True Story (2015) * 1/2

Directed by:  Rupert Goold

Starring:  Jonah Hill, James Franco, Felicity Jones, Gretchen Mol, Robert John Burke, Ethan Suplee

True Story is all buildup with zero payoff.    What a frustrating film to watch.    In the end, the only two words I could muster were, "That's it?"    It's a waste of some pretty good acting by Hill and Franco, who by now have risen above starring in dud comedies only to show they can star in dud dramas too.    For better examples of their work, see The Wolf Of Wall Street and 127 Hours respectively.

The movie opens with an image of a child lying in the fetal position inside an open suitcase.   A teddy bear drops from the ceiling apparently and we learn of the fate of the child.    She, along with the child's mother and her two siblings, were brutally murdered and their father Christian Longo (Franco) is arrested for the crimes.    In a strange twist, Longo identifies himself as Michael Finkel (Hill), a famed New York Times journalist recently fired for fabricating facts in a cover story.    Word of Longo's strange admission reaches Finkel, who has gone into seclusion in the wintry Montana mountains, and Finkel travels to Oregon to talk to Longo.   Why did Longo say he was Finkel?   The question is much more fascinating than the answer.  

Longo makes Finkel a deal.    Finkel will teach him how to write like a journalist and Longo will give him the exclusive story on the murders.    Longo proclaims his innocence.   Actually, he more like mumbles his innocence.     Finkel, now disgraced and unemployable, sees this story as his ticket back to the big time.    He sees a best-selling book.    Yet, why would a reputable publisher even think about publishing Finkel after the New York Times mess?    Since True Story is based on true events and Finkel wrote the book on which the film is based, a publisher took a chance.   

Finkel believes Longo is innocent, even though he has no reason to believe so.    The evidence against Longo mounts, Longo sends creepy letters to Finkel that scream "I AM GUILTY" and Longo himself throws a curveball during the arraignment.    I won't reveal this, but let's say it severely dampers his ability to mount a strong defense.    I had to keep reminding myself that this was based on true events while disbelieving that this could've actually happened.   

How Longo's lawyer went along with his client's strategy is baffling also.   Speaking of which, during all of Finkel's meetings with Longo, the lawyer is never present.    Shouldn't any lawyer worth his salt advise Longo that telling his story to Finkel and sending him notes would hurt his case?    Even a public defender would know better than to let this happen.   

After everything goes down and the characters' fates are decided, I was puzzled.    What exactly was the outcome of Finkel's relationship with Longo?    Were they friends?   Enemies?   Two guys using each other?    I could see why Finkel would use Longo, but what were Longo's motives?    Did he want Finkel to return to prominence and use himself as bait?    Did Longo just want to become a better writer?   No matter what, we are underwhelmed.    We invest a lot of time into watching True Story only to come up empty.    Finkel is seen as somehow screwed over by Longo, but the film never really explains how or why. 

The performances are all the more impressive considering how the film leaves them hanging.   Jones, who plays Finkel's girlfriend and to my recollection has no scenes in which she even pecks him on the cheek, does her mightiest.    They may as well have been platonic roommates.    In fact, her character should have been left out of the film altogether considering how little impact she has on the plot.   

I can't imagine what it was about the story that swayed the studio to pick up the rights and make a film out of it.    There are hints of mystery and gravitas which lead nowhere.    You know a film is bad and pointless when we leave the theater trying to determine what exactly just happened.  

  

Woman In Gold (2015) * * *

Directed by:  Simon Curtis

Starring:  Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Daniel Bruhl, Tatiana Maslany, Katie Holmes, Max Irons, Charles Dance

Woman In Gold combines two inherently suspenseful genres (courtroom drama and Nazi occupation drama) into an entertaining film with good performances.      It doesn't cross over into greatness, mostly because we wonder in the end why Maria Altmann (Mirren) didn't just settle with the Austrian government and save herself the heartache of a protracted court case that took years to settle.    You will know what leads us to that question when you read the epilogue.    

The film opens in 1998.   Maria, owner of a Los Angeles boutique, attends the funeral of her sister and decides to pursue the painting of her aunt Adele which was stolen by the Nazis upon Germany's occupation of Austria.    She hires attorney Randy Schoenberg (Reynolds), who is the son of a friend and the grandson of the famed composer August Schoenberg.     They travel to Austria to persude the government to release the painting to her, which is denied since it is now housed in the nation's most famous art museum.    "It is our national pride," says one government official.     With the help of investigative journalist Hubertus Czernin (Bruhl), they uncover proof to back Maria's claims of family ownership.    This leads to a lengthy battle with Austria to win back the rights of the painting.

Maria's story flashes between the endless legal wranglings and the story of her escape from Austria.    Being from a rich, Jewish family, she is forced to flee with her husband and leave her ailing parents behind.    This is handled in a poignant and suspenseful way.    Randy's story is more geared toward regaining self-respect after a failed attempt at striking out on his own with his own firm.   

Mirren is wonderful here because she does not play Maria as a self-righteous, inflexible bore.   She wants the painting returned to her so she can be free to do what she wants with it; a choice denied to her by the Nazis.    She also has moments in which she just wants to give up because the battle seems lost, but finds the strength to fight on.   It is refreshing to see a movie heroine experience glimpses of doubt and regret in the quiet moments.    I normally find Ryan Reynolds to be an actor concealing his talent behind snark and insincerity.    He finds just the right notes as someone who wants to live up to the family legacy.    Snark is kept to a minimum.

Back to the beginning of my review, in which I asked why Maria didn't just settle with the Austrian government and let them hang the painting in their museum.    Does she just not want the Austrians to have it?   If memory serves, they offered her a nice settlement years earlier.    She could've saved herself a lot of legal fights.    Or did she realize that the $100 million price tag offered by a New York museum was too much to refuse?    Money sure has a way of clarifying your principles.  

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015) * * 1/2

Directed by:  John Madden

Starring:  Dev Patel, Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Richard Gere, Tamsin Grieg, Bill Nighy, David Strathairn

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is better than its sequel mostly due to the gravitas brought by Tom Wilkinson and his subplot concerning his homosexuality and traveling to India to find his long-lost love.    Since Wilkinson died in the first film, he is not around to save The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which is fun, slight, and keeps a lot of balls up in the air which all land appropriately at the end.    Was it really even necessary to make this sequel?   

Director John Madden returns with most of the cast from the first film and with the addition of Gere.    Gere plays a man whom Sonny (Patel), the hotel's manager, swears is a hotel inspector working undercover for potential investors in the hotel.    Sonny wants to expand, but needs the funding of an American corporation.    They tell him an inspector will be coming to the location shortly to conduct an audit.   My question is, why would the corporation tip its hand and tell Sonny that a seemingly anonymous inspector will be there to look in on things?     My answer is that they realized that this subplot would lead to misunderstandings and plot swerves where none are really needed.

The mostly British cast is of course delightful, as they were in the original film.    Gere exudes his usual amount of quiet charm as he woos Sonny's mother in an unexpected romance.     Sonny's plate is plenty full just running the hotel.    Throw in his mom's romance, his upcoming wedding, and a possible business/personal rival and you have a guy running around like a chicken with his head cut off. 

Maggie Smith draws the most laughs with her brutal honesty that stays just this side of tactless.    Dench's burgeoning romance with Nighy is nice, but predictable.     Whatever happens in The Second Best Exotic Margiold Hotel is neatly resolved by the film's end.    Unlike the first film, which delves more into lost souls who find happiness in an unexpected place and had a more serious undertone, this film is handled more at a sitcom, superficial level.     You can call it Love Actually for an older generation.    I had fun watching it, but the thought that kept nagging at me afterward was:  Was this entirely necessary?    Maybe, maybe not.

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison Of Belief (2015) * * * 1/2

Directed by:  Alex Gibney

The Church of Scientology was originally founded in the 1950's by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.    His wife quoted him as saying, "I'd like to start a religion because the government doesn't tax you and take your money".     It wouldn't be until 1993 that the IRS recognized Scientology as a religion and waived off $1 billion dollars in previous tax liability.    Church leader David Miscavige celebrated this with a rally in the Los Angeles Sports Arena, which was at the time the largest gathering of Scientologists in history.     He proclaimed "the war is over" as balloons and confetti fell.    I have not seen a religion so blatantly discuss its finances with its members before, but Alex Gibney's documentary shows Scientology as a money-driven, power-mad, and dangerous group.     We gain a thorough understanding of what drives the church and its members to the extreme measures depicted by former leaders and members.  

Hubbard is depicted as a founder of a religion gone haywire.    What started out as a small religion that promised inner peace through self-reflection and "audits" (a method of extracting confessions from members under the guise of helping them heal their psyches) turned into a multi-billion dollar conglomerate with celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta as its public faces.     John Travolta explains in a circa 90's interview that Scientology promoted inner joy and peace.    Who wouldn't want that?   Former members, such as writer/director Paul Haggis, had similar illusions that were crushed over time.     He left the church very publicly in 2009 and is one of the most absorbing interviewees for this film.

Gibney also interviewed former church leaders who testify in great detail about the church's tactics, especially when dealing with its critics and enemies.     Miscavige is characterized as a ruthless tyrant who stops at nothing to discredit and ruin the church's perceived enemies.     Miscavige doesn't just punish critics.    Members of his church are also alleged to be verbally and physically abused.    Why?   The sources say Miscavige, like his mentor L. Ron Hubbard, is paranoid about losing any power he has in the church.    He wants to maintain full authority, especially at the expense of others.     Short in size, he addresses his followers like a modern day Napoleon.    The stage decorations at Scientology functions are likened to "Nazi rally" set designs.     Watching the rallies in action, it is hard to dispute the comparison.

According to the witnesses, Scientologists use confessions brought out in audits to blackmail members into staying with the church.     Lost members equals lost revenue.     The film suggests that rumors of John Travolta's sexuality and his audit recordings are not mutually exclusive.    Does the church keep one of its most famous members at bay by blackmailing him?     The church is not above doing that, according to the witnesses.     Nor is it above intimidation, lawsuits, bullying, and other tactics to discredit and harm its enemies. 

The church's relationship with Tom Cruise is also intriguing.    Cruise joined the church in the late 1980s and drifted away in the 1990s while he was married to Nicole Kidman, a non-member whose father was a renowned psychologist (a profession frowned upon by the church).     Many cases were documented in which members had to "disconnect" from family members who were homosexual or held professions that were considered detrimental to the church's teachings.     It is suggested that Cruise's divorce was orchestrated by the church in order to bring him back to the fold and his future relationships were also orchestrated by the church.     It seems Cruise remains a member because Miscavige keeps him happy by fulfilling his every need.

L. Ron Hubbard was a sad case of a man who behaved erratically and was in need of psychological help.    He even recognized that need himself when he wasn't on the run from the IRS and the federal government.    He was in hiding from the late 1970s until his death in 1986.    Gibney shows Hubbard in rare interviews which showed him straddling the line between charisma and madness.     His religion was simply a tool for him to exercise his pathological tyranny.    What is more frightening than Hubbard as a church leader (and Miscavige for that matter) is that so many were and are willing to follow them.  

Life Itself (2014) * * *

Directed by:  Steve James

Roger Ebert died on April 4, 2013 after a long battle with cancer.    I read his column religiously after first becoming acquainted with his writing in the early 1990's.    Before that, he was one half of Siskel & Ebert, the Chicago movie critic duo who brought "two thumbs up" and "two thumbs down" to the lexicon.   Ebert allowed me to view movie criticism as an art form.  I wrote a tribute to him on this blog the day following his death two years ago.  Most of what I said still holds true today.   I never met him, but I miss him.  

Life Itself, directed by Steve James, whose Hoop Dreams was championed by Siskel and Ebert twenty years ago.    When Hoop Dreams was not nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, Ebert was especially upset.    He criticized the nomination system relentlessly, so much so that AMPAS changed its nomination policies the following year.    James was handpicked by Ebert to direct the documentary based on his best-selling memoir.     The documentary has its flaws, but it ultimately provides fresh insight into the life and death of Roger Ebert.   

The film opens with Roger spending Christmas 2012 in a Chicago hospital.    His jaw was removed years earlier after a series of failed operations, rendering him unable to speak.   A prosthetic jaw was surgically added to make it appear Ebert had a mouth (and a permanent smile), but it was strictly for aesthetic purposes.    He consumed all of his meals intravenously.     The winter of 2012-2013 proved especially difficult for Ebert and his family.    He believed until the last weeks before his death that he would writing for a long time to come.    A sad interview with Chaz (while Roger sits beside her) reveals that the couple may not have anymore fight left in them for another go-round with cancer.    Nonetheless, his last written piece, published the day before his death, was called "A Leave Of Presence", in which Ebert discussed his plans for the future.    One day later, he was gone.    His last review of a Terence Malick film titled "To The Wonder" was published soon after.    He gave the film three and a half stars.  

Life Itself is at its most fascinating when it depicts Roger's fight against cancer.    We see the toll it takes on him physically and his family emotionally, but he had a lot of fight.    The skies of Chicago are gray a lot of the time, which adds to the somber mood.     We know the outcome.  Even Roger may know what eventually lies ahead.   The film pulls no punches in its depiction of Ebert.    We see him as the loving husband and stepfather, passionate film critic, champion of independent films and filmmakers, and as a bachelor in the 1970's who would drink heavily at the local bar and stumble home repeatedly.    Roger's drinking ceased in 1979 and was in recovery for the rest of his life.     Oh, and he wasn't above bringing around prostitutes to parties.   

There is plenty of time devoted to Ebert's complicated relationship with his onscreen partner Gene Siskel, who himself died of brain cancer in 1999.    They were crosstown newspaper rival critics who meshed well on PBS Sneak Previews in the late 1970's.    Their mutual disdain and then grudging respect was evident and palpable, especially when they disagreed about a movie.    They soon formed their own show in syndication, which made them household names and celebrities in their own right.    Their relationship grew and softened somewhat, but never entirely.    They loved each other, but would take great pains to conceal it.    Siskel was 53 when he died, without fulling divulging the nature of his dire health to anyone except his wife and children.     I recall feeling a great sense of loss when Siskel died, although not quite with the intensity I felt when Ebert died.    Ebert himself carried on the show with guest critics and eventually permanent co-host Richard Roeper until 2006.  Roeper is not interviewed in the film, which is a disappointment.    

We see Ebert's wedding to Chaz, a Chicago lawyer, in 1992.    They married when Roger was fifty.   Why did Roger wait so long to get married?     He said he didn't want to marry while his mother was still alive, although his relationship with his parents is only partially covered here, so we don't feel the full impact of his relationship with them.    He was the only child of Irish-Catholic parents.   

Life Itself isn't perfect, but it is a humanizing portrait of a Chicago Sun Times movie critic who transcended his role into becoming a worldwide media celebrity in his own right.    He is the first film critic to win a Pulitzer prize and rose film criticism to an art form.    In my opinion, he is the standard of film criticism and will never be duplicated.     I try in my own way, but if I think I can write as well as him, then I am just kidding myself.    He loved the movies, even the ones he hated, and his writing reflected that in a way that wasn't done before or since.  

Analyze This (1999) * * 1/2

Directed by:  Harold Ramis

Starring:   Billy Crystal, Robert DeNiro, Lisa Kudrow, Chazz Palminteri, Joe Viterelli, Pat Cooper

Analyze This has funny moments, but never gels into a satisfying whole.    Crystal and DeNiro play well off of each other.    The fact that we like them goes a long way.    The idea of a mobster seeking therapy from a psychiatrist was also covered in The Sopranos, but Analyze This is a comedy.    This material may actually work better as drama.   

Things are tough for mob boss Paul Vitti (DeNiro), who suddenly finds himself having panic attacks and losing his nerve to kill people he wouldn't have thought twice about killing before.    Paul crosses paths with the shrink Ben Sobol (Crystal), whose clients are mostly sexually frustrated housewives.     At first, Ben doesn't want to treat the high-profile mobster, but thinks he may be able to help after witnessing one of Paul's sudden outbursts of crying.    Also, Paul makes Ben an offer he can't refuse (or shouldn't) with one stipulation.   "If I turn gay, you're dead." 

Paul becomes a demanding client.    He sends his right-hand man Jelly (Viterelli) to wake Ben up in the middle of the night and even interrupting Ben's wedding to Laura (Kudrow) in order to secure a session.     Paul is hoping to have his issues cleared up before a big meeting with the nation's mob bosses in two weeks.     He obviously has little notion of how psychotherapy works.     When Ben explains the Oedipus Complex to Paul, Paul says, "Have you seen my mother?"

Most of the humor in Analyze This is evoked from the personalities of Paul and Ben.    Ben is forever exasperated by Paul's intrusions, while Paul may be out of his league trying to apply Ben's advice.    Paul's phone call to his heated rival Primo (Palminteri) using touchy-feely speak is very funny.   Their relationship remains good-natured despite their differences.    Paul's breakthrough comes during a shootout with rival gangsters and this is a surprisingly emotional scene.    And Jelly is always lurking around, doing his boss' bidding because he actually cares about the guy. 

With all that being said, Analyze This never comes together into a satisfying experience.    There are laughs, but not enough.    Kudrow is hardly used except to be put off by Ben's sudden departures at the oddest times.     There is a general tide of goofiness that carries the film along, but despite its strengths, it was a near-miss.    Kind of like when Ben has to fire a gun.