Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

First Hit:  Better than the first but still not quite as strong as other loner films, such as the Bourne series.

The first film was entertaining mostly because Tom Cruise (as Jack Reacher) is good at what he does, be intense, entertaining, and be Tom Cruise. One never loses the thought that it is Tom Cruise on the screen. In other words, it is Cruise with a character's name, in this case Jack Reacher. Not that this is bad, however there is never any doubt about who is starring in the film.

In Cruise films there always seems to be a scene where he's in a shower and the shot is a profile of the water hitting his head and then flowing down his face. It is generally to show is anguish and his human side before he gets revitalized to go out and do become the intense focused character he’s playing. This film is no different.

In this version of Reacher, the opening scene has Cruise assisting the government in rounding up a sheriff who is trafficking illegal aliens. This sets up Reacher as someone who gets the job done, even if it sets him up for additional issues. This opening also tells us that Reacher is smart, knows what is going to happen, and has a singular focus. The writer and director tell us all we need to know by telling the Sheriff what is going to happen in the next 90 seconds. The sheriff laughs, then realizes that Reacher has the last laugh.

The biggest flaw I saw at the beginning of the film was how did he have such a close working relationship with Major Turner (Cobie Smulders), the person who took his job in the Army? This was never well established and this little loose end bothered me throughout the film. The film made a big deal about them meeting for the first time, and that they had a phone relationship, but somehow it didn’t work for me. However, their on-screen chemistry worked and they were well match with intensity.

The plot is about Reacher and Smulders finding out who is using the US Government Military complex to perpetrate fraud why. It has to do with arms dealers, government contractors, and drugs. To move the plot, in an interesting and heartfelt way, Reacher is accused of not providing child support to Samantha (Danika Yarosh) who happens to attach herself to him and Smulders as they find themselves in the thick of a battle between the government’s MPs and the contractors.

Cruise is Cruise. He gives you all he has, he does it well but in the end it is never about the character but it is Tom Cruise. Smulders is very strong in her character and in her physicality. Yarosh is very good and I like what she brought to the film. Aldis Hodge was OK as a MP captain charged with bringing Reacher to justice. My favorite character in this film was Madalyn Horcher as Sargent Leach who helps Reacher with information as the story unfolds. Lee Child and Richard Wenk wrote the screenplay and it is works better than the first Reacher film, but all told it isn’t very strong. Edward Zwick did well to present this story and the characters in an interesting way, but it wasn’t an overall strong film.

Overall:  When you compare a film like this with a Jason Bourne film, the storyline, why it is shot, and the acting are far superior.

Denial

First Hit:  A strong and heart felt story about a truth.

Has anyone ever denied something you and everyone else you know to be true? For me it is deflating and hurtful to have the truth be ignored by ignorance or ego driven insensitivity. I can only imagine what it might have felt like when Deborah Lipstadt (the real person), a noted historian and writer, was challenged by a denier that the Holocaust had actually happened. Being Jewish historian, she wrote a book called “Denying the Holocaust” in which she indicate that Irving was a liar by denying the holocaust had happened.

This film attempts to share this powerful story when Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) was confronted by David Irving (Timothy Spall), a holocaust denier, while she was teaching a class. Irving said that he'd give anyone $1,000 if they could prove that holocaust had taken place. She was so incensed that she called him a liar in public along with a few other assorted things which gave Irving the forum he needed to have Lipstadt sued for libel thereby having his cause heard. By having his cause heard, he would become more famous, validated, and rich. The forum he chose was the English court system. In this system, the defendant (Lipstadt) had to prove that Irving was a liar, which is different than the US court system where the prosecutor has to prove they were libeled. Living in the US Lipstadt didn’t know this and took the case straight on.

Her English Barrister (the person doing the lead research) was Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) and her Advocate (the person arguing the case) was Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson). Together they spent years and millions of pounds detailing out a case, in front of a judge, to hopefully show that Irving was lying.

The arguments on both sides were interesting. One of Irving’s beliefs that stood out reminded me of the OJ Simpson trial. In the Simpson trial Johnnie Cochran came up with a catch phrase that swayed the trial, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. In this film, Irving and the press came up with, “No holes, no holocaust”. What it referenced was the issue that no one had been able to show that were holes in the ceilings of the gas chambers where the poisonous gas materials were dropped into the chambers. If there were no evidence of holes in the ceilings, then how could have gas pellets been dropped into the chamber?

On the other side arguments brought forth by Rampton were aimed at having Irving box himself into a corner showing that he knowingly lied about his research. By doing this, he would be admitting that he was a liar on his own accord which would then support Lipstadt’s original statement, that he was a liar. This was a difficult challenge and Rampton, who threw himself fully into the task. But one thing he insisted on was to ensure that the arguments were not emotional. Therefore, he insisted that neither Lipstadt nor any survivors take the stand to make an emotional case. He wanted the case decided on logic and true information so that this issue wouldn't ever again be questioned.

With this set-up , the film deftly brings this story to light. The English Court system, the pain of the holocaust, and a way to commit to the truth without the display of emotions.

Weiss was very good as Lipstadt. Her drive and dignity of the character were well delivered. Wilkinson was wonderful as the Advocate. His humanness and logical drive were strongly present through the entire process. Spall was amazing in this unlikeable role. The ability to take on a role like this despite your beliefs is challenging and he did it extremely well. Scott was good as the Barrister who wanted to right the wrong. David Hare created a wonderful and intense screenplay. The dialogue exchanges between Lipstadt and Rampton were wonderfully written. Mick Jackson did a wonderful job of directing this courtroom thriller. Some of the scenes at Auschwitz were amazingly and deftly shot.

Overall:  This was a strong film about a deeply emotional piece of history.

The Accountant

First Hit:  I walked away liking this film because it drew me into the dramatic story while also being out-loud funny during the interchanges between Christian and Dana.

A young Christian Wolff (Seth Lee) is shown as a highly functional autistic young boy. His wizardry is displayed by completing a complex puzzle upside down. His parents, Chris and his brother Brax (played by Jake Presley as the boy and Jon Bernthal as an adult) are visiting the Harbor Neuroscience Institute home to find out how to help their son survive in the world. Although they are offered help, the father thinks there are other ways to “fix” his son. Throughout this film we are treated to some of those ways, which gives us the back story as to why Christian and Brax are so relentlessly good at using guns and martial arts. What didn’t make sense to me was how these brothers got separated later in life.

To make a living, the adult Christian (Ben Affleck) is an accountant with extraordinary skills to help clients resolve any type of financial issue. Because of his condition, he is relentless at completing the job and is incredibly efficient. We see him help a farmer husband and wife team as well as seeing pictures where he’s working with the mob, other criminals, and foreign entities.

When called on a new case by “The Voice” (a phone voice only with a smiley face in the phone's interface), he's asked to discover where the missing money is for Living Robotics, a company headed by CEO Lamar Blackburn (John Lithgow). After arriving at company headquarters, he sits down to meet with the CFO and CEO for an interview. The interview is amusing, but the audience sees why he gets the job. On the first day of work, he’s greeted by Dana Cummings (Anna Kendrick) who is the company’s accountant that discovered the accounting problem. During the introduction, and almost every interaction past this, the discussion between these two is interesting, funny and engaging. A definite highlight to this film.

When he discovers the problem, and the source reasons behind the diversion of funds, the film changes tenor and it becomes more of an action thriller.

While all this is going on, Ray King (J.K. Simmons) a Director at the Treasury Department, is trying to find out who changed his life before he retires. What he knows is that someone saved his life, and that there are a few brief pictures of a person that seems to know a lot of criminals, helps them with funneling money, but might have a deadly hand as well.

To assist him, King hires Marybeth Medina (Cynthia Addai-Robinson) by leveraging her past and gives her a month to find this ghost of a person. Yup, you guessed it, it’s The Accountant. This part of the film felt like a side note to highlight a particular aspect of Christian’s background. Additionally, it also provided a level of context of law and authority to Christian’s actions. However I thought it convoluted the story and imagined this film would have worked by leaving this part out, and this isn’t what happened. Regardless, I found many of the scenes very engaging, interesting, and funny.

Affleck is very strong as Christian. The disassociated looks and the matter-a-fact ways of having verbal exchanges worked for me. Because he needed to be both an efficient accountant and ruthless in actions there had to be a line that he walked that didn’t destroy the illusion of either. Lee was perfect - sublime in all ways. Kendrick was her witty, nerdy, inquisitive self, a role she does so well (think Up in the Air). Her exchanges with Affleck were very well done. Simmons was good as the man affected by The Accountant in a good way. Addai-Robinson was very good as the person needing to not be found out by doing her job well. John Lithgow was adequate as the company owner who was concealing secrets. Jon Bernthal was very strong as Affleck’s brother and protector. Jeffrey Tambor (as Francis Silverberg) was outstanding as Affleck’s cell mate who treated him like a son and gave him knowledge, skills and connections allowing him to make a very good living for himself when he left prison. Bill Dubuque wrote an overly complex screenplay, however it did work. Gavin O’Connor did a wonderful job of weaving together the two stories. Many of the scenes were well shot, like when the farmer scoffs that Christian cannot hit a target a mile away, then Christian pulls the trigger.

Overall:  Leaving the theater, I realized that this film kept me interested and engaged.

A Birth of a Nation

First Hit:  A great story that was overproduced, excessively long, and poorly directed.

This is a great story but as often happens, when someone writes, directs, and acts in their own film; their perspective and the film's pacing results in a muddled story. The long languished scenes were meant to develop his and other characters but only left me marginally engaged in this wonderful story of how one slave helped to birth a nation.

Nate Parker plays Nat Turner a slave to Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) in the South when the freedom tide began to turn and cotton growing was waning partially due to a drought. As far as plantation and slave owners goes, Turner was relatively kind and wasn’t constantly sadistic towards his slaves as we witness in this film. His sister Elizabeth (Penelope Ann Miller) saw Nat’s native intelligence and taught him to read, but only the Bible because “…these other books are for white folk.”

By learning to read from the Bible, Nat becomes a natural preacher and begins to hold religious services for other slaves. His ability to read and evoke passion was respected by both the white and black communities.

To give the audience a sense of the injustice, there are scenes with slave hunters led by Raymond Cobb (Jackie Earle Haley) who roamed the land raping, hurting, or killing slaves caught without a written pass from their owner. As this story develops, the more injustice Nat sees. And with the rape and beating of his own wife Cherry (Aja Naomi King) by Cobb, Nat gathers a few slaves to begin a revolt.

Many of the scenes are graphic and difficult to watch. During one scene in particular when a plantation owner uses a chisel to knock out the teeth of a slave because he won’t eat, I just about walked out. I understand the reason to make scenes like this, however it could have been done with less visual and maintained the important message. Although, I’m very distressed about the racism that remains in our country today, I’m not sure the film did itself service by showing graphic scenes of torture to make a point.

The parts of the film where the audience waits for something to develop which were followed by an action, were difficult to sit through. I don’t like the feeling of waiting in a film. Some of the highlights of the film were the wonderful support and love shared by his mother Nancy (Aunjanue Ellis) and grandmother Bridget (Esther Scott). One amazing scene was the calm clear tranquility Bridget showed as she sewed stitches in Nat’s back from a recent whipping.

Parker was very strong as Nat, however his meandering direction of the screenplay he wrote didn’t do this story justice. Hammer was OK as the bachelor plantation owner. Miller was good in her minor role of Hammer’s sister and someone who seemed to care about the slaves. Haley was very good in a role that just reeked of being despicable. Ellis was very good as Nat’s mother and woman who had to hold the family together when her husband was forced to flee the plantation. Scott was sublime and in her minor role and delivered a very strong and amazing performance.

Overall:  I was disappointed in this film because the real story is excellent.

The Girl on the Train

First Hit:  Although I was appropriately confused at the beginning, the story came together nicely at the end and Blunt’s acting was sublime.

I’ve said this before, I do not read fiction novels because if a film is made from it, I'm generally disappointed. Good books do a great job of creating images and flow inside the reader’s brain. Films from books are versions of the screenwriter's and directors (and sometimes producer’s) internal images. Film is a different medium and therefore telling a story has some limitations but almost unlimited visual options to tell the story. Failures of books I've read that totally disappointed me on the screen are Ayn Rand books and the Harry Potter books. The films based on Rand books were complete dogs. The Potter films failed in more ways than one compared to the books. This book, "The Girl on the Train", must have been enthralling because in 2015 it spent 13 weeks at the top of the national bestseller list. From what I saw in the film, I can see why they liked it. The screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson seemed very clear about how this story would unfold. Using multiple narrators, the director used captions to push the story back and forth in time, I was fascinated with Rachel’s (Emily Blunt - narrator) unraveling, the back and forth of being drunk and sober and then pulling it together revealing the truth. Rachel was married to Tom (Justin Theroux), she had a drinking problem and he divorced her for Anna (Rebecca Ferguson - narrator). On a daily basis Rachel use to look at her old house, now occupied by her former husband and Anna, from the train window. She also would see a couple whom she thought were the perfect couple a few houses down from her old home. This couple, Scott and Megan (respectively Luke Evans and Haley Bennett – narrator), would appear through the window of the train to always be happy and loving each other. However, the true story about Rachel, Anna, and Megan’s lives would reveal themselves to be different than the Rachel’s drunk, through the train's window, version. A murder happens and it’s up to Detective Riley (Allison Janney) to provide clues and pressure allowing Rachel to discover the truth about herself and what happened.

Blunt was amazingly sublime. She was perfect in her drunk and sober selves. The subtle transitions, movements and actions between these selves was true with my experience of alcohol abuse. I would not be surprised and actually expect her to be nominated for an Oscar. Theroux was good, however the depth to his characters’ intensity and darkness wasn’t fleshed out enough. Ferguson was an interesting character and I really liked how she was able to make her role work and also show more of Theroux’s character. Bennett was strong as a difficult character to like or understand. She did a great job of showing a troubled woman’s fight to open up and be authentic. Evans was very strong as the intense husband who was also an intense controlling type person. Janney was very good in her more minor role as a police detective trying to piece together a murder. Wilson wrote a strong script which appeared to be from a very complex book by Paula Hawkins. Tate Taylor had a very clear vision of what he wanted to see and to keep it paced to have this film work. I could have imagined this film to be really long given the complexity of the plot, but Taylor clearly didn’t want the audience to be bored and trusted that they would piece together the various story pieces he was presenting.

Overall:  This was a complex story and Blunt’s superb acting brought this story together.