OSCARS 2020: The Cave (2019)

It seems the on-going conflicts in the Middle East remain a topic that makes the Academy stand up and take notice. Since I've started paying attention to the category, there has been at least one documentary nominated every year about the topic. 2020 sees three nominated docs situated in that area. “Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl),” about Afghanistan, is nominated in the Documentary Shorts department. In the feature documentary category, there's the already reviewed “For Sama” and “The Cave.” Both films are about hospitals secretly operated in war torn Syria. “The Cave” comes from director Feras Fayyad, who made the previously nominated “Last Men in Aleppo.”

Specifically, “The Cave” is about Amani Ballour, a female doctor in Ghouta, Syria. Since the Russian-backed bombings began in 2015, the city has become a constantly endangered war zone that is nearly impossible to get out of. Ballour and the hospital she works in struggle every day to save people – especially the children – injured in the attack. Soon, the constant bombardments force the hospital to move underground. Literally underground, as the medical professionals set up inside a series of connecting tunnels and caves. Ballour and her team face struggles both personal and professional as they fight to save more lives.

One can't help but compare “For Sama” and “The Cave,” considering they are set in the same country, wrapped up in the same war, and about women in similar situation. “The Cave” is thankfully not as harrowing as “For Sama,” in that it doesn't feature quite as much graphic footage of children and adults dying or being injured. (This might be because National Geographic, the film's production company, likes to broadcast their films on television.) Still, it is an intense watch. The doctors in “The Cave” do what they can to calm their patients, playing classical music during surgery, even while warplanes fly overhead and bombs shell the city. More than once, Amani and her team have to keep as many people safe as possible as explosions go off around them. Most disturbing is the last third, when we see the direct results of the chemical attacks on the city. Or an especially heart-rending moment when a mother wails in agony after her son dies.

As good as “The Cave” is at putting the viewer into this horrible situation, the moments that resonate the most with me aren't so intense. In the war zone, food is scarce. Nurses have to make do with rice and margarine. As the nurses are also tending to patients while cooking, the meals often come out under-or-over cooked. (Though the doctors don't complain too much.) This is a side of life in a war zone you perhaps didn't consider. Yet the staff still try to make time for the simple pleasures. They throw a very humble birthday party for Amani. She does what she can to distract and communicate with the children there. It's inspiring and touching to see such human behavior in such a dire situation.

What “The Cave” specifically zeroes in on are the struggles facing a woman in Ghouta. An early scene has a man coming to Ballour asking for a rare medication for his wife. When she explains no hospital in Syria can fill the prescription, he asks if a male doctor can help her. Her father calls repeatedly, asking her to come home. She reflects on what her life might had been if the war hadn't started, how she would've continues her education and been a pediatrician by now. Still, despite the adversity she faces, Amani Ballour really strikes the viewer as a hero. She's in the middle of a hellish area but is sacrificing so much – including risking her lives – to save and protect people.

Visually speaking, Fayyad's film is down-on-the-ground. His camera is in these real places, as the bombs fall and people scream, capturing the events as they happen. So, naturally, the colors are pretty dark and the camera work is pretty shaky. Yet there is absolutely value in capturing so much real life. “The Cave” is not as intense a watch as “For Sama” or “Last Men in Aleppo,” which I'm honestly thankful for. It's a more accessible film while being no less insightful to the plight of the innocent Syrian people, as a war they never asked for rages around them. [7/10]

OSCARS 2020: Honeyland (2019)

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science tend to ghettoize the nominated films that aren't competing in the big categories. Foreign language films are less likely to receive nominations outside of the devoted section for him. Animated movies rarely get nominated for Best Picture. Documentaries almost never crossover into any other part of the ballot. This year, however, there was an unprecedented leap that received very little attention. “Honeyland” was produced in Macedonia, in the Macedonian, Turkish, and Bosnian languages. Apparently the film so impressed Academy voters, that they nominated it for both Best Documentary and Best Intentional Feature. One film has never been nominated before in those two categories.

“Honeyland” follows Hatidze Muratova, a beekeeper who lives in the obscure, isolated Lozovo region of Macedonia. Hatidze inhabits an incredibly humble hut, where she lives with her sick, elderly mother and a handful of pets. Hatidze raises a flourishing bee hive on her grounds, making enough from selling the honey to support her simple life. The peacefulness of this arrangement is interrupted when new neighbors move in next door. Hussein Sam and his family travel the countryside in a trailer. They raise cattle and corn but, after seeing the success Hatidze has with her honey, decide to give beekeeping a try too. The effect on Hatidze's hive is immediate and devastating.

“Honeyland” is most valuable for giving we Americans a peek at a culture distinctly different from our own. Hatidze lives in what most would consider poverty. Her home is a dirt floor hut. The only piece of furniture she seemingly owns is the mattress her mother sleeps on. Yet she seems content. It's not just the standard of living that's different. I don't think I'm shocking anyone when I say I'm not horribly familiar with Macedonian culture or geography. The rocky, isolated landscape Hatidze lives in looks truly alien. The filmmakers – Tamara Kotevska and Ljubomir Stefanov – point their cameras at life as it happens halfway around the globe.

Obviously, Kotevska and Ljubomir have other goals in mind with the film. “Honeyland” is clearly a story of ecological balance. Hatidze prides herself on her beekeeping abilities, which are simple and unobtrusive. (And involves a lot of dung for some reason.) It works for her and the bees don't seem to mind too much. The camera is less charitable when focusing on Hussein's farm. The animals all seem sick or dying. He carelessly burns trees to make room for his crops. Even his motor home seems like an intrusion on the land compared to Hatidze's abode. Nature itself provides some on-the-nose symbolism. Dead bees are often found in Hussein's honey. While Hatidze has few issues harvesting her honey, Hussein is always repeatedly stung. Eventually, his reckless methods has dire consequences. Hatidze's hive starts to die, due to Hussein abuse of the local area. The point is evident: Work with nature and nature works with you. Exploit the land and the things that live on it and the results are ruinous for everyone and everything.

That's the intended moral of “Honeyland” anyway. In execution, what I really learned is this: Hussein Sam is an asshole. And not a smart one. Another reason the bees sting him is he never wears any protective gear when tending the hive. He makes his kids help, resulting in them also getting stung. After he ruins her original colony, Hatidze moves her bees to a hive in a tree stump... Which Hussein later cuts down with a chainsaw and steals! He leaves the responsibility of caring for the cows – cute little calves – to his wife, who is far too busy raising their three kids. When the cows inevitably die, Hussein blames everyone but himself. You're tempted to feel sorry for the kids but they are terrible too. They relentlessly bully each other and cruelly pick on the animals. (We don't really learn enough about the wife to develop an opinion on her.) This is where “Honeyland” most exhausts. You can only watch awful people be awful for so long before it grows tedious.

I don't know why the filmmakers devote so many scenes to Sam and his family bickering. The directors apparently shot for three years, so I don't know why they focused on that through the hundreds of hours of footage they collected. I would've much rather seen more of Hatidze cultivating her hive or her cute relationship with her mom. While the movie makes its point, and it occasionally captivates, “Honeyland” ultimately derails in a disappointing way. Now, did the film deserve its historic double nomination? Its placement in the Documentary category is certainly fine but I don't know if it's fair to “Honeyland” to rank it against the totality of cinema made outside the United States last year. [6/10]

OSCARS 2020: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2020)

The last few years have seen a renewal of interest in the teachings and work of Fred Rogers. Most millennials, myself included, are just old enough for “Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood” to have been a part of our childhoods. And nostalgia is always big. But that's not the real reason. The encroaching doom of climate change, the Forever War, billionaires trying to destroy the middle-class, the rise of American fascism, and everything else that makes life terrifying in 2020 has caused us nineties kids to discard our natural sarcasm and cynicism in favor of a search for sincerity. Mr. Rogers' gentle-voiced, calm message of self-love, empathy, and understanding is like a soothing balm for the modern anxious soul. This Mr. Rogers revival was largely spurned on by the 2018 documentary “Won't You Be My Neighbor?” Following that film's record-breaking success came the announcement of a biopic starring Tom Hanks. “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” has, predictably, earned Hanks his latest Oscar nomination. Yet it's a pleasant surprise to see the movie doesn't quite follow the expected biographical path.

Lloyd Vogler is a writer for Esquire Magazine, famous for his scorched Earth profiles on famous public figures. He's also going through some personal problems. He still feels the sting of his father walking out after his mother was diagnosed with a terminal illness. With Lloyd newly becoming a dad himself, his father tries to re-enter his life... Which results in a fist fight. Around this time, he is given the assignment to interview beloved children's show host Fred Rogers. Though initially expecting to uncover some dark truth about Mr. Rogers, Lloyd is soon disarmed by the man's earnestness. Fred takes an interest in Lloyd too, causing an unexpected friendship to bloom. Soon, the interviewer is learning more about himself than his subject. 

“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” is exactly the heart-tugging display of empathy you'd hope it would be. The trailer was enough to make me misty-eyed, so I expected to – and did – wipe some tears away while watching it. Lloyd's arc, of learning to forgive his shit-heel dad and himself, plays out exactly as you figure it will. However, “A Beautiful Day” gains so much from Fred Rogers' real words. His advice to take a minute and remember those that “loved you into being” causes the whole film to pause, making the viewer think about it too. His reminder to Lloyd, to remember the joys of childhood, to allow yourself to feel your feelings, is pointed at the viewer too. These are important truths and ones we obviously still need to hear. Now as then, Rogers is such a powerfully warm person. This allows director Marielle Heller to fill the film with sweet, touching episodes. Such as Rogers effortlessly connecting to a little kid on an oxygen tank. Or a subway train launching into an impromptu rendition of the “Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood” theme song.

If the film's script is predictable, at least Heller is having fun with the presentation. The first scene is a pitch perfect facsimile of Rogers' show, right down to the video grain. A segue to Lloyd's job wonderfully recreates the documentary segments on Fred's show. Miniature towns and cities, much like the one in the opening of the series, are used in the establishing shots. Just when you think the film is making things a little too twee, we get an amusingly weird dream sequence that twists the imagery of “Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood” in a fittingly surreal direction. These touches wouldn't have worked for most biopics but Mr. Rogers would've appreciated the whimsy, I think.

And, of course, Tom Hanks is perfectly cast. He doesn't physically resemble Rogers much. Where Fred was scrawny, Hanks is broad-shouldered. The old age make-up Hanks wears can't disguise that the two have totally differently shaped faces. Though he attempts to affect the particular cadence of Rogers' voice, he doesn't quite perfect that either. Yet none of that really matters, because Hanks nails the spirit of the man. This was a given, as few American actors are as capable of depicting utmost sincerity as Hanks. His Rogers is patient, playful, totally earnest, and always eager to listen. Though the film insists the man wasn't a saint, Hanks sure makes it believable that he was. (The rest of the cast is fine too, by the way.)

I can certainly recall watching “Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood” as a pre-schooler. I'm not sure I would define myself as a fan back then but I always appreciated how quiet a program it was. Like many, it was only as an adult that I realized how profound Rogers' message is. “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” will hit that audience right in the heart. It's a sweet, charming film that does a few clever things. It's ultimately pretty fluffy too. (Definitely watch “Won't You Be My Neighbor?” if you want more insight into the man's life and philosophies.) This is not necessarily a problem, as I enjoyed every minute I spent watching the film. In-between this and “Can You Ever Forgive Me?,” Marielle Heller is becoming the specialist in sweet, low stakes, funny biopics about friend that get actors Oscar nominations. [7/10]

OSCARS 2020: Judy (2019)

Somehow, it seems fitting that Renee Zellweger should make her big comeback project playing Judy Garland. Zellweger was born the year Garland died. Zellweger is very close now to the age Judy was the last year of her life. Perhaps most pressingly, one feels an odd poetry in the pairing. Once among the highest grossing actresses in Hollywood and a previous Oscar winner, Zellweger starred in a series of high profile flops and barely-seen indies before taking a long hiatus from the screen. When the media discussed her at all, it was catty gossip about her appearance. One can't help but wonder if Zellweger felt a kinship with Garland, whose always-tumultuous personal life and floundering career were often the target of Hollywood rumors. If that's the case, it's all the more fitting that Zellweger may win her second Oscar for “Judy.”

Loosely based off the stage play “End of the Rainbow,” the film follows 46-year old Judy Garland in the last few months of her life. Garland is broke, addicted to pills, exhausted, and technically homeless. Her third husband, Sidney Luft, is working hard to get custody of their two children. In order to make some quick cash, and with the encouragement of new boyfriend Mickey Dean, Garland agrees to take a series of show dates in England. She struggles to put on good shows every night while still being ravaged by her addictions, her loneliness, and a life time of regrets.

Too often, we tend to think of troubled celebrities only in tabloid gossip terms. They're “train wrecks” or “washed-up.” “Judy” asks us to consider an in-crisis celeb in the context of a difficult life. The opening scene, one of many flashbacks, has Louis B. Mayer telling a young Garland she's not that pretty. She was given speed to wake up in the morning and downers to go to sleep at night, leaving her in a constant state of exhaustion. She was barely allowed to eat, to maintain a girlish figure. Her romantic life was controlled, every hour of her day was scheduled, and any teenage rebellion was met with brutal discipline. Yes, Garland was a mess at the end of a life. “Judy” accurately portrays her as a sloppy alcoholic, an irresponsible drug addict, a complete emotional basket case who clung to whatever relationship made her feel something positive. Yet it also makes us understand how she got to that point. Who wouldn't end up so troubled after such a lousy life?

In fact, “Judy” works so hard to portray the turmoil of Garland's last few weeks alive that it proves rather harrowing at times. She goes out on stage, inebriated, is jeered at by her audience, and eventually thrown off. An affecting montage interacts the youthful Garland's dance practice with adult Judy's inability to sleep at all. She sits in her bathroom, shaking apart, before an assistant has to drag her before an unappreciative audience. Yet, as much as director Rupert Goold focuses on her collapsing mental state, he also pauses for occasional moments of ecstasy among the agony. A touching scene has Garland bonding with two gay fans, the two finding solace while singing at the piano. When Judy first goes on-stage, she nails it, delivering a powerful performance. As often as she fails, she has pitch-perfect nights too, portrayed in energetic montages. This push-and-pull, the struggle of the artist to make art while fighting their personal demons, is most brilliantly portrayed in the film's emotional climax.

Obviously being a film about a woman in the middle of a crisis, “Judy” is really made for the kind of big acting that the Academy loves. It would've been easy for a performer to overdo it. Renee Zellweger, after all, affects Garland's distinctive vocal patterns and does her damnedest to mimic Judy's famous singing voice. Combined with a stunning make-up job that makes her look startlingly similar to the real life Garland, it would've been easy to dismiss this as a typical awards bait performance. Yet Zellweger really does act her ass off. She imbues every line with emotion, making you laugh and cry with Garland as she reaches for those artistic heights – the feeling of love from an adoring audience, the only love she's ever really known – while being pulled down by a life time of problems.

“Judy” is surprisingly great. I went in with pretty much no expectations, figuring this would be one of those Oscar movies notable for a showy performance and nothing else. And it's not like I'm exactly a Garland scholar or anything. Instead, I was met with a bracing and matter-of-fact depiction of addiction and mental illness. The emotional moments hit me right in the gut, getting me misty-eyed right when it was called for. Goold's direction is stylish but intimate. Zellweger gives a genuinely fantastic performance. Will she win the Oscar? These things can be unpredictable but it wouldn't be entirely unearned if she did. [9/10]

OSCARS 2020: Knives Out (2019)

Rian Johnson's best known for directing what is, depending on your opinion on this surprisingly thorny subject, either one of the best or one of the wort “Star Wars” movies. However, those who have been following his career from the beginning know he got his start with “Brick,” a clever film noir riff set in high school. It would seem his affection for the mystery genre hasn't faded any over the years. Around the time of “Looper,” he conceived of an idea for an Agatha Christie-style whodunnit. Having a “Last Jedi” level hit to his name allowed Johnson to finally make his murder-mystery, and with an A-list cast too. “Knives Out” rolled out last fall to critical acclaim and financial success. This was enough to score the film an Oscar nomination, even if it was a sole nod in the Best Original Screenplay category.

The family of hugely successful, and very rich, novelist Harlan Thromby gather for his 83rd birthday. The next morning, Thromby is found dead, throat slashed, of an apparent suicide. Yet there's something suspicious about the case. Secrets and motives abound. Harlan recently became aware of his daughter Linda's husband, Richard, having on an affair. Daughter-in-law Joni was stealing from Harlan. Son Michael, head of the publishing company, was about to be fired while grandson Ransom had an argument with Thromby the night of his death. Eccentric detective Denoit Blanc is hired by a mysterious outside party to investigate. When Harta, Harlan's private nurse, is revealed as the sole inheritor of his estate, things get especially interesting.

“Knives Out” certainly has all the ingredients of a great whodunit. It's largely set in a sprawling mansion, outfitted with elaborate decorations and at least one secret passageway. The tangle of motives, reasonable causes, and the seeming impossibility of the crime, immediately draws the viewer. The slow reveal of how greedy, and petty, Thromby's potential heirs were makes everyone a plausible suspect. The events of the night of the death are gone over. Like any good mystery, this makes the viewer part of the investigation. We are asked to consider the evidence and the suspects, to try and figure out who did it first. Harlan Thromby was fond of puzzles and games and Rian Johnson is clearly playing a game with us.

This becomes all the more evident when, forty minutes in, “Knives Out” completely overturns the whodunit premise. The exact details of Thromby's death is revealed to us. The fun now comes from, like an episode of “Columbo” (an obvious influence), watching Blanc deduce out the truth. Or seeing where certain loyalties lie, as more deceptions reveal themselves. This doesn't dissipate the suspense, as the twists are only just starting. The playfulness of Johnson's script doesn't end there. The dialogue is frequently hilarious, sometimes even surreal. People will be quoting Blanc's bizarre doughnut metaphor for years to come. The film also features one of the most amusingly flippant car chases I've seen in a while.

What will give “Knives Out” the kind of replay value not every murder mystery has is how layered a film it is. The world of “Knives Out,” much like our own, is obsessed with mysteries and death. There are shout-outs to true crime shows, the cozy mysteries of the Hallmark Channel, “Clue,” and even “Murder, She Wrote.” It's also a very political world. Walt's teenage son is an alt-right troll, though he's clearly parroting some philosophies from his equally reactionary mother. (Walt seems oblivious to how toxic these attitudes really are.) The film is ultimately a story of class conflict. All the Thromby children, even would-be New Age guru Joni, describe themselves as “self-made” millionaires. That's despite all of them depending on million dollar hand-outs from their dad. When Marta is revealed as the sole benefactor of the will, they swarm her, each a vulture desperate for their cut. The film successfully updates the old “will reading” premise for our modern divided times, concluding the rich will do absolutely anything to hold onto their wealth.

Johnson assembles an all-star cast for this tale. Daniel Craig, having the most fun he's had in years, stars as Benoit, a delightfully ridiculous character that is, despite his very silly tics, motivated by empathy. Ana de Armas is funny, shy, and deeply relatable as the way-over-her-head Marta, a hero we can root for. Christopher Plummer is highly energetic as Harlan, while maintaining the wise gravitas we've come to expect from him. Toni Collete is hilariously high-strung as Joni, the artificiality of her “influencer” persona always starting to slip. Don Johnson makes Richard an amusing asshole. Chris Evans is a similarly amusing snake, as someone who is deeply self-satisfied with his avarice. The cast is so star studded that even the relatively minor parts of the cops assisting Blanc are played by familiar faces like LaKeith Stanford and Noah Segan. I wish Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Shannon were given a little more to do, as their roles are rather low-key.

“Knives Out” is not set around any specific holiday, as far as I can tell. The movie was released at Thanksgiving, which seems too perfect to be coincidental. Any movie with this much long-simmering resentment, family bickering, autumnal glow, and cozy sweaters is perfect for the end of November. In other words, “Knives Out” is a delight. Rian Johnson has already suggested more Benoit Blanc adventures may be forthcoming, which I fully support. If sequels must rule the megaplexes, let it be unexpected stuff like this. [8/10]

OSCARS 2020: Richard Jewell (2019)

When the posters and trailers for “Richard Jewell” first came out, my reaction was “Who the hell is Richard Jewell? And why did Clint Eastwood make a movie about him?” Yes, I was alive in 1996 when the Centennial Olympic Park bombing happened, when security guard Richard Jewell was first hailed as a hero for discovering the bomb before emerging as the number one suspect in the investigation. But I was also seven years old at the time and not really paying attention to national news. So you'll have to excuse me for not being familiar with this particular event until the movie version started to attract attention. Apparently I'm not the only one who missed this one, as Clint's latest has under-performed at the box office. That didn't stop the movie from picking up a few nominations, including an Oscar nomination for Kathy Bates' supporting turn.

So, for those nineties kids and millennials who were too busy playing with Pogs back when to notice, let's talk about who Richard Jewell was. Jewell was a former rent-a-cop – who was somewhat overzealous – who was working as a security guard at the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Georgia in 1996. During a Jack Mack and the Heart Attacks concert, while suffering from a bad case of indigestion, Jewell discovered an unusual backpack. It's quickly deduced a bomb is inside. As Jewell and the rest of the security team clear the area, the bomb goes off. Two people are killed and a hundred other are injured. Jewell is, at first, considered a hero who saved lives. Soon, however, the FBI begins to suspect Jewell might have planted the bomb himself, in order to play the hero. The media soon runs with this idea and Jewell's entire life is under intense scrutiny.

The advertising campaign for “Richard Jewell” certainly made it look like a very serious drama about very serious things. Which it is and yet the film is also, in a roundabout way, a rather amusing comedy. See, Richard Jewell is an extremely sincere, utterly doofy, quasi-redneck wannabe. He loves cookies, huntin', and his mama. Even though the FBI thinks he is a terrorist, he still treats them with the utmost respect, referring to the officers as “sir” and offering to help. When the investigation suggest Jewell might be in a homosexual relationship with his supposed accomplice, he takes great pains to correct that. I mean, on the fateful day, he had a bad case of the shits. In other words, this guy is a lovable moron of sorts that is in completely over his head. Which is pretty funny. The ridiculousness of the situation is most apparent during a scene where Jewell has to take his dog out to go poo, while reporters crowd his front yard and snap photos.

Though it is most successful as a fact-based comedy, “Richard Jewell” does have effective dramatic moments. The actual scene where the bomb goes off is startling, the suddenness of the blast catching the viewer off-guard. Even more suspenseful is a reprise of this event Richard has during a dream, where he imagines the bomb killed him. Richard's desire to become a cop is obviously based out of a sense of lack of power. It's why he hassles partying college kids during an early scene. Which isn't very sympathetic but a moment where he cries about the lifetime of abuse he's suffered because of his weight and appearance, that is genuinely stirring. So is a similarly emotional sequence where, after realizing the FBI has bugged his apartment, Jewell looses his temper at his mom for watching an explosion-filled movie... Which he then apologizes for, because that's the kind of guy he is.

At it's best, “Richard Jewell” does capture the humor and drama of an extremely average guy caught in a surreal, privacy-violating situation. At its worst, “Richard Jewell” is another screed against the media and the government from Hollywood's favorite grumpy old white guy. The film portraying the news industry as hungry for blood and the government as all too willing to trample over the individual's rights isn't exactly wrong. However, the way Eastwood goes about depicting this reminds you of his especially dated stances on this topics. The real life news reporter that first wrote about Jewell being a suspect, Kathy Scruggs, is depicted as a glory hound obsessed with destroying Jewell's life to make herself more successful. She's also shown as seducing men to get stories, while often wearing sexy outfits that show off her body. The real Scruggs died of a prescription drug addiction, suggesting a more conflicted and complex human being, so this depiction is pretty damn tasteless. And about the treatment of women I'd expect from the guy who personally blacklisted Sondra Locke.

And it doesn't help that Eastwood has Olivia Wilde, a talented actress, play Scruggs as a venom-spewing she-demon. Still, the cast is overall strong. Though the part was originally intended for Jonah Hill, Paul Walter Hauser – who previously played another notorious nineties figure in “I, Tonya” – seems uniquely gifted to play this role. He already resembles the guy, first-off. Secondly, Hauser knows exactly how to capture a totally clueless dude who is guided by his own sense of ethics and adoration, even when it is horribly misplaced. He proves a surprisingly stirring performer, when he finally gives the FBI what-for or when he breaks down crying over some fried chicken. The title role could not be better cast. Sam Rockwell is also frequently hilarious as Watson, Jewell's lawyer and friend who is equally endeared to and annoyed with Jewell. Kathy Bates gets maybe the showiest role as Jewell's mom, who delivers a tearful press conference late in the film... But Kathy Bates is also awesome and can make even the hackiest, most Oscar-bait-y material into total poetry, which is absolutely what she does here.

Most of the negative reception towards “Richard Jewell” has revolved around its gross politics, which is totally fair. Like I said, the movie's treatment of Scruggs is dreadful. While some have read “Richard Jewell” as Eastwood making a secret pro-Trump movie, I don't quite see it. The media was wrong to persecute the real Jewell, making this a rare case where “fake news” was a valid concern. However, Clint has that obnoxious old man hatred of the media, so I can see where people get that criticism from. When it works, “Richard Jewell” is a surprisingly funny and even genuinely stirring movie. Yet it's also extremely clumsy in spots. A less crotchety, more detail-oriented filmmaker probably could've turned this into a slam dunk, as opposed to the semi-decent motion picture it is. [7/10]

OSCARS 2020: Harriet (2019)

Really, why did it take so long to make a movie about Harriet Tubman? She is one of the most prominent figures in American black history, at least as far as the names we learn in grade school text books go. It certainly seems like the kind of inspiring, historically important story that makes for an ideal Oscar-friendly movie. I guess the real reason it took until 2019 for Tubman's story to reach theater screens is the same reason Hollywood doesn't make many movies starring black women in general. “Harriet” was once primed as a vehicle for Viola Davis but ended up starring stage actress Cynthia Erivo. Erivo scored an Oscar nomination for both Best Actress and Best Original Song, which is about what I expected when the good-not-great reviews started rolling in last fall.

The film begins its coverage of Harriet Tubman's life when she is still known as Minty Ross, a slave on a farm in Maryland. Ross is married to a free man but remains a slave. When her owners refuse her requests to free herself and her family, Ross has had enough. She makes a dramatic escape from the farm, leaping from a bridge into a river. She makes the arduous journey to the North and chooses a new name for herself: Harriet Tubman. She returns to the south, as part of the Underground Railroad, to free her family and any other slaves she can get to freedom.

It's definitely disappointing for me to say Harriet Tubman, true American hero, has received the typical historical biopic treatment. In fact, director Kasi Lemmons, previously of “The Caveman's Valentine,” transforms American history into an almost superhero-esque action movie origin story. Tubman's historical nickname of “Moses” operates as a heroic code name of sorts. A head trauma suffered at the hands of her slave owner gives her reoccurring hallucinations, which are uncritically interpreted as visions from God – a superpower. Tubman even gets an easily recognized uniform, in the form of an askew fedora and a leather duster. This slickly commercial and potentially tasteless approach to history is most evident in the number of shoot-outs in the film and the way Tubman's former owners become obsessed with pursuing her. Of course, slave owners were absolutely garbage shit-people but 'Harriet” makes them so cartoonishly evil – turning them into real life supervillains – that it makes “Django Unchained” seem subtle in comparison. And that's all while maintaining a matinee-friendly PG-13 rating.

Once you look pass the superhero-fiication of Tubman, “Harriet” is as bland a biopic as you could imagine. Lemmons' direction is uninspired, full of melodramatic slow-motion. The musical score is blaring, always signaling to the viewer far in advance what emotions they should be feeling in any given minute. The writing condenses real life into a series of easily digested episodes. The film focuses in on Tubman rescuing her family, whittling her real life mission of freedom for all slaves down to a personal vendetta. Most of the dialogue is made up of rousing speeches and trailer-worthy declarations. When it's not adding action movie flourishes to history, the film is treating this tale as just another prestige-y biopic.

As is usually the case, that leaves us with the performances as the main point worth recommending. And even Cynthia Erivo seems somewhat uncertain how to approach the material at first. She spends the first third of the movie starring in a wide-eyed, shocked fashion. Though I suppose that fits the role of a slave desperate to escape to freedom. As maudlin as the script is, Erivo's passionate delivery of her lines manages to make even the hoariest dialogue powerful. (Much the same can be said for the film's nominated song, which probably wouldn't have been much either without Erivo's vocals.) Erivo also has strong chemistry with Janelle Monae, in a supporting part as the boarding-house proprietor who assists Tubman once she arrives in the North. The strengths of the lead are still not enough to make up for how over-the-top and greasy Joe Alwyn and Jennifer Nettles are as the Brodesses, the film's villains.

I'm not going to be the white nerd that says this movie doesn't have value. A film like this can act as a gateway for people, especially young people, to learn about real history. (I fully expect “Harriet” will be shown in many high school history classes.) Not to mention the obvious value in seeing a black woman in such as strong leading role. Yet I do find it distasteful to depict real history in such a sanitized, commercialized way. Slavery is the most hideous part of American history and I don't think a subject like that can fit into a family-friendly, franchise-ready mold. Films like “12 Years a Slave” prove you don't have to dumb down reality to reach people. “Harriet” is a mediocre film that I hope, at least, inspires discussion about the real facts of the people, time and places it is about. [5/10]