Review: Son of Saul

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Laszlo Nemes's mesmerizing and unique "Son of Saul" is unlike any other Holocaust movie I've ever seen. Set in 1944 at Auschwitz-Birkenau, the film utilizes intimate and claustrophobic camera work as it follows the titular character (played with intensity by Geza Rohrig), a member of the Sonderkommando, who were Jewish prisoners forced to help the Nazis exterminate Jews by leading them to the gas chambers and removing their bodies, thereby delaying their own deaths for a few months.

The picture's visuals often recall Elem Klimov's 1985 masterpiece "Come and See" and stylistically has more in common with Alfonso Cuaron's "Children of Men" than it does your typical concentration camp movie.

The film opens with a blurry long shot as a group of people move toward the camera. Saul walks right up to the frame and, from then on, the film follows his every step, typically framing him from behind or in tight close-ups, where horrific things occur just out of our line of vision, making them in many ways more terrifying.

Some have argued that by focusing completely on just one person - and one who helps assist in the deaths of his own people no less - "Son of Saul" fails to emphasize the sheer number of people who suffered during the Holocaust. I'd argue that by centering the action around one person, especially one who is both victim and, although not by his own choice, perpetrator, the horrors are driven home in a unique way. Also, the often frenetic action taking place on the blurry outskirts of the frame add to the sense of confusion and chaos in the extermination camp.

Set during the course of what appears to be a day, the story begins to come into focus after Saul witnesses a young boy survive the gas chamber, only to die moments later. For reasons at first unclear, Saul decides that he is going to ensure that the boy gets a proper burial and, after some time, begins to refer to the boy as his son.

Whether the boy is actually Saul's son is never quite clear. For a while, I was convinced that he was, especially after he continued to call him his "son." But this is called into question later in the film, especially after the appearance of another child very late in the film, leading me to believe that Saul's quest to find a rabbi and then bury the boy is representative of something else - perhaps, of innocence amid horror, but even more likely the concept of preserving decency or humanity in such a place as Auschwitz-Birkenau by giving a dead body a rightful burial.

Due to the way the film was shot - with Saul's face as our focal point - it is often difficult to discern what else is going on and it's clear that this is a narrative choice. At one point, several of the other Sonderkommandos appear to be concocting a plot to attack the Nazis running the camp and there's another sequence when Saul obtains information from one of the women in the camp, but it's not quite clear how it plays into the men's plot.

There are two scenes when all hell breaks loose, one of which is when the men make an attempt to carry out their plan near the film's end. An earlier one acts as the film's centerpiece and is one of the most horrific visions of hell I've seen in a movie in some time. When the abundant number of people arriving at the camp makes it difficult to send them all to the gas chambers, a large group of new arrivals are taken out to a field, where they are forced to strip, line up and shot point blank, falling into a pit where a large bonfire burns all around. It's a chaotic, masterfully shot and truly disturbing sequence that ranks highly among scenes depicting pure evil in wartime.

And what makes the picture even more impressive is that it's Nemes's debut. The director previously worked as an assistant to the great - and now, apparently, retired Bela Tarr - but this is his first time behind the camera. You wouldn't imagine it while watching the picture, which is a great example of controlled filmmaking. "Son of Saul" is one of the year's best films and one of the most unique ones ever made about the Holocaust. If you see it, I'd imagine it will stick with you long after you've left the theater.

The Worst Movies of 2015

Knock Knock. Image courtesy of Lionsgate.

Look at poor Keanu Reeves, tied up and screaming in Eli Roth's "Knock Knock." That's how I felt when watching the films I've listed below in my annual top 10 worst of the year.

On the whole, 2015 was a decent year for movies, if not a great one (more on that later when I post my best of the year list on Dec. 31). But, as usual, the year had its share of disasters.

This year, there weren't any catastrophes on the level of "Battlefield Earth" or "I, Frankenstein," although my pick for the worst of the year was pretty awful.

Also, there was only one film among my 10 worst that I found to be revolting. Typically, in any given year, there are at least a few of these - last year's triumvirate was "Moebius," "The Raid 2" and "Big Bad Wolves."

Also, I should note that I didn't end up seeing a handful of movies that a majority of critics panned, including the third "Human Centipede" movie (two was more than enough for me), the "Entourage" picture (never saw the show), "Jem and the Holograms," the (hopefully) final "Paranormal Activity" sequel, the apparently-disappointing "Stonewall" and big budget flops "Pan" and "Fantastic Four."

I did, however, unfortunately see all of the films below. These are my picks for worst of the year. Let me know in the comment section which movies you especially disliked this year and whether you suffered through the ones on my list.

Review: The Big Short

Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures.

When Adam McKay's economic and housing bubble collapse drama "The Big Short" isn't making you laugh, it's informing you and, most likely, making you madder than hell. The film goes a long way - perhaps, during a few scenes, a little too long - in explaining just exactly what caused the 2008 worldwide economic meltdown and it's the type of picture from which you can generally learn something. And it does so in a way that's vastly entertaining.

The picture, which is based on the book by Michael Lewis, follows three different stories between the years of 2005 and 2008 as several intelligent hedge fund managers and Wall Street traders predicted the impending collapse and either profited by it or went ignored when they attempted to warn others. The film's cast is all terrific, especially Steve Carell as the loudmouthed and temperamental Mark Baum (based on Steve Eisman), a money manager who is appalled at the greed that results in the collapse.

In his story, he and his small group of employees at the fund where he works decides to get in on the action with Ryan Gosling's smarmy mortgage trader, mostly as revenge against the banking industry that he so despises. Gosling's character is technically the film's narrator, but Carell's Baum is its - for lack of a better word - moral conscience.

In another story, two young hedge fund kids attempting to break into the world of Wall Street enlist a former trader (Brad Pitt), who helps them bet against the economy. And Christian Bale plays a quirky physician with a fake eye who is a genius at numbers crunching and analysis who, much to the horror of the bigwigs at the hedge fund he manages, bets against the housing market, which costs his hedge fund in the short term, but could potentially pay off in an insane amount in the long term.

McKay, whose previous films include "Anchorman" and "Talladega Nights," can't resist finding the humor in the scenario, which ended up being anything but a joke, costing eight million jobs, the loss of six million homes and decades of 401K contributions gone down the drain.

Amusingly, McKay enlists celebrities to pop up out of the blue - but announced by Gosling's character - to explain the confusing phraseology designed by Wall Street for the purpose of baffling the average person. So, we've got everyone from Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez to Anthony Bourdain explaining to us what "sub prime" and "collateralized debt obligation" mean.

This is a film that tells us horrifying details of a catastrophe not long in our rear view mirror. And what makes it so terrifying is that it not only describes in great detail how Wall Street greed led to our nation's economic collapse, but also how those responsible avoided any punishment and how, if you can believe it, they're preparing to do the same thing all over again.

This is an intelligent, entertaining and righteously angry film that I'd argue should be essential viewing for anyone with a stake in the future of this country. It's a very good movie.

Review: In the Heart of the Sea

Image courtesy of Warner Bros.

The story depicted in Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea" may have been the inspiration for Herman Melville's "Moby Dick," perhaps the greatest American novel, but the film is a little all over the place. At times, it's a drama about a clash between a first mate (Chris Hemsworth) and a spoiled rich kid captain (Benjamin Walker) and, at others, a high seas thriller with a massive whale as the villain or, to a lesser degree, the picture tries to tell a story how industry overlooks the dangers of a job and, as a result, endangers its employees.

But it doesn't appear that Howard and company knew which story was most significant and so, as a result, the film just emphasizes that it was the inspiration for "Moby Dick," as if that is all that's necessary to keep an audiences' attention.

And, on occasion, it does rivet. The scenes in which the boat's company chase whales in the water and some of the underwater photography are visually compelling. It's unfortunate that what takes place on board of the ship, which is told in flashback, as well as the present-day scenes during which one of the crew members (Brendan Gleeson) tells his tale to Melville (played here by Ben Whishaw) often rely on cliche.

Parts of the picture feel like a retread of "Mutiny on the Bounty" as Owen Chase (Hemsworth) squares off with the arrogant captain George Pollard (Walker). And the scenes in which the Massachusetts whaling industry of the early 1800s tries to cover up the incident with the 100-foot whale that kills many of the crew members on board Pollard's ship reminded me slightly of the scenes in "Jaws" when the local town doesn't want to shut down the beach.

And during the film's second half, there's a lengthy series of scenes during which Chase, Pollard and the surviving crew members are stranded for some 90 days on a raft that recall more successful films of a similar ilk - "Life of Pi" or "All is Lost," for example. And, very unfortunately, there's another plot element involving the whale that reminded me of "Jaws: The Revenge," which is not a film to emulate.

All in all, "In the Heart of the Sea" is not a bad film. It boasts some impressive visual effects and the performances are all decent enough. But it's unfocused and the story - or, rather, stories - it tells have been told much better in other films. Howard often handles period piece dramas very well - such as "Apollo 13" or "A Beautiful Mind" - but "In the Heart of the Sea" will likely go down as one of the director's minor efforts.

Review: Chi-Raq

Image courtesy of Roadside Attractions.

Spike Lee's "Chi-Raq" opens with a staggering statistic: more people have been killed by gun violence in Chicago during the past 14 years than lives were lost during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. So, it should come as no shock that the town has gained the nickname that doubles as the title of Lee's new film, which is equally messy and bold as well as one of the filmmaker's best 21st century films.

Based loosely on Aristophanes' play "Lysistrata," Lee's film follows the efforts of that same character (played here by Teyonah Parris) to quell the violence in her Chicago neighborhood by bringing together the girlfriends and wives of the local gang leaders and getting them to pledge to not have sex with their men until they agree to stop the violence. Or, as they frequently chant during the course of the picture, "no peace, no p-," well, you get the idea.

But Lee is after much more here than just a treatise on gang violence in Chicago and the film is often firing on numerous cylinders and taking on a multitude of topics, which occasionally causes scenes to crash and burn (a few too many musical numbers, for example), but mostly pays high dividends.

On Lee's mind this time around is everything from our national scourge of gun violence (the number of this week's mass shootings alone could have justified the making of this film), the NRA, gang violence, police brutality and the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner, unemployment, racism, the confederate flag and much, much more. If the film often feels a little overstuffed, it's counterbalanced by the fact that virtually no other filmmaker is willing to tackle these subjects in such a straightforward manner.

For a movie on a variety of subjects involving doom and gloom, Lee's film is often brassy and funny. The film's male characters are portrayed as such juveniles that it would be difficult to argue against Lee's film having a bona fide feminist platform. One of the funnier sequences involves the men - who now include the police, mayor and all men of the city of Chicago - attempting to woo the women back to bed by playing slow jams on loud speakers, a move that amusingly backfires.

Lee has assembled a terrific cast here, including Wesley Snipes (as the leader of the Trojan gang), Nick Cannon (as the leader of the Spartans), Angela Bassett (as a neighborhood activist), Dave Chappelle (as a night club proprietor) and John Cusack (as a priest, who gives a fairly rousing speech against those who have enabled the slaughter of innocents in Chicago and nationwide).

Samuel L. Jackson pops up as a narrator known as Dolmedes, a trickster figure, of sorts, who was not included in Aristophanes' play. His name, I'd wager, is a nod to Dolemite, the Rudy Ray Moore character from the outrageous 1970's blaxploitation films, due to Jackson's braggadocious rapid-fire monologues that have a similar style of delivery. Jackson acts as a Greek chorus to the action of "Chi-Raq" and provides some of the film's best dialogue.

The other actors mostly speak in rhyming couplets that often include sentiments that sting. During one particular scene in which Bassett attempts to convince Parris' Lysistrata to take action and begin the "sex strike," she makes a telling comment on how the violence in Chicago's black neighborhoods is unlikely to sway politicians if the shootings in Stony Brook, Connecticut made no difference.

"Chi-Raq" is Lee at his ballsiest. Some folks are going to be put off by Lee's latest (in fact, some Chicagoans have taken offense to his film injecting humor into its proceedings), but it's obvious that the filmmaker isn't going to be fazed by that.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Lee was one of the best American filmmakers. His "Do the Right Thing" is, perhaps, the greatest film ever made about race relations and his "Malcolm X" and underrated "Clockers" are also vital.

Other than 2002's powerful "25th Hour" and his Hurricane Katrina documentary "When the Levees Broke," Lee's work in the 21st century has been a little scattershot. His "Da Sweet Blood of Jesus" (a remake of the 1970's cult classic "Ganja and Hess") from earlier this year, for example, was a misfire. But "Chi-Raq" finds him back on stronger footing. I wouldn't say it ranks with his very best, but it's great to see him fired up and once again working with material that suits his great cinematic abilities.

Review: Krampus

Image courtesy of Universal Pictures.

Despite promises of possibly being a new trashy seasonal horror classic, "Krampus" instead gets off to a promising start before descending into a series of nonsensical sequences that end up making the film more a lump of coal than a holiday delight.

The setup is fairly simple: a young boy named Max (Emjay Anthony) loses the Christmas spirit after his father prioritizes work over family, his sister snubs him and his gun-totin', football-watchin', monster-truck-drivin' cousins show up with the family's least favorite aunt, who is a foul mouthed alcoholic.

Just moments after Max besmirches the spirit of the holiday, a massive snowstorm descends on the family's house and the titular figure - who has gigantic, hoofed feet - and his band of bizarro helpers (more on those in a bit) begin to wreak havoc on the household. Good thing that Max's grandmother is an elderly German woman who apparently knows all there is to know about Germanic holiday demons and how to keep them at bay (keep the fire going, for example).

All of this is in good fun - although, I'll note that the film has the highest child in peril quotient of any movie, possibly ever - until it begins to take a turn for the absurd. I know, this is all meant to be ridiculous, but I began to lose interest somewhere between the attack of the Christmas cookies and the gigantic elves that weren't particularly scary and brought back memories of "Troll 2."

The film has a pretty able cast who manage to make you care about their characters, even though they merely become figures to be picked off as the picture progresses. Adam Scott is likable as the clan's patriarch, while Toni Collette is solid as Max's mother and David Koechner is the best redneck in a Christmas movie since Randy Quaid in "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation."

But, alas, "Krampus" ultimately loses its way. The less you see of Krampus, the scarier he is. However, the more he gets up close and personal and, especially, after his minions (which, I should add, also include a demonic teddy bear, gigantic jester, flying doll and robotic toy of some sort) start taking over, the film seems to be going more for laughs than scares, although neither at this point are much in abundance.

So, if you want to see a truly scary Christmas-themed movie this year, it's best to just re-watch Bob Clark's creepy 1974 cult classic "Black Christmas." Or, of course, "Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas."

Review: Youth

Image courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Much like his 2013 Best Foreign Film Oscar winner "The Great Beauty," Paolo Sorrentino's latest, "Youth," is filled with lush and often beautiful visuals, but similar to that film - and to a greater extent - the director's latest places too high of an emphasis on style and, as he did in "Beauty," appears intent on paying homage to classic foreign cinema, especially Federico Fellini - and, perhaps, a little too much so.

Now, I liked "The Great Beauty" well enough, although I didn't love it as much as some others. Nevertheless, I admired it, especially its visual beauty. "Youth" is also great to look at, but it's a disjointed effort. Random characters pop in and out of the story and serve little purpose and the concept that old artists need look no further than the sight of a young naked woman is a cinematic cliche that has grown old.

In the film, Michael Caine plays Fred Ballinger, a retired and somewhat resigned-to-his-fate orchestra conductor who is taking a holiday at a lush resort in the Alps with his best pal, a film director named Mick (Harvey Keitel), as well as his daughter, Lena (Rachel Weisz), who acts as his personal assistant and has just been dumped by her husband, who, as it turns out, is Mick's son. Much is made of this break-up, that is, until it suddenly isn't and Weisz's character is given short shrift.

Also at the resort are Paul Dano as an actor seemingly there for some sort of inspiration - although his later scenes when he dresses as Adolf Hitler are a bit baffling - and a large man who is apparently famous for some reason, to which we are never privy, and the only other thing we learn about him is that he can kick a tennis ball up in the air over and over. Jane Fonda also pops up as an aging diva actress, but seemingly only to ratchet up the drama when she drops a bombshell on Keitel's character.

Caine is great as ever as Ballinger, even though his character is a little bit of a cipher. During one sequence, an emissary from Britain's royal family arrives at the resort and attempts to convince Ballinger to perform some of his earlier works in a performance for the queen. He refuses and is so vague about his reason for turning down the request that I began to feel as if I deserved some answers from him as well. He eventually opens up, but mostly to allow the plot to move forward.

The supporting cast is good as well and I think "Youth" could have been a better film had Sorrentino given these characters with potential a little more to do. As it stands, the film plays as a how-to-guide for European art cinema. Sequences with slight surreal touches? Check. Abundant female nudity and even a nude man? Check. Pithy asides about life? Check. And so on.

"Youth" isn't a bad movie. In fact, it has a decent amount of stuff, so to speak, with which to work. But it seems as if Sorrentino and company didn't know how to put the good material they had to best use. There are several scenes of Keitel's filmmaker and his own crew sitting around attempting to come up with a fitting ending for the film he's making that he intends to be his ultimate artistic statement. Perhaps, the makers of "Youth" could have benefitted from a few more meetings of this sort.