"The Gift"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Here I am, going to a Jason Bateman movie all by myself late at night, thinking, “Ooh, a Jason Bateman movie, that ought to be funny.” And then I see it is about some sort of gift. “Oh, that sounds nice.”

I was wrong. “The Gift” is not funny. It is not nice. And as I roamed a dark, empty parking structure late at night searching for my car after seeing this infernal movie, my thought was rather, “What have I done.”

I got my first sense that I was in for it, not when I was introduced to Simon (Jason Bateman) and his wife, Robyn (Rebecca Hall)—no, they are as charming as ever, and appear to be happy, well adjusted, rich, and doing exciting things—but rather, I got my first sense of trouble when I heard the eerie, creepy score that constantly reminded me of just how many corners there are where awfulness itself could pop out and get me. Then, when Simon and Robyn buy a house with oodles of giant windows—you know, those things that creepy people can stare at you through late at night—I knew I was a goner.

To back up just a bit, Simon and Robyn are a happy couple who move to California to start new careers. One day while at the mall they run into Gordon (Joel Edgerton)—aka “Gordo”—who, after a few awkward moments, is able to remind Simon that they went to high school together. It is a very perplexing interaction, but they end up getting Gordo’s phone number and promise to catch up later.

But Gordo catches up with them sooner rather than later. He shows up at their house one day and leaves them a gift—a bottle of wine and a “welcome to the neighborhood” note. How nice. Then he comes back another day with another gift, and yet another day with yet another gift. Simon isn’t home, so Gordo is mostly interacting with Robyn. But he seems nice, albeit a tad awkward. And so Robyn invites him to dinner.

Robyn is fine with Gordo. Simon is not. Simon is creeped out. This seems semi-warranted. On the one hand, Gordo is a tad bit odd. On the other hand, he is also generous and nice, and has done nothing to suggest he wants anything but to be friends with Simon and Robyn. Really it is the degree to which Simon is standoffish that seems out of place. In other circumstances Simon is this very warm, understanding, Jason Bateman-ish kind of guy. But around Gordo he is uncharitable and impatient.

It turns out there is more to Simon and Gordo’s past than Simon let on. It seems Simon was not always such a sweetheart. We are not talking axe murderer type stuff—more like man he was a real jerk kind of stuff. Less Freddy Kruger; more Biff from “Back to the Future”. At any rate, as tension between Simon and Gordo begins to escalate, you lose sight of who the bad guy is. You feel bad for Robyn, who is stuck in the middle, but it is hard to sort out who else is a victim and who is a perpetrator.

Here are some things that are much clearer: Jason Bateman is a good actor; you shouldn’t buy a house made of giant windows; Jason Bateman can definitely pull off being a jerk, but he will never shake his habit of calling everyone ‘buddy’; if you watch “The Gift” by yourself late at night, make sure you know where your car is parked.

I don’t know whether I liked “The Gift”, and I don’t know whether it is a good movie. I do know it made me feel very uncomfortable. The whole time. And I know that’s how the director wanted me to feel. But to what end? This is an honest question, not an complaint. This movie reminds me of the ghost stories that my brothers used to tell me (which rarely involved ghosts). Why, oh why, did I torture myself by listening? I couldn’t tell you. All I know is, I did listen, and with rapt attention, and I never turned down an opportunity to hear more—I would even ask for more—and it was always awful, and never good for my psychological well being.

Did I like these stories? Not exactly. But still, something glued my butt to the seat.

"Mission: Impossible--Rogue Nation"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Mission: Impossible” is back! This, of course, is no shocker. “Mission: Impossible” has become more and more cemented in that James Bond territory—not exactly innovating at each turn, but nonetheless permanent. They will keep making them. And, like your favorite snack food, you know you want more.

Now, we might be obsessed with the Impossible Missions Force (IMF). But in “Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation” the U.S. government is over it. The IMF is being shut down. Congress and the CIA think it is outdated, too costly, and just kind of a mess. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it. Sure, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and the rest of the IMF have saved the entire planet countless times (well, as far as we know, at least four times) but from the outside it must look like a train wreck: smoldering buildings, dead bodies, huge costs, and nothing obvious to show for it that isn’t confidential except for the apocalypse not happening. Can’t hardly call CNN with that news.

So the glory days of the IMF are over. A lot of those in the IMF think this sucks. But none more than Hunt, who, dang it, was right in the middle of something. He, along with his usual crew, Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), were right in the middle of trying to expose and destroy an international terrorist organization known as the Syndicate. In fact, right as the doors of the IMF are being shuttered, the Syndicate captures Hunt. Not a good time to be laid off.

Lucky for Hunt there is someone else on the inside with whom it seems he can work. Her name is Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson). And I say it seems that Hunt can work with her because it is not 100% clear whose side she is on. At first she is ready to torture Hunt. Point against her. But then she helps him escape. Point for her. Then she shows up later looking like she is going to assassinate a head of state. Point against. But then she promises that she wasn’t really going to do it and, again, helps Hunt get out of a mess. Point for.

It goes on like this for a while. And not just with Ilsa. We know that Hunt is a good boy who will do the right thing. But who is with him? Ilsa? The American government? The CIA? Former IMF agents? Foreign allies? Who knows? The key (which we have all learned by now) is: Trust Hunt, follow his gut, and see what comes out in the wash. This, it seems, is the only way to accomplish an “impossible” mission.

“Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation” is more light hearted than other “Mission: Impossible” movies. It takes itself less seriously. As Tom Cruise grasps onto the side of an airborne cargo plane in the opening sequence, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Ving Rhames bumble and fumble in a mildly concerned “here we go again” sort of way—how you might act if your sautéed mushrooms were getting overcooked again. The scene feels like: Yeah, we know, isn’t it just ridiculous what we have this guy do.

Ridiculous indeed. But that is precisely the charm of these movies. Everything about “Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation” is ridiculous, but also exactly as you would expect. Even the seemingly unpredictable twists and turns are so obviously hardwired into the very DNA of this series that the most shocking thing they could do is not give us an outrageous, double-crossing, totally unrealistic ending. But, again, that’s part of the charm. When you reach for your favorite snack food, you know what you are getting, you know it’s not a culinary masterpiece, and you know you won’t be spending time contemplating its transcendent qualities. But of course you don’t care—not one iota.

As long as “Mission: Impossible” keeps bringing the stunts, explosions, gadgets, chases, twisty plots, and all that other spy movie goodness—as long as it keeps doing what it’s doing—we will keep coming back for more.

"Inside Out"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

When baby Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) pops into existence with her first bleary-eyed coo, so does Joy (Amy Poehler). This aptly named little homunculus occupies the helm inside Riley’s head, and she controls Riley’s sense of, well, joy. She presses a little button and Riley feels happy.

This charming albeit one-dimensional mental life doesn’t last long, though. It is quickly complicated as other little characters butt in: Sadness (Phyllis), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader).

All of these purveyors of basic emotion love Riley, and want what is best for her. So it is no surprise that early on in Riley’s life Joy is in charge. Sure, Anger throws in a temper tantrum here and there and Disgust is responsible for some broccoli flying across the room. But Joy is the leader of the pack. From the little colored balls that constitute Riley’s memories, to the ever-evolving islands that constitute her personality, Joy is the manager of Riley’s entire mental economy.

So that is a good thing. Smooth sailing for Riley. But then, at age 11, Riley’s family moves, she has no friends, feels all alone, cannot do the things she loved doing back home, has to sleep in a sleeping bag up in the attic … oh, and school sucks. Things start to get choppy. Then, due to a freak accident, Joy and Sadness get sucked out of the central executive and tossed way down into the far reaches of Riley’s mind. That leaves Fear, Anger, and Disgust in charge of everything. Without Joy to buoy her, Riley’s psychological boat begins to rock. So Joy and Sadness have to get back up top and the other emotions have to hold it together ere the whole thing capsizes.

One thing that might sound weird here is that Joy is the queen of the emotions. “Inside Out” would have been a pretty naïve and lame movie if this setup continued on too long. For it would have implied that joy is our default setting, while all other emotions just kind of dangle, butting in only incidentally. As many of us know, that just aint how it works.

But, thankfully, this movie introduces and manages the complexities of the mind with the care, ingenuity, and insight. In particular, we see that Sadness actually has an important positive role to play in Riley’s mental life. We see that Sadness is sometimes great at comforting, can draw people closer together, and adds a coloring to one’s memories that is essential to what makes them precious.

“Inside Out” is ambitious. Really ambitious. It sets out to depict the most complex and perplexing thing in the universe, the mind—emotion, memory, thought, imagination, fantasy, the subconscious, and the many varied relations between all of these things. And it does so in a way that is careful and nuanced, but also entertaining.

And it succeeds. Really succeeds. It is funny, and interesting, and tear-jerking, and thought provoking, and just cool. One thing that I think is really impressive about “Inside Out” is that it takes characters that, by their very nature, would seem to be one-dimensional—namely, Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust—and reveals that they are in fact complex and dynamic. This illuminates how we all grow and change emotionally—how simple emotions mingle together to make fear that is imbued with anger, disgust, or even joy; or joy that has light-bluish touches of sadness.

“Inside Out” has a lot of the hallmarks of a Pixar movie, but it’s different too. It is more about the premise, less about the plot, and a tiny bit less about individual personalities than other Pixar movies. So it is hard to stack it up against the others. But, at any rate, this is when Pixar is at their best—when they are innovating. And “Inside Out” is an ambitious innovation that really works.

"Mad Max: Fury Road"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

I love that the most striking feature of “Mad Max: Fury Road”—which, on the surface, is as actiony an action movie as it gets—is its socio-political message. I love this not because I agree with the message (though I pretty much do), but because the care and nuance with which it is communicated gives a soul to a movie that could very well have been soulless (and unoriginal and mundane), and because it illustrates how, as if through magic, movies can show us things that cannot be told.

But first things first: Through every fault of their own, human civilization has been reduced to the Citadel. And the Citadel really sucks. Well, everywhere really sucks—maybe even worse than the Citadel. It’s all because everyone lost their minds and forgot to be people and started blowing up the whole world. At any rate, the Citadel really sucks. Like everywhere else, it is hot, and dry, and dusty, and brownish red. It looks like everyone’s whole body is doing The Cinnamon Challenge all at once, minus the sweetness.

But unlike all the other desolate places in the bleak, bombed-out wasteland that was once Earth, the Citadel is crowded—it has swarms of starving people everywhere, armies of goblin-like men painted in white, and a ruthless ruler—Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne)—who hoards every drop of resources, brutally oppresses his people, and yet acts like their gracious benefactor at the same time.

So it is understandable that Mad Max (Tom Hardy) didn’t want to come to the Citadel. He was too busy roaming around feeling guilty and horrified by something in his past (something like he failed to save some people he loved). But the gang of goblin-like men (aka “War Boys”) captures him for use as a host for Nux (Nicholas Hoult), who is one of the War Boys and seems to have an illness that requires fresh blood.

Things get even worse for Max when he is mounted atop a pursuit vehicle chasing after rogue Imperator, Furiosa (Charlize Theron), who was supposed to be getting more gas for Joe and his gang, but instead ran off with several of Joe’s mothers (i.e., women used for breeding more men). Joe seems to care about his mothers above all else—not because he really cares about them, but because he prizes them as possessions. So he wants them back.

Hence, the chase is on along Fury Road. This is a long road—Max, Furiosa, Joe, Nux, and all sorts of other marauders, War Boys, bandits, barons, etc., race and crash and fight and scream and crash along the road for most of the rest of the movie. And it is furious. No one seems happy. The closest thing is a kind of rabid, ferocious glee coursing through the testosterone infused man-gasmic hoard that is pursing Fioriosa—a glee embodied by the insistent flailing of an electric guitar player atop a mobile fortress of blaring speakers that is in on the chase.

Furiosa wants a new life free of her male oppressors. Joe et al. want to further oppress. Max is caught in the middle. It’s a last-man or last-woman standing type of situation, though it is never obvious who, if anyone, will end up on top of the heap of rubble.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” is striking in several ways. First, it has a very distinctive style—quick cuts, extensive death and destruction, sped up action sequences, hyper-stylized sets, and an almost cartoonish wardrobe (all of which is reminiscent of Baz Lurhman’s overwrought style). Second, 95 percent of the movie is action: Racing, punching, jumping, shooting, flipping, exploding, etc. I tend to get bored with such pervasive action. For me, watching constant, indistinguishable explosions can be more monotonous (and less pleasant) than staring out a window. But after a worrisome first half-hour, the storyline picks up and injects enough drama into the movie to keep the action captivating.

Third, and relatedly, there is very little dialogue in this movie. Almost all of the emotion and drama are communicated—very effectively, I might add—via looks, body language, and Tom Hardy’s gruff yet charming grunts.

Finally—and this is what is getting “Mad Max” the most attention—is the feminist ideology of the film. From very early on it is clear that its men who screwed this up. And, with all their thoughtless, macho war mongering, its men who are continuing to screw this up. The only hope for a future—and for redemption—is to elevate a group of women who are extremely badass and yet mercifully reluctant to harm (and, indeed, have a positive view as to how to flourish, as opposed to a purely negative, vengeful solution to every problem) whilst the men are defeated, subverted, or else willingly yield leadership.

And that—despite all the racing, running, punching, jumping and exploding—is what is most striking about “Mad Max: Fury Road”.

"Ex Machina"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a nerdy computer programmer, wins first prize! Who knows for what, but hey, Caleb is pretty excited about it. All Caleb knows is he gets to spend a week with Nathan (Oscar Isaac), the founder of Blue Book (read: Google), which is a tech company that is best known for its search engine that handles almost all internet searches.

At first Nathan seems like some kind of burly bro hipster. He is personable at times, but he also has a mad scientist way about him. When Nathan jokes to Caleb that he had all the people who built his home killed to protect his secrets, you know it is a joke, but you also look into Nathan’s squirrely eyes and think, “Um, are you maybe serious?”

Nathan is also a hermit. He lives way out in the middle of nowhere in a very secure, high-tech compound. When Caleb is flown in by helicopter, the pilot has to leave him a ways off from the compound because the pilot is not allowed to get any closer.

So what’s the prize? Well, Caleb gets to stay with Nathan, hang out with Nathan, party with Nathan (oh, yeah, Nathan is an alcoholic). But most importantly, Caleb gets to see Nathan’s latest work—his work on artificial intelligence.

Hence, Caleb meets Ava (Alice Vikander). Ava is artificial. That is clear from the humming machinery visible through the transparent skin covering most of her body. But Ava is also intelligent. Her speech, while a tad formal, is smooth and responsive to nuanced questions, and her facial expressions are subtle and remarkably human.

And so it turns out that this “prize” week is really Nathan’s way of getting Caleb to put Ava through the so-called “Turing Test”. The Turing Test has someone interface via a computer with one human and one robot/computer, and if this someone cannot tell which is which, the robot passes the test. Some people think this is a test for intelligence, thought, a mind, or even consciousness (though even Turing himself recognized its limitations with respect to the latter). But Nathan brings Caleb in for a sort of extended Turing Test: Caleb does not interact with Ava via a computer. He talks to her, interviews her, confides in her, listens to her desires and worries, gauges her facial expressions, weighs her movements, and so on. This is supposed to be the ultimate, decisive test for intelligence.

And that is what this film is all about. It has a singular focus: The Turing(-ish) Test. It is all about the test in one form or another. And one of the beauties is that we, the audience, are the ones running the test. Caleb is the interviewer, but we are the judges. Is Ava a person? Does she have a mind? Is she conscious? And it’s not just Ava. More generally: Who are the real people, and who are mere automata? And, by extension: Who is to be praised or blamed, who deserves freedom or punishment, and whose life is worth preserving?

I like that filmmaker Alex Garland is so obsessed with this Turing Test idea. Focus is good. But it is also risky. It is risky because if the heady AI stuff fails to come off, there isn’t anything else to back it up. There is little else driving this movie.

But, at the end of the day, who really cares? This is a sci-fi movie. Risks are what it’s all about. What matters is that “Ex Machina” stokes the imagination. It succeeds in its playing around with ideas—with this notion of external marks of the mental, in particular, and with the forms and importance of observation more generally. I say, “playing around” because “Ex Machina” is a sandbox. It is play—an exploration. It is not about answers (though it does eventually offer some answers, which is regrettable given how the rest of the film goes). This movie is about possibilities, what-ifs, potential advances and dangers, and an examination of what we are, could be, or could do.

Now, “Ex Machina” does not ask any new questions or raise any new puzzles. But it does offer a fun look at some really good questions and some really interesting puzzles.

"Get Hard"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

James (Will Ferrell) is rich. How rich? Well, when James’ fiancée tells him she thinks they should get a bigger house, her voice echoes down the corridors of their enormous mansion replete with arches and balconies and fountains and servants busy making it all sparkle. That’s how rich.

In “Get Hard”, James wants for nothing. He is a day trader who spins gold from straw. If he wanted to, he could swim in his money a la Scrooge McDuck.

That is, until the feds show up and charge him with fraud. James promises he didn’t do it, and he is sure his team of lawyers will get him off. But he is wrong. Then he thinks at least he will be safe in a minimum-security, white-collar resort prison. Wrong again. The judge decides to send a message and gives James 30 days before he has to report to San Quentin, a maximum-security prison teeming with murderers and rapists.

James is concerned. Surely his delicate, pampered frame will not withstand the hardships of prison. If he is going to survive, he needs to get hard.

So he goes to Darnell (Kevin Hart), the only black guy he knows. Actually, he doesn’t even really know him. They just ran into each other one day in a parking garage. James thought Darnell was trying to rob him. But cooler heads prevailed, and James promised he would have had the same reaction if Darnell were white.

But, given that Darnell is black, James does assume that he has been to prison and is therefore quite hard. So he offers to pay Darnell 30 grand to turn him into a bruiser. Darnell needs the money. So he agrees to help.

The problem: Darnell is not hard. He has never been to prison. He has never committed a crime. He knows nothing about gangs, toughness, fighting, or surviving prison. He is an average, middle class family man who owns a small business.

But, again, Darnell needs the money. So he plays along, acting like he knows what he is talking about, and putting James through his paces. James is a joke at first, big surprise. He can barely handle trash talk, let alone faux solitary confinement or a mild beating. His case looks hopeless.

Yet, over time, in his own silly and peculiar way, James starts to get a little a tougher, a little more savvy, and just a little bit harder. His trash talk is weird, but effective. He still cannot take a beating, but he weirds people out enough to keep them at bay.

All the while further details about his case are emerging. The closer James gets to going to jail, the closer he gets to figuring out why, and the closer he gets to being able to demonstrate his innocence. But time is running out.

Now, I should say, before seeing “Get Hard”, I was 100% committed to panning it. I pictured myself writing something like, “This movie is just a gimmick,” or “Every good joke is in the trailer. So don’t waste your time,” or “Just another goofy Will Ferrell movie exploiting his lumpy white male lameness.”

Now after seeing the movie, I admit that I have lost some of my resolve. Everything I was going to say is probably still true. The movie is a gimmick. It is one-dimensional. And so much of it does trade on the deep biological incongruence between Ferrell’s pasty body and the demands of being hard. But this movie is also kind of funny. Ferrell and Hart are charming, and they do have good chemistry. The jokes are extraordinarily predictable. But they are well executed, and easy to chuckle at.

So although “Get Hard” is a bad movie, it is a bad movie that is tough not to like just a little.