Knight of Cups

“Knight of Cups” stars Christian Bale in a spiritual journey through LA and follow-up to “The Tree of Life.”

KnightofCupsIn ways that are both enlightening and maddening, Terrence Malick continues to demonstrate in his latest film “Knight of Cups” a remarkable eye for visuals and creative ways of playing with depth. Since “The Tree of Life,” Malick’s polarizing masterpiece, critics have divided on whether Malick’s movies have grown tired, in that they’re beautiful and breathtaking, but too much like all his others.“Knight of Cups” follows in “Tree of Life’s” tradition as a dreamy, formless, spiritual, often indulgent film of a man drifting through life as hushed voiceovers adorn the images. But in small ways, Malick shows he’s still experimenting and innovating within his style, employing the now three-time Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki to engineer turbulent, liberated and delirious fish-eye shots using GoPro cameras. At times the film arguably looks more like Jean-Luc Godard’s “Goodbye to Language 3D” than it does “The Tree of Life,” and you wonder what brilliant and creative things Malick might do in 3D or another new format. And lord knows that with Lubezki he has the means.

Yes, “Knight of Cups” is still very “Malick-esque,” but for all its excesses, “Knight of Cups” still feels beguiling as a thoughtful, artistic look at existentialism, at examining what it means to be alive, even amid so much excitement, sex, opulence and hedonism.

“You think that when you reach a certain age things will start to make sense. That’s damnation. They never come together. Just splashed out there.” Malick explores this thesis throughout “Knight of Cups” both thematically and formally. Watching it is like witnessing a flashback of a life as an otherworldly spirit. The film’s weightless camera wanders around to observe moments and emotions rather than a concrete story. Everything’s “just splashed out there,” disconnected in ways that can be as frustrating as they are invigorating.

Our vessel is the wealthy Hollywood playboy and screenwriter Rick (Christian Bale). He revisits the relationships in his life, from fast friends, past lovers, bosses, brothers and fathers, and in each encounter he drifts without much feeling or words to articulate his mood. One of his girlfriends, the punk, free spirit Della (Imogen Poots), challenges his depression with the question, “Am I bringing you back to life?” With his reckless brother Barry (Wes Bentley), he can communicate entirely through posturing and body language. His ex-wife Nancy (Cate Blanchett) still loves and hates Rick passionately, but likely knows more about him than he ever will.

The title “Knight of Cups” refers to a tarot card and fairy tale of a man who can’t remember he’s the king’s son after drinking from a special cup. Each of Malick’s vignettes, as broken up through chapters, shows a man trying to remember who he is and who he was. Other films have shown men disillusioned with their life of wealth, women and splendor. But in “Knight of Cups,” even during a massive, celebrity-cameo filled party sequence at a glorious palatial estate, the film’s graceful editing, score and cinematography suggest something beyond just Rick’s glittering anguish.

Even a trip to Las Vegas finds a new mystique through Malick’s eye. It’s lush and beautiful rather than loud, sensational and trashy. He’s separated the confetti-filled, neon colored raves from their typical emotions and associated them instead with something gorgeous and ethereal. In Malick’s Vegas, there are as many peaceful, Zen moments as when he takes Rick inside a tranquil Buddhist monastery.

At a certain point however, the film’s weightless quality itself does grow aimless, even anemic. If “Knight of Cups” observes a life in progress from afar, then sure enough it will be filled with highs, lows and even boredom. How many impeccable shots of beautiful women frolicking barefoot on the beach can you honestly have?

There’s no doubt that Malick’s latest has some indulgence and seriously inscrutable moments. It falls short of “The Tree of Life’s” masterful reverie but surpasses the drearier slog of his last film, the equally formless “To the Wonder.” But “Knight of Cups” is its own film, and rather than turning in on his own bad habits, Malick is just beginning to find new meaning in the world.

3 ½ stars

The Revenant

TheRevenantPosterGeorge Miller made a movie this year that is little but a chase scene, with themes of survival, revenge and a showcase for hyper violence and cinematic spectacle. The film has virtually no story, but the nature of its editing and its use of color, movement and staging made it an exhilarating experience, brutal and devastating but also cathartic and purely entertaining.

Alejandro G. Inarritu’s “The Revenant” is a similar revenge fantasy, stripped to its bones in all its animalistic nature and fury, but Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography blunts the impact. The Malick-esque way that Lubezki plays with the elements to create something spectral and naturalistic give “The Revenant” an overstated sense of importance, and watching it is hardly entertaining but dreary, disgusting and devoid of purpose.

Set in early frontier America, Leonardo DiCaprio plays Hugh Glass, a navigator part of a hunting party gathering pelts. Natives ambush the entire squadron and reduce the team from 45 people to just 10. The scene is ravishing, but immediately numbing. Arrows fly in and impale the Americans from beyond the frame, creating a sense early on that danger is not imminent but seemingly omnipresent. The mise-en-scene is cold and silvery and makes a stark backdrop for fiery streaks of arrows flying through the sky.

Lubezki has the camera dive underneath the water to witness one man being strangled to death, and we realize that despite the camera’s pivots and surveying, it’s more of a godly spectator rather than a human eye. The camera here is far less a gimmick than in Inarritu’s “Birdman,” and the way the camera is freed from a fixed axis is not unlike how Lubezki’s cinematography floated and tumbled in “Gravity.” But seeing it in this way isn’t visceral but bleak, violent, bloody and full of agony.

Glass escapes the natives only to be attacked by a bear. This scene too is an endless, torturous and dispassionate sight done in a single, unbroken shot. The bear claws and stomps on his back and whips him like a doll. It exists seemingly out of time and even ends on something of a grim punch line, a final knife in the back as Glass tumbles down a hill only for the slain bear to roll on top of him.

Miraculously, Glass survives, but just barely. Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) demands the remaining troop care for him and keep him alive as long as possible. When they’re unable to transport the wounded Glass further, Henry assigns John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) to tend to Glass and Glass’s half-breed son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) until Glass dies. Instead, Fitzgerald kills Hawk and leaves Glass for dead. “The Revenant” starts as Glass’s fight for survival against nature, a cold look at how the world is vengeful and how the wilderness governs all. But it eventually morphs into a more simplistic revenge fantasy, Glass’s quest to return from the dead and kill the man who murdered his son.

We see flashes of Glass’s past, of his native bride being slaughtered and skulls being stacked high in a mountain. Except Glass’s remaining existence is no less bleak, and his past plays as a morbid form of adding insult to injury. He survives by eating hunks of bloody, raw buffalo meat and by cutting open the guts of a horse and crawling inside its open cavity for warmth. The film’s gore is disturbing, but the subject matter itself is not the problem. “Mad Max: Fury Road” was no less shocking, and even “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back” involves Luke killing an animal for warmth on the ice planet Hoth.

The difference is how Inarritu lingers on the gruesomeness and screams each shot’s importance, not for their ingenuity but their stark reality. The score pounds with thundering drums that signal each moment’s weight, and the way “The Revenant” evokes God as a theme continually burdens us with the idea that this is Glass against the world.

DiCaprio is a victim of the film’s agony, grunting and moaning his way through the entire film and crawling on the cold ground for much of it. There’s only so much of an actual performance here. Tom Hardy is more effective as the dissenting and ruthless Fitzgerald, complete with a thick, broken Americana accent and wide eyes that show his madness.

While Lubezki remains the more interesting entry point to “The Revenant,” the blame for the movie’s depressing and exhausting slog rests on Inarritu’s shoulders. Like how the film treats Glass, he does all he can to drag us through hell but little catharsis or solace to bring us back.

1 ½ stars

Gravity

“Gravity” is a jaw-dropping sci-fi that rewrites the rules of cinema.

For all of the innovative, jaw-dropping, never before seen CGI wonder in Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity,” the impossibly balletic movement of Emmanuel Lubezki’s camera and the impeccably seamless 3-D effects, one of the film’s most impressive and memorable things is something Cuaron has withheld.

In space, there is nothing to carry sound. Satellites collide and rupture into millions of pieces, jetpacks soar and glide through the stars and astronauts dangle from floating space stations, clinging with their last ounce of strength to avoid floating into the distance, and nothing is to be heard.

Although the swell of an orchestra will remind you this is a Hollywood film, “Gravity” shatters the mold of what it is to be epic. Today’s tentpole movies are all noise and bombast; the multi-million dollar visual effects are par for the course. Unlike “Avatar,” “Life of Pi” and “Hugo” before it, 3-D and CGI are not here to enhance. Working through technology that needed to be invented, Cuaron has invented something breathtakingly original.

His focus on sights, not sound, story nor style, has nearly taken cinema back to its silent day roots and helped to imagine a future vision for what cinema can be. Continue reading “Gravity”

Oscars 2012: Will Win (Part 1)

See my remaining picks in the major categories here.

Movies are an art, not a science. And yet The Academy, save for a few eye rolling hiccups each year, operates like clockwork. Predicting the winners at the Oscars is as simple as playing the horses at the track, so here’s your betting form for the big race on Sunday night.

Best Adapted Screenplay

The Descendants: 40%

“The Descendants” is bound to win something, and because it’s a screenplay that greatly differs from the source material and comes from a director and screenwriter who hasn’t put out a movie in six years, it’s looking more and more certain.

Moneyball: 30%

“Moneyball” is a serious contender in this category for the way in which it adapts a fact based, nonfiction book into a story with likeable and pathos filled characters. It also comes from last year’s winner, Aaron Sorkin and other Oscar fave Steven Zallian.

Hugo: 20%

“Hugo” isn’t exactly a writer’s movie, but Brian Selznick’s children’s book is surprisingly rich and colorful, and somehow John Logan tops it.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 5%

The Ides of March: 5% Continue reading “Oscars 2012: Will Win (Part 1)”

Oscar Homework

The uninitiated movie goer treats the Best Picture nominees at the Oscars as the must-see list of the year. But this year, that audience might be disappointed with “The Help” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” and confused, if not frustrated with “The Artist” and “The Tree of Life.”

So for those of you looking to get acquainted with this year’s Oscar nominees and the potential winners, here’s a bit of Oscar homework due promptly before the ceremony on Sunday, February 26.

Don’t worry; doing this won’t feel like a chore.

1. Beginners – Nominated for Best Supporting Actor Christopher Plummer Continue reading “Oscar Homework”

The Tree of Life Revisited

“The Tree of Life” deserved a second viewing to fully appreciate it. It’s a masterpiece after all.

“That’s where God lives!”

If there was any film in 2011 that deserved revisiting, it was “The Tree of Life.” It may have been polarizing, but in a year of some great and some mediocre films, it stood as far and away the most important film of the year.

And what’s more, it took watching it twice to realize it’s a masterpiece.

When I originally reviewed the film, I was caught in a state of perplexed awe. I called the film a purely cinematic ode to life itself, but remained unclear of the symbolism and without a feeling of emotional levity.

And yet “The Tree of Life” is so much more than just an ode to life. Watching “The Tree of Life” resembles the feeling one might experience after a rough mid-life crisis: a feeling of peace, acceptance and embracement of life’s beauty.

Terrence Malick’s film is averse to the bitterness, negativity and cynicism that motivate us to search for unanswerable questions in life. Instead, it is a constantly beautiful film that views the color and frivolity of life existing all around us. Continue reading “The Tree of Life Revisited”

The Tree of Life

“The Tree of Life” is a purely cinematic experience. Terrence Malick has made a film that speaks life lessons and evokes fundamental human emotions through visuals and style above all else. In doing so, his film worships the gift of life itself.

The purpose of existence, as seen through Malick’s eyes, is to simply love life, and every part of it. Beauty, pain, sadness, joy and all else that encompasses our being are necessary to live and reach the afterlife, which Malick envisions as a place to cherish the life we came from.

Such a view may seem overly optimistic and unpractical to some, if not most, but this is Malick’s film first before anyone else’s, and its message appears utterly sincere to the environmental and natural themes evoked throughout the four other films in his nearly four decade career.

With messages as life fulfilling as these and a film as operatic and grand in scope as this, “The Tree of Life” preaches lessons that one could live by and has aspirations to be one of the greatest films ever made. It’s a bit far from that benchmark, but the intentions are sure and true, and the experience is still wholly enriching. Continue reading “The Tree of Life”