The 15:17 to Paris

First Hit:  Absolutely dull and uninspiring until the very end.

This film intersperses quick flashes of the dramatic event of these three men thwarting a terrorist attack on a train to keep you in your seat. If they didn’t most people would walk out of this uninspired effort by Clint Eastwood.

My first turn-off was when a grade school teacher for two of the featured young men stated to the mothers, "your children have ADD and they need drugs." The retort as Spencer and Alek's mothers storm out of the meeting was “my God is bigger than your statistics.” Are you kidding me? This is how Eastwood ends a dramatic scene?

One of Eastwood’s biggest mistakes is having the actual hero’s play themselves in this film. They had actors portraying them as young boys (ages 11 – 14), but as adults the stilted acting, insipid dialogue, and poorly created scenes made this film drag on and on and on.

We experience Alek Skarlatos (played by himself and Bryce Gheisar), Anthony Sadler (himself and Paul-Mikel Williams), and Spencer Stone (himself and William Jennings) when they met at a grade school, how their initial friendship developed in Sacramento, and vaguely how it lasted through the years till we see them together again traveling through Europe.

The early years are OK in that there are scenes that give the audience cause to believe these boys supported each other because they were all misfits in some way. I was saddened to see how their playing together was focused on gun play, with realistic paint (and one real) guns that looked like an AK and a M-16.

There is a bent in this film about God and Christian religion although we don’t see them in church. The extent of their faith seems to be praying for something to happen or for things to be different.

Finally, they go to Europe but there is only some background on Spencer because we follow him failing through several military job trainings. However, these failings were a precursor to him actually learning stuff along the way; then using this knowledge to make a difference later on. There was virtually no history about Anthony as to what he was doing prior to going to Europe with Spencer. And there wasn’t much about Alek who was fighting in Iraq and mistakenly left his back-pack at a village. What was this about?

Arriving in Europe Spencer and Anthony, awkwardly travel from place to place. At one point they meet a young asian woman, they go a couple places together but a couple scenes later she's gone. What was this about? They finally get to Germany and meet up with Alek who was staying with a German exchange student.

Getting on the 15:17 train to Paris, they disarm a terrorist and save the life of a man shot by the terrorist. Then they get honored by the French government and all is right with their lives. This is the crux of the film.

Because Eastwood used the real men to portray an actual event, their lack of acting abilities and the way Eastwood works was a mistake. The men cannot project into the camera thereby making it feel real to the audience. Adding to this mistake was Eastwood’s penchant to only do one or two takes, and with real actors they can deliver something good, non-actors generally cannot. The film comes off as amateurish.

The storyline was haphazard, felt thrown together, and despite being Christian based, had little meat on the bones.

The best acting job in this film was Paul-Mikel Williams as young Anthony. Judy Greer as Spencer’s mom Joyce was OK. The acting by the real men was obviously poor which took away from their own heroic story. Kudos for their actions against the terrorist but I’m not sure this story was film material as it was presented. Dorothy Blyskal wrote a horrible screenplay and Director Eastwood failed in all cases to deliver something interesting until the very end when the terrorist tried to take over the train car.

Overall:  This film will more than likely be the worst film I see this year, if not it will be close and it’s only February.

Winchester

First Hit:  This film needed to be taken out back and shot with a Winchester rifle.

I’ve been to the Winchester mansion in San Jose. It is a very interesting structure and although currently it is large, 4 stories in some sections, it was once much larger at seven stories high in places. But after the 1906 earthquake, also a plot device in the film, it got reduced in size.

The basic story about the house is that Sarah built this house to capture and confuse the ghosts resulting from people who died by her husband’s rifles. She was told by a medium, that she needed to amend for her husbands invention of the repeating rifle. This film takes the bent that because she owned a huge portion of her deceased husband's company, Winchester Repeating Arms Company, the board of directors thought she was crazy to be building this house, and wanted a negative evaluation of Sarah Winchester’s (Helen Mirren) mental capabilities to take back control of the company.

The directors hire Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke) who’s imbibing Laudanum to ease the pain of losing his wife who killed herself with a Winchester Rifle after wounding him with the same rifle, to analyze Sarah and report back to the board.

They pressure him to determine that Sarah is crazy. He arrives at Winchester’s house and has dealings with staff, niece Marion Marriot (Sarah Snook), her son, and ghosts. Because Sarah is driven to house and appease all the ghosts, building rooms onto the house goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. People are always working on the house.

The film tries to make a compelling ghost and horror story about Sarah, Marion’s son, and Eric and how, together, they fight to kill one rambunctious ghost, Ben Block (Eamon Farren).

I cannot tell you anything I liked about this film. It was shot way to darkly (in color) and they showed very little of the peculiarities of the house itself. Winchester House is interesting and fascinating and this film does nothing with this, they just made a poorly constructed and contrived ghost story.

Mirren was OK in a role and script that didn’t become her abilities. Clarke was poor. His choices, as directed in the film’s script, were poorly done and not well thought out. The story of his demise felt contrived. Snook tired to be sincere but it was the role and script that failed her. Peter and Michael Spierig wrote and directed this mess. I’m not sure how they got funding for this, and my guess is that they will be hard pressed to get funding for a future project.

Overall:  This film is a waste of any money used to go see it, let alone make it.

Den of Thieves

First Hit:  Although interesting at times, overall it wasn’t a really good heist film.

I love good heist films. The original 1960 “Oceans 11” and the 2001 “Oceans Eleven” films were fun examples of heist films as was “The Thomas Crown Affair” in its own way.

Here we have, what we’re made to believe is, a set of former military men fresh out of prison planning to rob the LA Federal Reserve Bank. Although the general plot line was interesting enough, the twist can be spotted early on, which makes watching this an exercise in waiting for the cat to be out of the bag.

Chasing this gang of thieves is a miss-fit Sheriff's unit lead by Big Nick O’Brian (Gerard Butler). His gang of thuggish deputies determine that Ray Merriman (Pablo Schreiber) and his group of thieves, Enson Levoux (Curtis “50 cent” Jackson), and Bo “Bosco” Ostroman (Evan Jones) have been responsible for all the unsolved bank robberies in LA.

To introduce Donnie Wilson (O'Shea Jackson Jr.), the film has Merriman adding Wilson as a driver to assist his crew in robbing banks.

The interaction between the Sheriff and his deputies and the thieves is ridiculous. Especially when they interrogate Donnie in a motel room and when Big Nick walks into a restaurant where the whole gang is celebrating. The interaction is unrealistic.

We are also treated to the ass like ways of Big Nick when he’s trying to tell his wife to not leave him, sitting at a strip club, and speaking with his FBI counterpart.

Some of the ingenious planning and execution of the robbery was interesting, but in the end it just fell flat and lacked luster of any kind.

Butler played a jerk and there was nothing that would have the audience care about what happens to him. His behavior almost deserved a movie death. Schreiber was good enough to believe he was hardened and didn’t want to go back to jail. 50 cent was good, although I keep sensing he needs to lose who he is so that he can become an actor of merit. I did love the garage scene when he takes his daughter’s date into the garage. Jones was strong and intense in his role. Jackson Jr. was OK, although I’m not sure I bought the premise of his involvement in the overall story. Christian Gudegast wrote and directed this, and it might be some time before he’s loaned money to do another film.

Overall: This film lacked effort, suspense, and a decent plot line.

Hostiles

First Hit:  Although it is long and at times languid, it tells a wonderful story of coming to grips with our internal and external enemies.

I like films that have the main characters learn from introspection and if done well, they bring a smile to my face.

The film’s setup is watching the cruelty of a family being slaughtered by a small band of renegade Comanche Indians. They come to steal their horses, will kill everyone, and set fire to their home. The wife/mother finds a way to hide and although her husband and three children are killed, she survives.

Then we switch to lifelong (since age 14) Indian fighter Captain Joseph J. Blocker (Christian Bale) of the U.S. Calvary, as he captures and brings in what he hopes to be the last of the Apache Indians that have been fighting settlers.

His hatred for the Indians that have scalped and killed settlers is ever present in his face and manner. When summoned to Colonel Abraham Biggs office, we learn the depth of his hatred. The cause for his outburst is that he’s been assigned, under the orders of the President of the United States, to take his sworn enemy Chief Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi), who is dying, to the Chief's home in Montana to die peacefully.

During this mission, he comes across Rosalie Quaid (Rosamund Pike) the lone survivor of the first scene’s massacre. He takes her with him on the mission and together they find it in their hearts to both suffer, learn, and forgive.

The film just takes a while to get there but in the end I thought it was worth it. The hints of Blocker's deeper compassion are displayed through the kind gestures Blocker he shows his men and Quaid.

The beautiful scenery in the film improved and made the journey of watching much better. The way Blocker’s past kept arriving to him as a reminder of his ways while watching Quaid grow from her terrible ordeal, was exquisite. The scene when Blocker speaks with Corporal Henry Woodsen (Jonathan Majors) while they said goodbye was deeply touching of the deep respect and love they had for each other. The caring Blocker had for Master Sergeant Thomas Metz (Rory Cochrane) was divine. When Metz said that he was tired and done with this path, instead of dismissing this, Blocker embraced the place from which Metz said it. As Quaid supported the Indian women and men during the journey, the audience felt her movement towards forgiveness.

These connections made this film work. However, it does take a while to get there, so if you see this film, sit back, relax and let the film speak to you internally.

Bale was clearly wonderful in this role. His ability to show compassion and caring for another human being as well as his hatred was amazing. His physical expressions rarely changed much, it all came from his eyes. Pike was sublime. She showed a depth of angst that is rarely expressed on screen, and her movement towards forgiveness was perfect. Cochrane was great. I loved his ability to make his role real. Majors showed great depth of character in a role where he gets to stand for something and honor another as well. Studi was perfect and the Chief who kept his honor while making his way towards death. Scott Cooper wrote the script and directed this film. I saw both his reasoning for making it 2 hours and 14 minutes long and also saw where there could have been cuts which would have made it crisper.

Overall:  After letting the film settle in, I found that I enjoyed the journey.

Phantom Thread

First Hit:  I wasn’t impressed or engaged with the story but the characters were interesting on their own.

The setup of Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) as a particularly fastidious man, was watching him shine his shoes. Any man who has shined shoes, knows what he was doing was very detailed and time consuming. He also liked silence at breakfast while he works on dress designs.

The relationship between him and his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) was clearly identified when she asks Reynolds if he would like her to get rid of the woman currently living with them. She’s the controller and enforcer of his life because he just wants to create dresses. The world revolves around him.

Taking a short vacation to his country home he is bowled over by a waitress in a café. Alma (Vicky Krieps) shows her interest and he invites her to dinner. Soon he has her posing in one of his dresses in his dressmaking studio.

In his creative world, he’s focused on one thing, making his art. She’s both fascinated and slightly cautious, when he begins to take her measurements. All of a sudden and un-expectantly, Cyril walks in, grabs his notebook, sits down, and records the measurements as Reynolds barks them out. Her stare at Alma indicates a sort of an; oh another one and how long will this one last, sort of feel.

Reynolds likes her and she becomes both, his lover and worker as she melds into his life in the London home.  This home is also their factory and about a half dozen women come each day to sew his creations that me makes for the upper crust of society.

When he starts criticizing Alma’s loud eating habits at breakfast, it is instantly known how his world is only about himself and what he wants. When a gross woman of wealth passes out in one of his creations, Alma suggests that they take back his work of art and they proceed to strip the passed-out woman of this dress. This makes Reynolds happy because she's protecting his work.

However, his me first behavior gets old in the film and for Alma. Eventually, Alma finds a way to make Reynolds pay more and deeper attention to her, and although it’s a deadly dance, it works.

There is a craftsmanship in this film that is unmistaken. One scene reflecting this, is when Alma and Reynolds are walking down a cobblestone street. The luminescence of the street and background are wonderful.

Day-Lewis is intense and good in this role, but to select this as his last film, I think he could have selected a more engaging and interesting character. Manville was amazing and her performance is the most powerful thing in the film. Krieps is strong and I liked her strength and vulnerability. Paul Thomas Anderson wrote and directed this film. I thought the dialogue was interesting but the story wasn’t one that kept my attention.

Overall:  There wasn’t enough to make this story really engaging.