Midnight Special

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jeff Nichols/Starring: Michael Shannon, Joel Edgerton, Kirsten Dunst, Adam Driver, Sam Shepard, Jaeden Lieberher and Bill Camp

Jeff Nichols, director of the creepy and intense Take Shelter, now ventures into the sci-fi realm with Midnight Special, which comes with its own measure of intensity. Joining Nichols is his frequent collaborator; the always impressive Michael Shannon, whose tightly-wound performance ensures the drama always simmers. While maintaining an exciting, kinetic pace, the story's mysteries are dispensed sparingly until its wondrous climax--which elicits a sense of wonder--mitigates the film's heightened edginess.

Nichols' film begins in what is a chapel on the grounds of a doomsday cult compound in Texas. The cult's reverend, Calvin Meyer (Sam Shepard), has just been accosted by FBI personnel during his service, while his bewildered congregation looks on. Questioning the reverend behind closed doors, we learn the FBI is looking for Meyer's adopted son Alton (Jaeden Lieberher); a child the parish looks upon as their savior. Why would a little boy be of importance to both the government and a cult? NSA analyst Paul Sevier (Adam Driver) gets to the heart of the matter when he asks how and why a little boy would have encrypted codes to a government satellite?
The boy becomes more of a mystery when Meyer tells the agents the boy speaks in tongues.

As the FBI and NSA hunt for Alton, Meyer dispatches two cult members to find the boy and return him to the compound. Meanwhile, Alton's real father; Roy (Michael Shannon) and his best friend Lucas (Joel Edgerton) have taken the boy from the compound and are racing off to a place unknown to the audience. Judging from Roy and Lucas' desperate determination, we gather they are fully aware other interested parties are hot on their tail as they speed down the highway. We first catch a glimpse of Alton in Roy's car as we see the young boy in odd, blue goggles, though we aren't sure of their purpose. As Roy and Lucas plot their course, Alton is enthralled with a Superman comic book. Roy gently chides Lucas for giving Alton comic books after the boy asks about Kryptonite. We learn comic books were a pleasure denied Alton in the compound.

While on the run, their car becomes known to the authorities, making a safe refuge a high priority. They visit a former member of the cult, who offers them shelter and anonymity. During their stay, the house begins to shake violently, which prompts Roy and Lucas to enter Alton's bedroom, where they find a blinding ray of light connecting his eyes to this friend's. Roy and Lucas manage to free their friend from the link and scold their friend for daring to look into Alton's eyes. Their security compromised, Roy, Lucas and Alton flee.

Nichols; a master at holding the audience captive in an unnerving and sustained state of suspense, slowly reveals Alton's secrets. Though the origin of Alton's extraordinary powers is withheld until later in the film, we get some sense of the scope of his abilities. During a stop at convenience store, Alton wanders away from the vehicle and into the parking lot. There he stares at the sky until Roy hurries to his side from inside the store. As they both look up into the sky, they (and we) see glowing orbs of light, which begin to bombard the parking lot. The three drive away hurriedly and later, during the FBI and NSA's investigation, we find that Alton has essentially destroyed a satellite designed to warn against nuclear attack. Other, less destructive powers emerge. While driving, Alton begins to speak Spanish. Roy tells Lucas that it is something he does often and while turning the radio dial, we find that Alton is actually repeating a Spanish DJ's radio patter word for word.

Roy and Lucas manage to find Alton's mother Sarah (Kirsten Dunst), who takes them in and hides them. We find that Sarah gave up her son in the past due to her inability to care for him.

Alton is ultimately kidnapped after Meyer's armed thugs shoot Lucas and Roy. But before they can give chase, they discover Alton has been captured by the military and government agents.

During Alton's captivity, he is held in an empty, white room. His goggled face gives the impression of someone strange and alien. In one of the film's best scenes, Alton and Sevier meet inside the chamber while the other personnel are dismissed. Alton tells Sevier that he is neither the savior the cult craves nor the weapon the government believes he is. Sevier becomes sympathetic to Alton's plight, knowing the boy must reach the place which his father and Lucas intend to find. After helping Alton to reunite with Roy and Lucas, Sevier handcuffs himself to make it appear as though he was overpowered. Refusing Sevier's request to come along, Alton, Roy, Lucas and Sarah speed away.

In time, Alton finally reveals his true nature and why he must reach the area for which he and the others have risked their lives.

Nichols doesn't cheat the audience with anti-climactic nonsense but satisfies our intense curiosity about the boy. The movie's otherworldly, uplifting end is a fascinating, dramatic counterpoint to the scary, sometimes violent story that precedes it.

What is particularly interesting about Nichol's film is how he chooses to parcel out expository information, which is always dispensed on a need-to-know basis. Without becoming bogged down in clunky, pace-hobbling, explication, Nichols keeps the audience wired by doling out discrete quanta of information about the characters and Alton's mission. Though the movie moves along at brisk clip, Nichols keeps the story and action tight.

Nichols collaborations with Shannon have been fruitful and succeeds again. It is an exceptional trick of casting to have Joel Edgerton; another actor known for his edgy performances, to play Shannon's sidekick. I was surprised to see Kirsten Dunst; I hadn't seen her in a film in some years but she holds her own against two dramatic stalwarts; Shannon and Edgerton.

I find distressing to learn Nichols' film is only playing in very select theaters. I never saw one advertisement or trailer for the film. How is such a terrific film supposed to find an audience when little care has been assigned its promotion? Is it because Shannon and Edgerton aren't Chris Hemsworth or Ryan Reynolds in the handsome hunk department? A major disservice has been done to this film. It deserves far better.

Like 10 Cloverfield Lane, Nichols' film appropriates a genre to tell a compelling and thrilling story. It moves along, never forgetting its audience and it rewards us for our attention. It promises and doesn't renege.

Black Mass

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Scott Cooper/Starring: Johnny Depp, Joel Edgerton, Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon, Dakota Johnson, Peter Sarsgaard, Jesse Plemons, Julianne Nicholson, Adam Scott and David Harbour

By now most people should be fairly familiar with the story of James "Whitey" Bulger; Boston's one time crime kingpin and leader of the notorious White Hill Gang; who operated with impunity in the 1970s' and early 80s'. His capture in 2011 made national headlines while a documentary by Joe Berlinger garnered critical acclaim in theaters in 2014. So, I pose a question once reserved for filmmakers who have seen fit to flood theaters with flicks about Steve Jobs: do we need another film about Bulger and if so, what more do we need to know? Director Scott Cooper (Out of the Furnace, Crazy Heart) must think the story is incomplete, for here we are again with Black Mass, based on the book of the same name by Dick Lehr and Gerard O'Neill. But Cooper's film isn't a biopic or even a character study. Though Bulger is the cynosural focus, it is his unholy alliance with the FBI that serves as the film's narrative center.

The story is told mainly in flashback, as we see respective members of the White Hill Gang sitting before an FBI agent, offering confessionals and relating their stories.

The film begins in mid-seventies South Boston. A south-side tough named Kevin Weeks (Jesse Plemons) guards the door to the bar which serves as Bulger's headquarters. When three men try to gain entrance, a brutal round of fisticuffs breaks out, which necessitates Bulger's intervention. Impressed by Kevin's scrappy defense, Bulger appoints the young man to his muscle detail.

As Bulger's gang makes incursions into Italian mob territory, an FBI agent assigned to rid the city of organized crime, John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) decides to enlist Bulger's help. What makes the idea particularly fascinating is Connolly's relationship with Bulger (a scary Johnny Depp), who was once a chum from his old south-side neighborhood. When the two meet, Bulger is wary of John's agenda. John proposes an alliance that would ensure the defeat of the Italian mobs in exchange for Bulger's complete freedom from arrest and FBI harassment. Seeing the deal as self-advantageous, Bulger agrees to an alliance in spite of his reluctance to help the FBI. Bulger's other ally is his younger brother Billy (Benedict Cumberbatch), a member of the Massachusetts state senate who turns a blind eye to his brother's illicit affairs.

John's deal with Bulger draws heat from his superiors; particularly his boss Charles McGuire (Kevin Bacon), who would like nothing more than to bring the kingpin to justice.

In early scenes, we see just how brutal Bulger can be when he and Kevin drive an Italian mobster to a secluded location before beating him savagely. Bulger's lack of concern about reprisals is consistent with his fearlessness and his disquieting volatility. Watching Bulger dispatch a fellow gang-member days after being challenged in the bar, we are never sure how he will behave or respond, which keeps associates (and the audience) in a constant state of anxiety and fear.

We also see some of Bulger's personal life. Bulger visits his girlfriend Lyndsey (Dakota Johnson) and his son Douglas. During a meal, Bulger is reprimanded by Lyndsey for giving their son advice on how to avoid being punished for hitting someone in the face. In another scene, we see Bulger having dinner with his brother and his mother; a momentary glimpse into his family life.

But mostly we see Bulger at work; encroaching on Italian mob territory and executing those who get in his way.

As time passes, Bulger provides the FBI with little in the way of useful information though John pressures him to honor his deal. McGuire begins to lose patience and begins to wonder why the FBI is letting Bulger operate with impunity.

In time, Bulger becomes more ambitious. His involvement in the business of the sport Jai-alai; a Latin-American sport that briefly gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1970s evolves from mild interest to active partner. Before long, Bulger wrests control of the business from its founders by intimidation and murder, drawing more of the FBI's attention and ire.

Connolly's wife Marianne (Julianne Nicholson), like her husband's FBI superiors, sees his partnership with Bulger for what it is; a dangerous and immoral conflict of interest. Connolly invites Bulger and a White Hill gang member to dinner where he and another agent named John Morris sit across a table. When Bulger asks John about his wife, he mentions that she is upstairs, feeling ill. Bulger excuses himself from the table to visit her, which becomes a study in dark, psycho-sexual seduction and intimidation. Bulger is both menacing and creepy when he runs his hand over Marianne's face; her revulsion and fear palpable.

Before long, both McGuire and Fred Wyshak (Cory Stoll); an aggressive, results-oriented district attorney who is also eager to see Bulger behind bars pressure Connolly further. Wyshak's integrity is such that he refuses Connolly's bribe of two Red-Sox tickets; giving him a dressing down instead that leaves him speechless.

Where Bulger's ambitions lead is hardly a mystery. As I mentioned earlier, the story is so familiar now after Berlinger's film, and Scorcese's The Departed; another drama based on Bulger's life. I return to my earlier question: was this film necessary? I suppose it was if only to see Johnny Depp play something other than pirate Jack and Willy Wonka. His performance, though interesting, isn't really infused with any psychological depth or psychic backstory that might shed light on the man's mind. Maybe it's unfair to ask that of an actor playing someone who probably has no depth anyway. I think I've seen more than my fair share of mob films, like Goodfellas, set a nigh-impossible standard to overcome--which makes me ask what new ground does this film claim? There were facts about his life of which I was unaware, like the Jai-alai business, but the film merely fills in more details and facts. This is one time I would have liked to learn something of his upbringing as a "Southey" and his experiences in Alcatraz and Leavenworth that might have shaped his thinking and behavior, as well as his ambitions.

The supporting cast was quite terrific, particularly Joel Edgerton, Julianne Nicholson and Dakota Johnson, who showed more range here than 50 Shades.

High marks for the production design, which captured the gritty look of 1970s' Boston; aided in part by the use of city locales.

I enjoyed the film and Depp's Bulger, but as more time is displaced between me and the screening, it seems less impressive, in spite of the excellent performances. The photos of Depp in his blue contacts and slicked hair are something from a horror film rather than real life. His appearance is an exaggeration of Bulger's, which becomes more a distraction than an attempt at physical accuracy.

I wouldn't dissuade anyone from seeing Cooper's film. I might even recommend it but my recommendation would come buried under a pile of reservations. See it to see some fine acting and Johnny Depp or, if you can't get enough of Whitey Bulger, you might be inspired by that reason alone. Otherwise; I can't think of other reasons.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Ridley Scott/Starring: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Ben Mendelsohn, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde and Hiam Abbass

Ridley Scott is a director who never met a big screen spectacle he didn't like and after watching his new Biblical opera Exodus: Gods and Kings, you might come away with the feeling that a 3D version might be redundant (2D is quite adequate, thank you very much). Scott has never kept counsel with subtlety though he's proven he can wring some entertainment from his bloated enterprises. Taking on the Biblical story of Exodus, one can be forgiven for making the story monumental but its grandiosity needs to be tamed and I'm not sure an epic-minded director like Scott is up to the challenge, though I was pleasantly surprised with his interpretation of the character of Moses.

Exodus is occasionally fun to watch but what dazzles are the expertly rendered CGI landscapes and visitations of God's wrath. It also has its intermittently clever flourishes but one will find the film's charms dissolving like Alka Seltzer before one can pull away from the theater. Too bad, because Scott has gathered considerable talent to realize his story but unfortunately, some never have an opportunity to make much of an impact. More on those unfortunates later.

I really like the casting choices for Moses and Ramses (Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, respectively). Rather than play the Hebrew prophet as a majestic, Biblical statue, Bale brings more of an every-man dimension to his portrayal, as does Edgerton.

Scott shows some creative flourish in his characterization of Moses but isn't fussy with the narrative. He establishes Moses and Ramses relationship quickly; creating and maintaining adversarial tension. This Moses isn't the Lord's passive and peaceful shepherd; we see him join Ramses in the Egyptian army's battle against the Hittites early in the film. He and Ramses are not only sons to Pharaoh Seti (a gloriously miscast John Turturro) but his enforcers who keep enemies and the Hebrew slaves who labor to build monuments and temples in check.

I'll assume everyone is familiar with the story of Moses, either from the Biblical source or from Cecil B. DeMille's film so I won't waste time with a synopsis. The issue of Moses' Hebrew heritage seems to arrive quickly in the narrative and when Ramses catches wind of it, we know Moses will be exiled into the desert wilderness.

Scott uses CGI effectively, showing us the ancient Egyptian city of Memphis in all its glory and construction. It all looks more convincing than Sigourney Weaver in Egyptian finery, who is given little to do in the film other than plot Moses' death. The same can be said for Hiam Abbass, the excellent Syrian actress, who plays Moses' surrogate mother Bithia. The Old Testament has little use for women, as does Scott. Moses' found wife Zipporah (the hypnotically lovely Maria Valverde) has the distinction of being the female character we see most (and that isn't much, given the story is two and a half hours).

After Moses marries, we know the Burning Bush awaits, which he encounters on the rocky slopes of Mt. Horeb. Scott's conception of God is one of the more inspired moments in his film. Rather than portray the Almighty as smoldering shrubbery broadcasting a stentorian voice, God appears to Moses as a little boy. I found this unexpected, fascinating and entirely appropriate. God usually acts like a angry child in the Old Testament; stomping his feet when things don't go his way or his humans thumb their noses at him, as Ramses does often. We see God's child-like petulance as he voices his impatience with Ramses and his refusal to free the Hebrew slaves. Through it all, Moses seems a little skeptical of God and his power; he doesn't grovel before Him like a toady as we might expect.

Though Moses' staff plays an integral role in Exodus, Scott strangely denies him that which harnesses God's power. We do see Joshua (played by Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul; another peculiar casting choice) wielding Moses' wood but it never really earns its mythic reputation in the film.

After Moses follows God's mandate to return to Egypt to demand his people's freedom, the naturally recalcitrant Ramses tells Moses to take a hike. Of course we know the plagues will soon follow--and how! Again, Scott uses CGI to great effect; swarms of locusts, toads and the superbly blood-rendered Nile waters are catastrophically convincing and create a hellish nightmare for Pharaoh. All is accomplished matter-of-factly by Moses, who carries out the Almighty's wishes without succumbing to melodramatic displays of power. Ramses and his people aren't spared the uglier plagues, like the disease that disfigures faces and the choking swarms of flies.

Soon after, Pharaoh's heart softens and he agrees to free the slaves. In the Hebrew's exodus from Egypt, God's general leads the ragged masses into the wilderness and in Scott's determination to show us a more human Moses, the Prophet betrays moments of doubt and indecision; unsure where to deliver those he helped free.

Eager to avenge his son's death by the Hebrew God's plagues, and to assuage his wounded ego, Ramses and his army give chase to Moses and the refugees and in doing so, we come to the much-anticipated moment in the film when God's chosen find themselves trapped between Pharaoh and the deep blue sea--the Red Sea, that is. As in the film The Ten Commandments, we expect to see a spectacular parting of the waters but again, to Scott's credit, he shows some restraint. Instead of a massive, watery furrow being ploughed through the Red Sea, we see the waters gradually shallow then trickle away as the Hebrews make their way across the damp seabed. As Ramses and his legions edge ever closer, a towering wall of water approaches, threatening to engulf Hebrew and Egyptian alike. One would think God would ensure Moses' safety but along with Ramses and his chariots, he too suffers the force of the wave. And of course Moses survives (Scott isn't brazen enough to rewrite Biblical history--too bad) while a chastened Ramses also emerges from the sea to exit the story and history.

Finally, on the upper slopes of Mt. Sinai, as the wayward Hebrews frolic and sin and erect golden idols, Moses sits with the boy God taking dictation on stone tablets. God asks the ever-contentious Moses if he agrees with his Commandments, to which he offers his assent. It is a wonderfully mundane exchange that further humanizes the story; making a significant Biblical event seem accessible.

So let it be written--no, wait, that's the other story of Exodus. Let's deal with Scott's.
In spite of his attempt to bring the story down to Earth and to rehabilitate Moses' action figure stature, I couldn't help but ask myself; did this story really need to be told or reinterpreted? Aside from Scott's creative re-tooling of details, it is essentially The Ten Commandments sans Technicolor. Though we see a few other characters share the spotlight--Ben Mendelsohn's Viceroy Hegep and Aaron Paul's Joshua, most of the other characters make appearances as brief as the passing shots of stately Egyptian temples and pyramids.

And what is Scott trying to get at in his re-telling? If one wants to spend $140 million dollars for the express purpose of humanizing a Biblical story, then I question that person's motives. As much as I find Bale and Edgerton to be fascinating actors who do terrific work in Scott's film, they can only help make the film a fun romp, rather than something powerful. For all the hokum in DeMille's telling, I still prefer it to Scott's. All its color and pomp never seem to dull. I can't say the same for Exodus: Gods and Kings. Though I enjoyed it (in spite of itself), I can't imagine it will make me want to revisit it again the way DeMille's film does. Is it unfair to compare two films separated by almost 60 years? Probably. I'm guessing half the audience who sees Scott's film will be under 35 and will have no knowledge of the older interpretation so any comparison would be irrelevant to them but bear in mind that DeMille's film is still playing on television in the 21st century. Will Scott's enjoy the same longevity?

I respect Scott's reinterpretation much in the way I respected Darren Aronofsky for retelling the story of Noah (please let there be a moratorium on religious-themed movies in 2015!) in more humanist terms but I didn't like Noah any better for its earthiness; in spite of that quality.

So where does that leave us? I had fun watching the film; if only for the leads and to see what tricks Scott might have up his sleeve. But now that I have a few days of separation from the screening, it has already begun its own exodus from my memory. Mr. Scott, I liked your Moses but I think I'll stick to Heston and Brynner and DeMille's Barnum and Bailey Biblical imaginings.

And yes...So let it be done.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The Rover

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: David Michot/Starring: Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson

David Michot follows up his terrific, gritty Animal Kingdom with an equally gritty and violent The Rover, which he co-wrote with actor/writer Joel Edgerton.

Following a global catastrophe, known to the audience as the Collapse, we find denizens of rural Australia surviving in a lawless, economically-ravaged environment where basic necessities are scarce and pricey and law-enforcement is almost a rumor. Michot's near-future Australia is an amoral, vicious, dirty, and unforgiving place. The story takes place 10 years after said disaster and the world we see looks much like the post-apocalyptic decay and rot seen previously in films like The Road Warrior and A Boy and His Dog but with a generous serving of Cormac McCarthy's The Road to darken the proceedings. We never see urban Australia, only deserty, dusty villages and citizens who are the socially and economically marginalized.

In this savage milieu is Eric (the always terrific Guy Pearce), a man who looks haggard and unwashed, with a Sisyphean boulder-size chip on his shoulder though we don't know how it got there. He stops at a decrepit bar for a drink, only to have his car stolen by three men with guns. Seeing his car receding in the dusty distance, he manages to extricate the truck the men left behind from tangled cables and junk. In pursuit of the men, he tries to bump them off the road but is unsuccessful. After the men stop, he demands his vehicle be returned then attacks one of the men, only to get knocked out in the process. He wakes to find the truck and himself abandoned in a field but after a scan of the immediate area, he finds the keys. His obsessive pursuit of the vehicle continues as he makes stops along the way, questioning people who look as ragged as he--and sometimes worse--as to the men's whereabouts.

Michot's pointed allegory on the current global, economic decline couldn't be more obtrusive. We even see the economic fallout from the Collapse; all transactions are conducted in American currency.

Among the characters Eric encounters, it is interesting to see not only Caucasians, but Asians, Aborigines, Africans and even Texans, whose peculiar prescence in the outback will be addressed shortly.

Eric stops at what is a sort of a brothel of young men. In questioning the odd madame about the the men who stole his vehicle, he receives little but enigmatic, useless information. Shortly thereafter, he tries to buy a gun from a diminutive man but when he balks at the little man's asking price, Eric shoots him in the head--a very shocking and disturbing development, to say the least. Eric's determination to achieve his goal, by whatever aggressive means necessary, becomes conspicuously clear.

It is also clear that the authorities' response to the violence is ineffectual or remote or both. Or so it seems. Hot on Eric's tail is what looks like military law enforcement in Humvees and camouflage.

Along the way, Eric happens upon the brother of one of the men who stole his car, named Rey (an excellent Robert Pattinson). Rey is bleeding in his side from a gunshot wound sustained in a shoot-out, after which he was left behind by his brother. When Eric discovers Rey's brother was involved in the car-theft, he takes him along as a kind of hostage, pressing him for his brother's whereabouts.

Eric has little time or inclination to be chatty in his pursuit of the three men while Rey, a slow-witted man with a Texan accent, is more prone to idle talk. Hearing Pattinson's accent is unusual but he executes it with some authenticity. When the taciturn, taut-jawed Eric asks Rey why he happens to be in Australia, the latter mumbles something about 'mining,' which speaks volumes about how the economic collapse has left many desperate and itinerant.

Eric's mysterious obsession with recovering his car isn't revealed until the end, which makes his single-minded pursuit all the more puzzling. What fuels his rage? Is it his disgust with everything the world has become? It might be tempting to dismiss Eric as a nihilist but that would be an oversimplification of his worldview. A clue emerges later but I'll refrain from revealing it here.

I was a big fan of Michot's Animal Kingdom, with its often gruesome and unsentimental look at the criminal underbelly of Australian society and I'm drawn to his world again. It isn't often we see a place depicted with such despair, where compassion is mostly a liability and violence always a means to an end. Michot doesn't give us the desolate beauty of Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout or the sinister, surreal loveliness of Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock but deserty decay and waste that wants to devour home and human alike. To match Michot's stygian imagery, we have Antony Partos' dark, haunting score as the film's ideal companion; understated and edgy.

Pearce can always be counted on to assume a fascinating character and play the hell out of it, which he does here while Pattinson shows us he is distancing himself further from his teen-dream Twilight character. Rey's bodily tics and slow, halting speech are characteristics Pattinson wears rather than merely affects.

I find Michot's dark, violent worlds worthy of exploration. In The Rover he doesn't shy away from making a political statement about a place and time we might inhabit if we can't avert self-destructive tendencies. I hope the world has the wisdom and compassion to avoid a condition that looks and feels like Michot's nightmare.