mom has a growing nest egg. Also, while in a grocery store one day, the family sees a man mistreating a young woman and Henry wants to help her out, but Susan tells him it isn’t their business. He protests by saying apathy is the enemy of society.

Although Henry is a genius, he suffers from headaches and one day falls into a seizure. In the hospital, they learn he’s got a brain tumor and will soon die. He makes Peter promise to give their mom a red book and instructs his mom to quit her job, pay attention to their stocks and she and Peter will be financially okay.

The book contains detailed step by step instructions on how to save Christina from her step-father. At first Susan is reluctant, but after she witnesses Christina’s plight one night while looking out the window, she commits to making a difference.

I liked how this film developed the characters. It gave them each a way to express and represent their part in this touching story.

Watts was amazing as the mother of these two boys. Her ability to be smart, dependent and trusting was amazing. Lieberher was fantastic as Henry. He embodied the role of brilliance and his thoughtfulness even while passing on early in life. I was transfixed watching him. Tremblay was outstanding as the younger brother. Although not with Henry’s brilliance, he was extremely smart in a tenacious way. He was amazingly loveable. Silverman was perfect as the off the wall friend whose has a heart of gold. Ziegler was very good as the girl next door who had a horrible secret she was keeping. Norris was very strong in the unenviable role as the step-father. Gregg Hurwitz wrote a strong and insightful screenplay. Colin Trevorrow did a masterful job of creating a wonderful film to watch.

Overall:  This is a well thought out sensitive film.

Our Kind of Traitor

First Hit:  Really nice build up for first half,  just sustains the intensity through the back half, but ends quite nicely.

My wife mentioned to me that she thought “Our Kind of Traitor” is a lackluster title for a film and I agree.

There are a couple of stories going on in this film:  First we have and see a Perry and Gail (Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts respectively) struggling as a married couple. And second we have a Russian laced espionage thriller. How do these two stories meet? Struggling as a couple, Perry and Gail are on holiday in Morocco to try to bring some romance back into their ten-year relationship.

They are very different people; Perry is a poetic professor at a prestigious university and Gail is a workaholic lawyer who makes a lot of money. In a Moroccan restaurant, Gail gets a work call and has to leave so Perry gets propositioned by a gregarious Russian named Dima (Stellan Skarsgard) to join his party for a drink. Dima takes a liking to Perry and invites him to a late night party followed by an early morning tennis match. Their friendship grows and Dima asks Perry to deliver a thumb drive to MI6 in London when he returns home.

As head money launderer for the Russians, Dima suspects he and his family will be killed soon after a bank deal transpires in London. Gail thinks Perry is not doing a smart thing by going through with the delivery but despite her opinion, he follows through.

The tale heats up after they deliver the thumb drive to MI6 Agent Hector (Damian Lewis) but starts to fall off in intensity as the cat and mouse game begins to drag on. However, in the end, Dima wants to save his family, Perry and Gail may get closer, and Hector wants to put a nail in the coffin of his former boss whom he suspects as selling his soul and being a traitor.

McGregor was perfect because he portrayed the intelligence, compassion and integrity this role required. Watts was wonderful as the smart, quick witted wife while in the end wholly supporting her husband’s actions. Skarsgard was sublime. His intensity, deep boisterous growls, and single-minded objective made him the right man for this role. Lewis was adroitly a great choice as the MI6 agent, who was willing to move outside the box to follow his revenge. Hossein Amini wrote a good screenplay from the John le Carre novel. And despite the strong start and mediocre back half, Susanna White’s direction, in the end, brought the whole thing together rather well.

Overall:  One of the better film versions of a John le Carre story.

Demolition

First Hit:  There were strong and weak aspects to this film, however I liked the concept of tearing things apart so that one can rebuild one's life.

Pema Chodron, an American Tibetan Buddhist, wrote a book called “When Things Fall Apart.”

The beginning of this film reminded me of this book. Sometimes when things in our life fall apart (internally or externally), it can be a calling to deconstruct one’s life so that it can be re-built with more mindfulness and understanding.

Now this might sound too philosophical when writing about a film where the main character loses his wife in an auto accident and due to a malfunctioning vending machine, he decides to look at his life.

Here Davis (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Julia (Heather Lind) are driving and get into an accident. She dies, he lives, and as he begins to view his life, he realizes that he didn’t really know his wife or his life. To find out more he begins by tearing his physical possessions apart. It starts with his refrigerator, then computer, then his house. These are funny and cathartic scenes.

Opening to viewing what he feels inside, two outside influences push him along; his father-in-law and boss Phil (Chris Cooper) and Karen (Naomi Watts) the vending machine customer service representative. Additionally, she has a son, Chris (Judah Lewis), who is struggling being a teenager and together, Davis and the boy learn valuable life lessons.

Gyllenhaal is strong and ever present in his scenes. There is a scene where he’s listening to a song he and Chris created together while walking down the street in NYC. Watching him free dance down the street, one can sense the amazing versatility and skills he has as an actor. Watts character wasn’t as clearly defined and was probably set up this way to bring her son’s confused life into focus. Lewis was very strong and very good in his role as a confused 15-year-old young man. Cooper was very good as the strong determined man who held his daughter in very high regard. Bryan Sipe wrote and interesting script with a great concept. Jean-Marc Vallee directed this story in some creative ways and I loved the bit about buying anything on Ebay.

Overall:  This wasn’t a great film but, for me, the point of the story was set early on and I bought into the way it was presented.