Tag Archives: Woody Harrelson

The Glass Castle

Jeannette Walls lived a turbulent childhood: her parents bustled her and her 3 siblings from town to town, evading bill collectors, never quite having enough money for both food and her father’s insatiable thirst. Poverty and addictions pock her youth, but for all their struggles, her mother would never leave her father, and the kids soon realized they’d need to fend for themselves, each disappearing to the big city as soon as it was feasible (a real challenge when someone is constantly drinking up all the money).

Walls went on to write a memoir detailing the hardships she lived through, and that tgc_d02_00156_00157_comp_r2.jpgbook became this movie, though something was lost getting from A to B. The book pulls no punches. Her parents are complex characters, and their children have conflicted feelings toward them. The movie’s a little more pat, the trajectory a little more Hollywood. Someone decided to apply some spit shine to this story, a story that’s naturally very dark and brooding now has themes of hope and redemption that maybe don’t belong.

I can’t say what exactly is wrong with the film except it’s just too easy. The grit is gone. Sure Jeannette’s father Rex is charming but he’s also kind of a monster. He’s a negligent parent who abuses his wife and kids and helps keep family molestation on the down low. And of course he wants deathbed forgiveness. Meanwhile his wife is a “free spirit” who chooses homelessness over independence from the man threatening her family’s well being. Neither parent is capable of putting their children’s needs first, or of meeting those needs even if they ever did. Which they don’t.

But The Glass Castle is worth a watch for the performances alone. As Jeannette, Brie Larson lives up to her previous Oscar win, but it’s Woody Harrelson as Rex who you’ll remember. He’s tortured and endearing and inspiring and hateful. Is this the film he’ll win his Oscar for? I wouldn’t be disappointed if he did. But shame on Hollywood for trying to put gloss and a positive spin on childhood poverty. These kids were failed not just by their parents but by the system. And now their brave story is being watered down to make it more palatable for film audiences. Shame.

Advertisements

Wilson

Wilson (Woody Harrelson) is a grump and a misanthrope. He has no social filter or skills or clue. He’s just out in the world, spitting old man vitriol. His neuroses aren’t great company and his acidic “honesty” doesn’t do much to help with the loneliness.

But then he gets a chance to reconnect with is ex-wife Pippi (Laura Dern), and he finds out that they share a daughter, given up for adoption 16 years ago. This ready-made MV5BMDU0ODI3ODAtMmYxYi00Yzk3LThlNDAtNGRiZjI1MDRiMzgwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDg2MjUxNjM@._V1_SX667_CR0,0,667,999_AL_family appeals to him greatly, though his fantasy diverges quite archly from the reality. And because life isn’t fair, this grown-ass man gets to wreak havoc on the lives of not one but two women in order to finally grow up himself.

Woody Harrelson is an utter delight. Wilson should by all rights be detestable, and yet Harrelson makes our time with him enjoyable. Unfortunately, his great performance is just about the only thing this movie has going for it. It’s not that interesting or concerned with plot or momentum. Is Woody enough? For me, yes. I don’t regret watching Wilson. Harrelson finds humanity and humour in the awkwardness. And Dern’s not a bad counterpoint as a former party girl trying to turn her life straight. They’re a complete fucking train-wreck as far as couples go and completely unprepared to host a houseplant for the weekend let alone a teenage daughter, but by all means, let’s eavesdrop on their bold but bewilderingly inept stab at playing adults.

I suspect director Craig Johnson didn’t quite know what to do with what he had. The film feels a bit episodic and the shtick gets stale after a while. Full credit to Harrelson for making Wilson just charismatic enough to keep us watching. Otherwise, Johnson would have easily lost us with his generous seasoning of sentimentality and a lackluster finale.

 

 

War For The Planet of the Apes

 

This review is late because it’s taken me all this time to decide how to tell you that Sean and I went to see this at the drive-in but I got so baked I have no idea what the movie is about or if I enjoyed it. After days and days of deliberation I think I’ll go with “Ehh, another movie about a talking monkey, who gives a shit” That’s pretty smooth camouflage, right?

I mean, those are probably my true honest feelings because I’ve never been into this franchise. I checked out the moment a trailer showed me an ape riding a horse and I am physically incapable of checking back in. But all my lovely review compatriots have been talking this one up like crazy, like it’s an actual, honest-to-Heston good movie. And I believe them, sort of.

Here’s what Sean and I were able to cobble together over lobster BLTs on the patio:

  1. Caesar, the leader of the apes, has decided to move his congregation to a nicer locale because presumably real estate just got too damn expensive in San Francisco.
  2. He sends the majority through the desert (?) toward ape shangri-la, but he and a few trusty sidekicks stay behind to confront the Evil Colonel and settle a personal vendetta.
  3. The Colonel (Woody Harrelson) really hates the apes, and is really afraid of turning into them. He’s gone rogue though.
  4. The real army hates the Colonel as much as the Colonel hates apes. The Colonel has enslaved some apes to build a wall that doesn’t help him all that much come Go Time.

Is that about it? I’ve got the gist, right? The story didn’t connect with me whatsoever but even in my distracted state I thought the CGI was crazy-good. I usually hate movies like The Jungle Book where I know I’m just watching a cartoon but I didn’t really feel that way in this movie. The motion-capture technology is pretty stellar and Andy Serkis is doing top-notch work. The Special Achievement Oscar was given out from 1973-1995 in recognition of achievements that made exceptional contributions to the motion picture for which they were created, but for which there was no annual award. The last year it was given it went to John Lasseter for his leadership of the Pixar team that birthed Toy Story. Maybe it’s time to dust that award off for the work that Serkis in particular has done with performance capture.

That’s all well and good but I think we can all agree that these pretty words are just frosting meant to cover up the fact that I forgot to bake the cake. If you really need to know more about War For the Planet of the Apes, please follow these links to people who paid better attention than I did:

 

The Film Blog calls it “a hugely satisfying round off to a superlative trilogy.”

Movie Man Jackson calls it “emotional-drama first, action-blockbuster second.”

The Craggus saw it and called it his “new favourite Apes movie and the benchmark by which I’ll be measuring the rest of 2017’s offerings.”

Jason called it a “sheer cinematic achievement in film.”

Bad Bloke Bob called it a “a tonal masterclass.”

Steve J Donahue reluctantly admits it’s “a crowd pleaser” but actually pleases me with his faint praise.

Polar Bears insist “this apes trilogy isn’t just a good blockbuster trilogy; it’s damn good filmmaking overall.”

Sarah finds “much to like about this film.”

Society Reviews called it “uninspiring” and had the same problem with the wall that I did. So ha!

Keith Loves Movies found influences from “The Revenant, Saving Private Ryan, The Shawshank Redemption, and Silence.”

Nerd Feed calls Caesar “one of the greatest cinematic characters we’ve ever seen.”

Andy gives it 5 “damn dirty apes!” out of 10.

Adam found it “wonderfully charming” but noted an “exaggerated runtime.”

Lost in London

Woody Harrelson is making a movie based on the time he ended up in jail for a night in London. A comedy, based on “one of the worst nights of my life”, it co-stars Willie Nelson and Owen Wilson. Harrelson wrote and directed it, but MV5BMmMwOGI3ZDUtMTYxZi00OTc0LWE0YjItMjhlY2EzY2NkNTZlL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTExMjY1OTU@__V1_UY268_CR147,0,182,268_AL_.jpgthe reason the movie REALLY stands out is that it will be streamed live into theatres as he shoots it.

One night only, obviously, so mark your calendars: January 19th, 9pm EST, Lost In London will be broadcast live into about 550 theatres or so. The 100 minute movie will be shot in one take but covers 14 different locations.

“No one has ever shot a movie and live broadcast it into cinemas at the same time,” says Harrelson, and I’m inclined to believe him. “No one’s ever been that stupid — until now.”

 

I’ve always loved theatre and film and wanted to find the best way to merge the two. When I decided to shoot this in real time, I realized it wasn’t quite like true theatre because the one piece missing was a live audience. By broadcasting the film live as it is being shot I hope to truly blend the excitement of live theater with the scale and scope of the film.”

The Edge of Seventeen

Hailee Steinfeld plays Nadine, an awkward teenager. Scratch that. Make it a super awkward teenager. So awkward that I kept ducking behind my coat (the only thing available to be in the theatre), blushing, needing a buffer between myself and all the squirm-inducing goodness on screen.

Was I ever 17? I doubt it. I bet Nadine feels like she’ll be 17 forever though. The the-edge-of-seventeenawkwardness just goes on and on. To make matters worse, her brother Darian (Blake Jenner) has it easy: perfect skin, perfect grades, the perfect apple of his mother’s eye, and a perfectly terrible person to be compared to for the rest of your life. To make matters EVEN worse, Darian starts dating Nadine’s best friend (read: only friend), which means he’s getting all the comfort that used to be hers, and she’s forced to be at war with them both while still, you know, blundering her way through life and high school, with only an irascible teacher (Woody Harrelson) in her corner – and believe me, that’s a bit iffy.

Writer-director Kelly Fremon Craig seems awfully comfortable behind the camera for a first-timer, but it’s the writing you’ll admire most. Nadine is largely unsentimental, and unsentimentally portrayed. You love her despite the fact that she’s a dumpster fire. She makes all the wrong decisions, usually in the most flamboyant way possible, and yet it’s impossible not to care. Maybe it’s that we can all find some small part of ourselves and our experience in Nadine, in her struggle just to survive a pretty delicate (read: embarrassing) edge_of_seventeentime in one’s life.

All of the performances are exemplary – even the adults have secrets and dimension. The ensemble works together in a very dynamic, authentic way that would be depressing if it wasn’t so funny. Craig’s writing is snappy and smart, and she manages to keep her protagonist’s unlikeability an asset to the film. It’s an observant film, and universal enough to exceed the confines of a teen movie and appeal to the awkward teenager in all of us.

TIFF: LBJ

We had an interesting overlap this year at TIFF: we saw both Jackie, which follows First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in the moments and days following JFK’s assassination, and we saw LBJ, which follows Lyndon Baines Johnson as he inherits the White House following JFK’s assassination. Both movies have actors portraying Jackie, John, Bobby, Lyndon, and Ladybird, and both movies have value.

Jackie will of course be an awards contender; LBJ was more of a wild card. It’s by director lbjRob Reiner, a venerable talent who hasn’t directed anything of note in a couple of decades. As he introduced this film to the TIFF audience, however, it was clear that this movie really meant something to him. He talked of being a young man during LBJ’s time in office, and hating him because he was the man who could send you to your death in Vietnam. Only with time, age, and political engagement could he look back at Johnson as something more. He was the president who had to shoulder the burden and responsibility of John Kennedy’s legacy. He took over lots of the civil rights work that JFK had begun, and LBJ is the one who pushed it through, though history sometimes forgets to give him credit for this.

You may be surprised to hear that Woody Harrelson plays LBJ, underneath a not inconsiderable amount of makeup and prosthetics. Jennifer Jason Leigh steps in as Ladybird, in a career move that I can only imagine is a little depressing to a 1980s babe. It may not be intuitive casting, but it is inspired – it makes them come alive, not just as historical figures but as real, flesh and blood people, in a way I haven’t seen before. Rob Reiner’s position is also that Lyndon was a very funny man, and the unexpected joy of LBJ is how much you’ll chuckle watching it.

It’s a safe movie though, a conventional one that won’t speak to audiences or to history lbj-2016the way Jackie does. That said, I still found it to be quite enjoyable. The film neglects to give us a complete picture of the man, but does focus interestingly on LBJ’s rivalry with JFK, allowing Harrelson to swing between cockiness and shame and a whole presidential gamut in between – it’s refreshing to watch him flexing so readily after a string of second-banana performances. He’s playful bordering on hammy, showing us wit, vulgarity, searing intelligence, and frustrated ambition.

One of my favourite scenes occurs between Harrelson’s LBJ and a nasty Richard Jenkins as Senator Russell as LBJ haltingly tries to explain the importance of civil rights to a bigoted southern senator while his black maid serves them dinner. So while this is in fact a clichéd biopic of “an important man”, it’s also got little touches and details that make the ride worth it. Rob Reiner is no stranger to political dramas and isn’t afraid to show us that even the most idealistic of political agendas necessitate some manipulative, under the table handling.

LBJ is Reiner’s best work in years, and Harrelson’s too. It doesn’t soar to the great heights of Jackie but it does make an interesting companion piece to it. What the heck – see them both.