Selma

Director: Ava DuVernay
Starring: David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Roth, Common, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Carmen Ejogo, Lorraine Toussaint, Oprah Winfrey, Cuba Gooding Jr., Giovanni Ribisi, Keith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Wendell Pierce, Jeremy Strong
Running Time: 127 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

One of the biggest obstacles in bringing any part of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life to the screen is that there's simply no guidepost other than history itself. Despite or maybe because of his monumental importance and cultural significance, we can't point to any contemporary film that's attempted to give us a thorough treatment of the man or what he stood for and few actors have tackled the role on a grand scale, which is probably for the best since it's a no-win situation. With Selma, director Ava DuVernay attempts what probably shouldn't be done, but takes the wisest route possible by zeroing in on a specific point in King's life to tell a larger story. One that's shamefully ingrained into the fabric of this country whether we like it or not.

There's an even bigger challenge in not turning the story into a history lesson or homework assignment that checks the boxes on certain key events with which we're already familiar. DuVernay manages to walk this line very well, taking a magnifying glass to the ins and outs of the civil rights movement while weaving it into a compelling narrative that should hold viewers' interest for the entire running length.  But the strongest reason to see it is David Oyelowo's controversially un-nominated performance as King. The big surprise is watching him bring to life this man in such a way that it feels as if we're being exposed to his life and ideologies for the first time, experiencing the weight of his impact with fresh eyes. That's the real draw here. If there's anything the film will be remembered for years down the line, aside from the silly, fabricated "controversy" surrounding its accuracy, it's his restrained, thoughtful interpretation of King.

It's 1964 and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Oyelowo) has just accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, even as discrimination and racism continue to rip the country apart. The previous year four young girls were killed in a white supremacist bombing of an African-American church in Bimingham, Alabama, escalating racial tensions to an all-time high as blacks are continually denied the right to vote. When Southern Christian Leadership Conference President King meets with President Lyndon Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) in an attempt to obtain federal legislation that would allow black citizens such as Annie Lee Cooper (a powerfully subdued Oprah Winfrey) to register without restriction, he discovers the passage of such a bill is at the bottom of Johnson's political priority list.

Upon arriving in Selma with SCLC activists, King's met with even more resistance by Alabama Governor George Wallace (Tim Roth), with local law enforcement and state troopers responding to their nonviolent protests by injuring and in some cases killing protesters.This prompts King's idea for the Selma to Montgomery march, his seemingly last ditch effort to defy segregation and get through to the lawmakers. Drawing thousands of both blacks and whites from around the country, it's a dangerous but necessary move, putting these activists lives at risks, as well as King and his family's safety.

This is a difficult watch for a number of reasons that are completely unrelated to an allegedly controversial depiction of President Johnson. You'd figure that in a film covering a jaw-droppingly repulsive period in the nation's history, we'd be left more shaken by the recreation of those horrific events than preserving LBJ's legacy. It's especially comical when no one was ever previously concerned with doing that, or were even aware he had much of one to preserve. While he does come off terribly in the film, rejecting King's proposals at every turn until it politically benefits him to change course, there's little evidence suggesting those events didn't occur.

Whereas George Wallace is mostly painted a card-carrying racist, LBJ avoids that indignity, with Wilkinson playing him as an out-of-touch schemer who's eventually dragged kicking and screaming into signing the bill only after lives have been lost and he's politically humiliated. It's definitely not his finest hour, but we're kidding ourselves into thinking a President raked over the coals for his handling of Vietnam and even accused of conspiring in Kennedy's assassination was at all beloved prior to this film's release. He has his supporters and his reputation has unquestionably undergone a positive reevaluation of late, but DuVernay shouldn't be criticized for failing to portray him as a saint.

If maybe not King's nemesis, LBJ's clearly positioned as a major obstacle in blacks obtaining voting rights, and a stubborn one at that. Very much behind the curve while King is ahead of it, the movie's at its strongest when tensions reach a fever pitch and violence erupts. His non-violent sit-ins don't initially work and there seems to be much doubt as to whether they eventually will. The violent alternative is presented as Malcolm X (Nigel Thatch), who shares a brief but memorable scene opposite King's wife, Coretta (Carmen Ejogo) that seems to exist solely for the purpose of King venting about it later (hint: he doesn't like him). The more interesting stories involve the individual protesters such as Winfrey's Annie Lee Cooper and Amelia Boynton (Lorraine Toussaint), SCLC members James Bevel (Common) and Hosea Williams (Wendell Pierce), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee founder Diane Nash (Tessa Thompson) and young marcher Jimmie Lee Jackson (Keith Stanfield), and white priest James Reeb (Jeremy Strong), whose eventual murders take this battle to a whole new level.

The picture of King in our minds is often that of a big, booming powerful force of nature so it would seem unlikely that the talented, but mostly unknown David Oyelowo would have the physical presence or charisma to pull that off. But just as we already decided how Daniel Day-Lewis should play Lincoln and what voice he should use before he actually did it, Oyelowo changes the conversation, challenging our preconceived notions of Dr. King. It's a really quiet performance but explosive when it needs to be, which makes all the sense in the world when considering his methods. There is a physical resemblance and he nails the speaking rhythms, but more importantly, he captures the determination, never blinking or wavering once in his plan despite the resistance that comes from even his most loyal supporters. The only time he lets his guard down and we see the fear and sadness is when there's a death or his family's threatened. Most of these displays of emotion occur in the scenes opposite his wife, as we see the toll it's taken on his marriage. Rumors of King's affairs are addressed before being quickly dropped, but they're never presented as anything more than that. If anything, the film even finds a way to at least partially blame Johnson for King's marital problems.

It seems as if we've entered a period where movies based on historical events are judged on their truthfulness and accuracy before anything else. This is a losing proposition since it's not only impossible to nail down every fact and conversation exactly how it happened, but it robs the filmmaker of creative license . And if it's about a touchy subject or contending for Oscar consideration, the nitpicking only intensifies. Taking all that into account, DuVernay does a great job under thankless circumstances, making logical decisions as to when  she starts and stops the story. If she came in any sooner in King's life it could have been too much and if she stretched it out to include the assassination, it would just present an extra load of baggage to deal with. Just ask Spielberg, who couldn't even decide whether he was including Lincoln's assassination or not. At least DuVernay clearly commits to ending this at a concise point. 

Selma is beautifully shot and superbly acted, but as awful as this statement seems, I have little desire to see it again. That's not a complete surprise given the difficult content, but it brings up an interesting question. How miserable is too miserable? While that reaction could easily be written off as the typical "white guilt" response, maybe there's some truth to it. Who of any race, gender or nationality wouldn't feel terrible watching this? And what ending, no matter how uplifting or inspirational, could possibly erase the image of blacks being beaten as gassed in the streets or that King is assassinated only a few short years later. Maybe there is an inherent liability in recreating historical events so closely in that it robs us the ability to "escape" through movies. Here, we're watching history skillfully reenacted on screen, as if it will ever provide some kind of restitution or explanation for what happened. And yes, it's true that films of this type are always released like clockwork around Oscar time. It's easy to respect what Selma does, but more difficult admitting it's something we want to see.
                                  

Ted

Director: Seth MacFarlane
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Joel McHale, Giovanni Ribisi, Patrick Warburton, Matt Walsh, Jessica Barth, Laura Vandervoort, Sam J. Jones
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The biggest surprise coming out of Seth MacFarlane's Ted is how edgy it isn't. Sharing similar themes some of the other bromance comedies released over the past few years, the real draw is the foul-mouthed teddy bear (voiced by MacFarlane) and all the other crazy happenings surrounding the idea of that stuffed animal being brought to life as a semi-functional member of society, and a washed-up C-list celebrity of sorts. Having never seen a single episode of Family Guy I can only wager a guess based on this that gross-out humor categorizes MacFarlane's approach to comedy. But his first big screen feature also suggests he's capable of more because, taken as a whole, this is a funny, enjoyable experience that fell maybe just half a rung short of my expectations, which were admittedly high based on the trailer. It's really the subtler, subversive stuff that pushes the movie over the hump despite some of its issues, which primarily stem from sex and poopy joke overkill. But in the end, it all somehow works itself out and is more than worth the watch.

In an incredibly funny prologue (narrated by Patrick Stewart), we're told the story of John Bennett, a child living in a suburb outside Boston in the 1980's who has a big problem making friends. That all changes when he wishes one night on a falling star for his new Christmas gift, a teddy bear named "Ted," to come to life. Much to the shock of John's parents, and just about everyone one else in the country, he does, setting off a media frenzy and giving him a friend for life. Flash-forward to 2012 and 35 year-old John (Mark Wahlberg) is in a serious, committed relationship with Lori (Mila Kunis) who wants to get married but must first solve the problem of sharing her boyfriend and their Boston apartment with a talking bear who drinks, swears, picks up prostitutes and gets high on a daily basis. John, a child at heart and loyal to his best friend, is never hesitant in joining in the fun, even if it means skirting the responsibilities of adulthood. Lori gives him an ultimatum: Her or the bear. So Ted, whose days as a top celebrity are well behind him, agrees to move out and get a job. But this doesn't really solve the problem as John must decide whether his wild, childish antics with Ted are worth throwing away a potential future with the girl of his dreams.

The actual laughs in Ted are hit or miss, but when they hit, they hit big. A lot of that stems from the set-up, as the opening minutes of the picture are well enough realized in concept and execution that MacFarlane would really have to work hard to botch the rest of it.  Some of the best moments come early when we see the childhood flashbacks of John and Ted growing up together in brief scenes filled with hilarious 80's period details like John's Star Wars figures and Nintendo, as well as the two  buds watching Flash Gordon on the couch. Even better handled is the depiction of Ted's celebrity status, which includes a frighteningly authentic looking clip of a past appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. It looks as real as can be and that trend continues throughout the film with any scene Ted shares with human actors, as the motion capture rendering of this bear is absolutely flawless, proving filmmakers have come a longer distance than originally thought with this technology. In fact, it's probably the first time a motion capture creation of an animal seems preferable to just stuffing someone in a suit. As far as the actual "man-child needs to grow up" plot, Judd Apatow could probably sue. So could Adam Sandler. We know exactly where it's going and pretty much all the paces MacFarlane must go through to get there. That's the most disappointing aspect of this, along with the fact that some of the toilet humor gets obnoxious and repetitive after a while. But when the script's focus is on Ted acclimating himself to the real world rather than the rift John's bond with him causes in his relationship with Lori, the movie shines. And MacFarlane delivers exactly what's needed in the absurdity department with a hilarious, extended appearance from a certain washed up 80's TV star playing himself and a kidnapping subplot that's even funnier (and creepier) than was likely intended.

The best performance comes from MacFarlane, who provides the voice and movements for the bear. Hands down. He's the star. If anything, Wahlberg's noticeably too old for this role, even within the confines of someone who was cast precisely for that reason. At times it's off-putting, but at others it kind of makes the situation funnier because it's just so weird. But what's strangest is how inauthentic and forced his New England accent sounds considering the actor actually grew up just outside Boston. Did MacFarlane have him do that on purpose to get laughs or am I giving both too much credit? Mila Kunis isn't called upon to be much more than the sweet, perfect girlfriend and, as expected, she pulls it off with little difficulty, as Lori tolerates John's shenanigans only up to a point. While she can drop F-bombs and party with the best of them when necessary, her character's basically a saint, which works well for a story in which no one else is. That holds double for the two villains in the film, Lori's perverted boss Rex (played to slimy perfection by Joel McHale) and Giovanni Ribisi's bizarre stalker character, Donny, whose childhood memories of Ted make him determined to own the bear for his son. All the strange tics and line deliveries that infuse Ribisi's dramatic performances with all the subtly of a sledgehammer are suddenly a whole lot more enjoyable when we're finally given permission to laugh at them. So much so that when this insane story thread completely takes over in the third act I didn't mind it one bit. That, and anything involving Ted trying to survive since his celebrity dried up, are where the film's biggest laughs come from. Especially those involving his job at the grocery store.

While asking the audience to care about anything other than this bear was a tall order and I still wish a concept this excellent wasn't used to frame a familiar rom-com formula, yet it all mostly succeeds in spite of that. Ted also shares the same basic outline as every other guy-oriented comedy that's been released over the past few years, so it's probably a good thing we're not watching for insights or laughs about that. The movie is unfunniest when trying too hard with the bathroom humor, but at its absolute best when it's not even trying to be funny and allowing the premise play out with reckless abandon. It's the smaller, random throwaway stuff that work the best. But you can't help but wonder how great this could have been had MacFarlane dumped the more conventional approach and instead just let the material fly completely off the rails. Maybe he's saving that for the sequel. 

The Rum Diary

Director: Bruce Robinson
Starring: Johnny Depp, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Rispoli, Amber Heard, Richard Jenkins, Giovanni Ribisi
Running Time: 120 min.

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

What sticks out most in the mind after watching Bruce Robinson's run-of-the-mill adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's The Rum Diary is its insignificance. That would be fine if it were fun, but instead it plays as if a studio executive just got a memo that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas became a cult classic that needs to capitalized on as soon as Johnny Depp's available, but failed to take notes on what made that movie so crazy and special. This seems to want to be that crazy, and even comes close a few times, but a conventional, uninspired treatment of the material ties it down. And if there's anything a Thompson adaptation shouldn't be, it's conventional. But even taken on its own terms it doesn't quite work like it should, oddly mixing romance and adventure while managing to supply only a few laughs. There was definite potential for greatness and some moments really work, but not consistently enough to amount to a worthwhile experience. And that's a shame, because my expectations were reasonably high, if you can forgive the pun.

Depp plays unsuccessful novelist Paul Kemp who on a whim gets a job as a journalist with the struggling San Juan Star newspaper in Puerto Rico, edited by the grumpy, toupee wearing Lotterman (Richard Jenkins) who immediately resents his excessive drinking and partying. Soon after his arrival he befriends the paper's photographer, Sala (Michael Rispoli) as well as the perpetually stoned and drunk Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi), a freelance reporter who can't be fired. Kemp's exploits soon catches the eye of sleazy local real estate developer Hal Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), who offers him an ad writing job for his latest land venture. The only problem is Kemp's fascination with Sanderson's sexy, mysterious girlfriend Chenault (Amber Heard) who he was immediately taken by after a memorable ocean encounter at a party. Torn between business and pleasure, Kemp is warmly welcomed into Sanderson's fold initially, but his new friendship comes at a personal price.

There's little plot in the film but what plot there is still seems like too much. Nearly everything involving Sanderson's land deal plays as a half-hearted attempt to shoehorn all these eccentric characters into a cohesive narrative. They're all entertaining and it's easy to imagine a film where they'd all be let out of their cages to run wild instead of merely going through the motions of a partially developed romantic triangle and an awkward crusading newsmen sub-plot that takes center stage in the final act. By the end of the first hour, the story already seems to be running on fumes. That's there's still something addictive about all this is a credit to the talent of the actors involved and the fact that Robinson's mesmerizing evocation of 1960's Puerto Rico is absorbing enough to distract from the fact that the film barely connects on a dramatic or comedic level.

The biggest laughs come from the feud between Jenkins' old school editor and and Ribisi's druggie character. Always a strange type of talent who's tough to cast in anything, this might the first time Ribisi outright steals a movie from his co-stars with his unhinged craziness. His part has no aim or direction, but that's actually a relief compared to how restrained and ordinary everything else seems, especially the love triangle. While this is the most interesting Depp has been onscreen in a while, I just never got the relationship that was supposed to be developing between Paul and Chenault, probably because there just doesn't seem to be much of one. Or at least as strong of one as there should be to justify all the silly developments that occur. The risk-taking Amber Heard (who beat out her lookalike Scarlett Johansson for this part) continues to prove herself as the real deal in an underwritten role, with the movie feeling most alive when she's sharing the screen with Depp. Aaron Eckhart plays yet another expert sleazebag with duplicitous motives, reminding us that few do it better.

The movie's saving grace is Depp, who's always excelled most when not playing freaks, but somewhat normal people with off-kilter quirks. What's fun is how you can see more subdued, less cynical glimpses of Depp's Raoul Duke from Fear and Loathing taking shape in the performance. That Paul Kemp qualifies as a somewhat "normal" character for him these days is kind of scary. Unfortunately, these semi-human performances seem to only come around once a decade so even if the results are a lot less spectacular this time around, it's a relief to just see him in Thompson's universe again instead of mugging it in kabuki face paint for Tim Burton. I wish Depp would take more projects like this, only with slightly better results.  Emblematic of the movie's main problem is a single scene in which Kemp and Sala go on a hallucinogenic drug trip. It's so tame, so visually uninteresting you'd think they only took an extra teaspoon of cough medicine. The whole film needed to contain the reckless abandon of two key scenes heavily advertised in the trailers and commercials. One in a convertible on the road. The other in a nightclub. They carry the promise of what this should have been.

That The Rum Diary was written by Thompson in 1961 but didn't see publication until 1998 is ironic considering it's the same year the big screen adaptation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas undeservedly flopped in theaters before re-emerging later as a classic. One of those feels like a true adaptation while the other barely seems to have come from the same author's pen. Or typewriter. As much as I love good films about crazy writers, this one could have stood to have actually been more of a mess, truer in spirit to its source. So while I appreciated The Rum Diary for what it was, I was more disappointed in what it wasn't. The potential still exists to adapt it into a great movie. But as this attempt proves, that's far easier said than done.