Norman

First Hit:  Extremely well-acted film about “The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer”.

Norman Oppenheimer (Richard Gere) is a fixer and befriends people, anybody, to help them. By finding out what it is they want or need he gets close to them and creates a way to connect himself to people and them to him. Looking at their wants, he's like a problem and puzzle solver by putting people's needs, abilities, and wants together in a way that issues get resolved. Doing so, he also hopes to make something on the side from the deal.

The issue is, that despite his unfathomable drive to do this, he fabricates the truth into a stories that makes him look more connected and important than he is. People see through this, but because he's so nice and humble, no one completely pushes him away.

We never see him sleep and suspect he sleeps in the park or in a synagogue that he likes and supports. During one of his connecting ventures at a conference he spies and follows a minor Deputy Minister of Israel named Micha Eshel (Lior Ashkenazi) out of the conference and into a high-end clothing store.

Micha had admired a pair of shoes in the window and that’s when Norman introduces himself. They go into because Norman insists that Micha at least try on the shoes he's admiring through the window. While in conversation with Norman, the store proprietor starts measuring Micha for a suit. When Micha sees that the price for the suit will be over $6,000, he panics, takes the suit off and wants to leave. Norman convinces him to put on the shoes back on and then buys the shoes for Micha. Little did Norman know that the shoes were over $1,200. The look on Norman’s face is priceless.

Still trying to create a connection with Micha, Norman finally gets him to take his business card and return gets Micha’s with his private number on the back.

For Norman this means they are close good friends and he wants to leverage this relationship even though Micha or his staff rarely answers his calls. Three years later Micha becomes Prime Minister of Israel and it so happens, when Micha visits New York, Norman is at a gathering to honor Prime Minister Eshel. When Micha spies Norman in the greeting line, he calls out and hugs him and introduces Norman as his close friend to many of the people there to greet Micha. This moment is complete glory for Norman and he’s hoping he can leverage this into something good. He states at one point, this was the best investment he's ever made.

During the film we also see him connect with others including Philip Cohen (Michael Sheen) who needs to be married in a Synagogue but his fiancé is Korean; Rabbi Blumenthal (Steve Buscemi) who needs to find 14 million dollars save the synagogue from being destroyed, Jo Wilf (Harris Yulin) who wants to make money, and Alex Green (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who wants to catch the “New York Businessman” who illegally gives a gift to the Prime Minister. Lastly there is the Prime Minister that needs a special favor from Norman.

Watching how these parts intertangle with each other and pulling them all together is Norman’s self-described job description.

The scenes of New York City, the community of Jews and their discussions are amazingly strong.

The film also uses titles of acts to break up the film into scenes/acts and, although at times I’m not a big fan of this, here it works well.

Gere is phenomenal. This is some of the best acting I’ve ever seen from him. Sheen is great as the guy who doesn’t want to be bothered by Norman unless he’s getting something from the interaction. Buscemi is very strong as the Rabbi who is desperate to keep his synagogue open. Yulin is perfect as the greed based wealthy man who is only interested speaking to Norman if there is a large solid financial deal to be made. Gainsbourg is fantastic as the investigator who is initially put-off by Norman but then finds a way to use him for her own benefit. Joseph Cedar wrote and directed this very engaging, interesting film.

Overall:  I fully enjoyed following Norman who was the moderate New York fixer.

The Circle

First Hit:  Wonderfully interesting in many ways including how close we are to actually having this technology being available today. I grew up being much more private that I am today. Today’s technology makes being open and transparent much easier. This film is about technology and how it could be used to control, expose, and create full transparency among people. It also exposes some of the privacy and freedom of choice issues that we, as a race, may have to face.

In 1999 there was a Ron Howard film called 'Edtv' with Matthew McConaughey in the role of Ed, who was filmed by a camera crew while he lived his life and eventually got the girl despite being exposed this way. What made this interesting was how much equipment and production was required to film this one man.

It's all different in 'The Circle'. Here the company resembles a conglomeration of Apple, Google, and Facebook and the technology they develop is the star. It is a social media platform that also provides other services.

Mae (Emma Watson) is stuck in a part-time customer service department for a utility company. Her mom Bonnie (Glenne Headly) and dad Vinnie (Bill Paxton) want their daughter to be happy, but she’s been hanging around because Vinnie has Multiple Sclerosis. Her high school boyfriend Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) still pines for Mae and is more interested in a life without technology.

Mae gets hired by ‘The Circle’ because her friend Annie (Karen Gillan), who has a high level position with the company, gets her an interview. Drinking the Kool-Aid of ‘The Circle’ philosophy, Mae slowly gets inducted to the group by going to the company parties, staying in the company dorms, eating the company food, and participating online with the supposed “friendships”. Getting a company physical, she ingests a small device that will track her and provide the company with her vital data.

At a company meeting they announce a small inexpensive camera which they begin placing all over the country. The camera provides 'The Circle' clients with ways to view and experience lots of different places and never leave their seat in front of their computer screen or phone screen.

The founders, Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks) and Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt), promote openness while there is a slight sub-current of wanting control and data on everyone and everything. The cameras are part of this data collection. By recording the camera data and the data from their employees ingested monitors, the collection becomes very personal very quick.

Because of the cameras, Mae is saved from drowning in San Francisco Bay. This emotional event further convinces Mae that ‘The Circle’ is on to something and volunteers to be the first person to be online fully transparent 24/7 except for the 3 minutes when she’s on a toilet or when she's sleeping. Of course now she has millions of followers and as people do today, many make snide, dumb or derogatory comments about Mae as well as others who make supportive comments.

Mae comes up with ideas to take this one more step and suggests that everyone become part of ‘The Circle’ and if you are, then you’ll automatically be registered to vote and will be required to vote. One of her co-workers, Ty Lafitte (John Boyega), shares information with Mae which supports concern for The Circle’s plans for the data they are collecting. She also discovers that Ty is the third founder who no longer has an active part in the company.

The ending scenes are great because it starts to bring up the concept and issues around true transparency for all people, including the founders. The questions this film brings up are important to all of us because almost all of the technology shown in the film is available. Would you act better, or as your better self, if everything you did was being able to be seen by everyone else? Would you be OK with everyone having the ability to view all your communications with anyone? Is total transparency of everyone the best path? Or, do we need to have individual privacy?

The film puts forth this question and actually it is a great question because the technology is just around the corner to make ‘The Circle’ happen soon.

Watson is great. She did a wonderful job of portraying her own questions about what she was getting into and then shifting to be the person who leads ‘The Circle’. She had great transitional moments and she performed them very well. Hanks was perfect as CEO because he’s just so nice and believable. You wouldn’t think there was an underlying theme that wasn’t transparent. Oswalt was excellent as the COO because he, more than Hanks, showed a sense of an underlying darker theme. Paxton was wonderful in his final film role. His performance as a man with MS was spot on. Gillan was strong as the overworked believer who started seeing her power fade. Coltrane was wonderful as Mercer the guy who just wanted to live his life his way. Headly was very good as Mae’s mother. Loved how she created support for her husband and empathy for her daughter. Boyega was strong as Ty, the architect of ‘The Circle’ and saw the issues early on. James Ponsoldt and Dave Eggers did a wonderful job of creating a script and screenplay that reflected the way people act today with their mobile devices and bringing up the deeper questions about transparence and control. Ponsoldt did a great job of using his actors to show how companies in Silicon Valley coddle their employees; with transportation, food, parties, concerts, and activities.

Overall:  A very interesting story and it brings up questions that will have to be addressed and resolved soon.

Born In China

First Hit:  I was disappointed in the overall presentation, narration, and empty space. I look forward to seeing Disney nature films and this film was no exception. It started out OK, but started to fall off with the narration and then the story's lack of engagement. Somehow John Krasinski’s voice failed to get me absorbed into into movie; it seemed pressed or manufactured without true feeling or empathy.

I did expect more from Krasinski's narration because he himself has two daughters and this film is about parents raising children. 'Born In China' is about three mothers raising their new babies. The animal mothers were: Snow Leopard, Golden Monkey, and Panda.

I thought that following a Snow Leopard, Golden Monkeys and Pandas would have been enough. However, either, following the three families didn't provide enough content or they didn’t do enough to deeply engage us and show us their lives, because there was so much empty space in the film. The possibility also exists that they needed more families to follow, but I'm not sure that would have helped.

Of course, many of the shots were fantastic because Disney's photographers are amazing. This point is proved in the opening scene, with two mother Snow Leopards facing off in a territory dispute. This scene was intense, inspiring and engaging and set a high mark for the rest of the film. It is unfortunate that the film falls away after this.

This falling away resulted in scenes of humor and cuteness by following the Golden Monkeys and Pandas. The Snow Leopards path was far more intense and had the feeling of being on the edge.

Although I applaud the director to include the mother's death scene, I still wanted to know what happened to the mother’s two kittens. The Golden Monkey story had both laughter and drama. The Panda story was interesting to me especially because they are very sloth like and the babies are so very vulnerable when born.

I’m not sure using the Crane as a moral compass was a good thought. It might have been better to learn more about the cranes.

Didn’t like Krasinskie’s voice and inflections for the narration. David Fowler and Brian Leith wrote a somewhat weak script. Chuan Lu did a mediocre job of putting these stories together. Although the filming/cinematography was exquisite.

Overall:  Disappointed by this film and made me question whether I’ll see the next in the series.

Free Fire

First Hit:  Not many screenwriters and directors attempt to shoot an entire film in one room and this film shows why. Part of the issue with shooting a film in a one room, with a few scenes outside the room, is that the room set has to be dynamic or amazing and/or the characters have to be inspiring and so engaging that the audience is on the edge of their seat. Some films focus on one or the other while most of the rest try to focus on both. This one appears to focus on character development but by limiting any movement in the set because people are in a gunfight and pinned down, the difficulty in making the characters interesting, is pronounced.

What we have is two factions. One group wants to buy some M-16 rifles and another group wants to sell guns. The deal is filled with mistrust as the rifles that get delivered to the meeting place, a broken-down warehouse, are not M-16s. This creates tension between the two factions.

What blows this up is one of the guys Stevo (Sam Riley) who’s on the team buying the guns for the IRA, got beaten up by Harry (Jack Reynor), one of the guys from the seller’s team. Harry beat-up Stevo because he said some very rude things to his sister. When they each recognized each other they start to fight and the two sides begin shooting at each other and thus begins about an hours’ worth of shooting in a small confined space.

During the shooting the sides call out to each other and some of their past association comes to light.

There are very amusing parts and quips along the way which worked, however, the fight was too long and it ran out steam about 20 – 25 minutes into the gun battle. Although the ending wasn’t predictable, it didn’t mean much because I didn’t care a whole lot.

Regardless of the film, if there is nothing to root for, care about, or associate/connect with, then the experience dies and the film fades from my mind just as soon as I get up out of my seat.

The actors that stood out during this film were: Armie Hammer (as Ord) the strong arm. Brie Larson (as Justine) as the smoother between the two groups. Sharlto Copley (as Vernon) another strong arm. Others, like Riley and Reynor, were good, however this film didn’t quite lend itself to strong acting, just short quips and brief explosions of anger or shooting. Amy Jump and Ben Wheatley wrote a quippish script. Wheatley as director did get something out of the limited script, but after 20 minutes of the OK corral in a broken down warehouse the film just fizzled out.

Overall: This film had possibilities but in the end, it failed on all levels.

Unforgettable

First Hit:  Unforgettable was completely forgettable. The beginning is OK, there is some suspense with Julia Banks (Rosario Dawson) leaving her job, packing up and heading to Los Angeles from San Francisco. There are questions in her expression as her best friend and former boss gently nudges her about how she’s feeling. Her friend continues to reaffirm that Julia is always welcome back to San Francisco. This seemed to set up that Julia is wounded from her past.

We learn that Julia has been a battered woman, and her two-year restraining order on her ex-boyfriend, Michael Vargas (Simon Kassianides) who is out of jail for his past actions, is ended. She’s headed to LA because she met and fell in love with David Connover (Geoff Stults). David has a wonderful daughter named Lily (Isabella Kai Rice) who is the result his broken and difficult marriage with Tessa (Katherine Heigl). When Julia and Tessa meet, it is obvious that there is something not quite right with Tessa.

Tessa still pines for David and will do anything to get David back, and this sets up the most mechanical, predictable back and forth confrontation between Julia and Tessa, with Lily and David being the foils they use.

Each scene is predictable, whether it be in the police station when Julia is being interviewed, when Tessa demands that Lily act a particular way in front of everyone, and when David trying to keep the peace between all of them.

I don't like when there are scenes in films that have no closure, don't add to the film's plot or direction, or are forgotten about as the film moves along. If you're going to put a camera on it, then make sure it is complete, has value or gets completed later in the film.

One such scene is seeing Julia carefully pack her suitcase, put the suitcase on the roof of the car. During her trip to LA, the suitcase falls off and her clothes scatter. This includes a special hat given to her by her best friend. We never get closure on this and we're left with lots of questions. Did she care about losing all her clothes? Did she care about the hat? Where did she get clothing when she got to LA?

As the film moves along and suspense winds up, I became more disinterested. It was taking way too long to create suspense and it was way too probable.

Dawson was OK as the battered woman trying to make her life better and embrace a positive relationship. Thought that her dialogue with Lily was really strong and created an effective relationship building sequence. Heigl was very effective as the slightly twisted, controlling and uptight woman who’s past reflected her character. Stults was OK and I don’t know if the part was bland or he was bland. It just seemed that he would have had more energy towards what was transpiring. Rice was perfect. She showed this by the different ways she acted towards and reacted to Julia and Tessa. Kassianides was very effective as stalker. Christina Hodson and David Leslie Johnson wrote this screenplay. Although there seemed to be enough material, it seemed either overwritten or poorly conceived. Direction by Denise Di Novi was in error for being mechanical in its presentation. Meaning, nothing was surprising. Additionally, Di Novi was in error for trying to put too much into the film and move away from; saying more with less.

Overall: I couldn’t wait for this film to end.