'Weiner' a portrait of a politician made for these times

Anthony Weiner on the campaign trail. Image courtesy IFC Films.

There's a stretch during the excellent documentary Weiner in which everything in the world is going right for eponymous former congressman Anthony Weiner. It’s highlighted with the politician sitting in a subway, getting nods of approval from New Yorkers reading articles proclaiming his pole position in the race to be New York City's next mayor. The train ride comes months after his first fall from office, and it's clear he's enjoying the serenity and validation from his potential constituents. In his own way, Anthony Weiner has very much earned this one moment in the sun. At least until the bottom drops out, because Anthony Weiner is constructed to self-destruct. He's a fascinating man, the rare loser who needs to win to add more height for his inevitable, self-inflicted falls from grace.

Weiner starts off as a comeback tale, devoting its first act to Anthony Weiner’s attempts at a political resurrection in 2013, two years after resigning from Congress in shame from a sexting scandal. Anthony Weiner’s a dreamer, following what for all intents and purposes is a quixotic quest to win New York’s mayoral race, despite his recent woes. And yet there he is, drawing the rabid support of crowds and getting audiences to boo candidates who crack jokes about his indiscretions. He's feisty, cocky and electrifying, especially when compared with the less than thrilling Bill de Blasio. Scenes in which Anthony Weiner dances during parades or talks back to rather condescending foes offers a glimpse as to why voters fell in love with him in the first place. Even at his worst, it’s clear he cares deeply for his constituents, his passion guided by good intentions.

Weiner posits its central figure as a man of his time, for better or for worse. His speeches in Congress, and the ones on the campaign trail, are short and fiery enough to draw viewers, as is his scrappiness and the stereotypical New Yorker persona that makes him oddly charming. The film outlines clearly why his star shone so bright in the first place. The man even married into American political royalty when he wed Huma Abedin; Hillary Clinton has essentially described her as a second daughter. That Anthony Weiner is able to earn an attempt at a second chance, and even spend a few glorious moments in the lead.

Anthony Weiner is a modern candidate in the worst ways too. His first fall started with an accidental Twitter posting he did not intend to go public, which spiraled into a much larger scandal. People are often capable of some forgiveness for one mistake, especially if the person shows at least a modicum of remorse as Anthony Weiner does on the campaign trail. But when the person makes the same mistake again, exposed via a tabloid website by a 23-year-old woman named Sydney Leathers, forgiveness takes a back seat to moral indignation and a flurry of tweets and mediocre comedic material courtesy Bill Maher.

Weiner elides over the candidate’s handling of the first scandal aside from a few denials and his resignation. Perhaps it wasn’t as interesting as what happened the second time, when Anthony Weiner couldn’t keep track of the occurrences and completely lost any contact with composure during a meltdown with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. The interview itself is a train wreck; that Anthony Weiner rewatches the train skid off the rails the morning after is painful and weirdly right. The description fits the tone of the film’s final two acts, whether it’s watching the candidate get into a yelling fest with a bigoted voter or, worst of all, the clear strain the situation is taking on his marriage with Huma Abedin. Directors Josh Kriegman, a former aide to Anthony Weiner, and Elyse Steinberg make it clear she’s hurting too, especially when she has to fend off attacks from media members speculating why she’d remain married to him, then criticizing her for their speculation.

Everything is almost too perfect to create a situation like the one belonging to Anthony Weiner. A man who can’t control his impulses (sexual or anger) cheating on his wife through texts, Twitter and Facebook, with a name that is at the root of the scandal in the first place makes him the perfect candidate for this level of failure. The danger though is when those scandals block out the wishes of the people, who are depicted in Weiner flailing for attention and asking the press to care about their needs, what they want from candidates. All they want is to hear his proposals, yet their voices are drowned by camera clicks and inane questions about a man’s idiocy. That’s the saddest thing about Weiner; the man could have done a lot of good, but he couldn’t get out of his own way to do it.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 96 minute

Genre: Documentary

 

Ask Away

Target audience: Political junkies and people interested in documentaries.

Take the whole family?: It wouldn't be that interesting to kids anyway, but this does not deserve an “R” rating.

Theater or Netflix?: It’s worth seeing at the cinema if you can.

Is Sydney Leathers a villain?: For a story in which the central figure commits career defenestration, there remains a bit of loathing toward Leathers, who’s given the code name pineapple. It boils over during her attempt to meet Weiner on election night is shown as a callous act from a person desperate for fame. The film does emphasize the fault lies with Anthony Weiner, but she doesn’t exactly come across as all that heroic. Funny enough, Leathers doesn't see herself cast in that role; rather, she (wrongly) believes Huma Abedin comes off worse, at least according to an underwhelming New York Magazine article.

Watch this as well?: Errol Morris' “The Fog of War” also offers an in depth look into a complicated man, in this case it's former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Also worth flagging down are a pair of documentaries by Barbara Kopple focused on people in the midst of chaos: “Harlan County U. S. A.” and “American Dream."

'Nice Guys' in name only

Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe star in "The Nice Guys." Image courtesy Warner Bros.

The cruelest part of “The Nice Guys” is, after almost two hours of blood, sex and death, all of the chaos on screen never actually means anything. It's director/co-writer Shane Black's greatest joke in a film loaded with great gallows humor and pain, that the borderline heroics of two schlubs in well over their heads results in no change to the world around them. Their success leads directly to failure and the loss of several lives of varying levels of innocence along the way.

It's a fitting coda to a story based in 1970s Los Angeles yet rooted in detective stories like “The Big Sleep,” in which the plot is as logical as an 8 year old's Hot Wheels track. Nothing is quite as it seems from the get go, starting with the chosen career paths of bruiser Jackson Healy (a very bulky Russell Crowe) and private eye Holland March (Ryan Gosling). The former, who proclaims himself to be something of a vagabond searching for meaning in life, has the fists of a fighter but the nose of a gumshoe, while the latter is an alcoholic loser whose source of income entails taking money from elderly women for easily solvable cases. What kind of shenanigans can ensue when these two wacky characters meet for the first time? Technically the first encounter entails a broken arm granted to Gosling's Holland by Crowe's Healy, but the second meeting serves as the start of a very dangerous business relationship complete with goons (Keith David, Matt Bomer and Beau Knapp), a steely government official (Kim Basinger) and her assistant (Yaya DaCosta), and a mysterious girl named Amelia (Margaret Qualley) at the center of all the mayhem.

It's a very old school approach to a film that very much lives in its setting, coupling the grittiness of the streets with the rise of porn as a legitimate force in the entertainment industry and the slowly but surely declining Detroit automakers. The combination results in a pitch perfect milieu for a good detective film, with the dirt and flash representing the conflict between the lifestyles lived by the investigators and the people they're involved with. “The Nice Guys” doesn't view those as mirror images; instead, they're effectively depicted as forces drawing money in theoretically sinful fashions. In Black's view, it's the porn industry that's noble, or at least the career with the potential to change the world, sharing the spirit for betterment possessed by the film’s twenty somethings. It's that sense of trying to do something that leads Holland and Jackson to enter themselves into the arrangement in the first place. Crowe's Jackson aspires to recapture the feeling he had when he broke up a robbery a few months prior; Gosling's Holland wants some semblance of happiness and to show his daughter Holly (Angourie Rice) he is at least moderately competent at his job.

But good intentions can lead to hellish places, especially with characters like these two who lack the qualifications to make their dreams come true. Jackson's moment in the sun is tainted, unwittingly to him, by an epic bout of vengeance he wrought, whilst Holland is too drunk and too much of a loser to follow his ambitions on his own accord. They might be the titular nice guys, but the title itself is something of a joke too; a label like “nice guy” means very little when its ascribed to people like Holland and Jackson. That's why the heart and soul of “The Nice Guys” belongs to Rice's Holly, who serves as the Penny to the Holland/Jackson Inspector Gadget. She's often the smartest person in the room, a very courageous character who fights with her wits and with a little luck on her side. Neither Jackson nor Holland could fulfill their spiritual quests without her presence; they advance somewhat as people because she's around to take care of them. The concept is a little reductive considering how often such roles are filled by women, yet it is effective in large part because of Rice's performance.

Then again, none of this is shown to matter at the end. Whatever personal improvements the eponymous nice guys make is curbed by a world actively acting against their best intentions. It's a cosmic joke, darker than the rest of the black comedy Black puts on display in the movie. Yet it is necessary though to serve as an exclamation mark for Black's ultimate point with “The Nice Guys”; one's advancement in life is never enough to change the world.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 116 minutes

Genre: Action Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: Audiences down for some retro action and watching a burly Russell Crowe punch people.

Take the whole family?: It has the right mixture of violence, nudity and inappropriate language to deserve the “R” rating.

Theater or Netflix?: It's good enough to merit an excursion, but not vital to see on a big screen.

Do Crowe and Ryan Gosling work as comedic actors?: For two guys without extensive backgrounds in comedic acting, they do pretty well for themselves. Crowe works within his limitations for the most part – effectively punching and acting a little slow and very gruff – but Gosling exhibits a penchant for pulling off a pretty good pratfall.

Watch this as well?: Shane Black dipped into a similar detective story/blend of dark humor with his directorial debut “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.” Along with Black's material are two films by acclaimed writer/director Martin McDonagh that are dark, violent and very often hilarious: “In Bruges” and “Seven Psychopaths.”

Back to school

Carla Gallo, Ike Barinholtz, Zac Efron, Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne in "Neighbors 2." Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

“Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising” is a better film than it has any right to be. It sounds like a backhanded compliment, but the phrase is a legitimate form of flattery for a film that has a number of factors going against it. This is, after all, a sequel to a film that earns the same compliment, a follow up without any real purpose to exist story wise, featuring what appears to be a recycled plot, and starring Zac Efron fresh off the horrendous “Dirty Grandpa” and few other less than encouraging projects. The fact that the first one was popular enough to warrant a sequel is impressive enough; that the sequel is more interesting and often funnier than its predecessor is almost unbelievable.

Picking up about two years after the events from the first one – old enough for the central couple's daughter Stella to talk – “Neighbors 2” returns Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne as harried couple Mac and Kelly Radner, who are in the midst of selling their home to move to the suburbs and are expecting child No. 2. All they have to do is wait 30 days for the home to clear escrow before they can pack up and head to their new home; otherwise they're on the hook for two houses they can’t afford. But, of course, fate intervenes in the form of three freshman coeds (Chloë Grace Moretz, Kiersey Clemons and Beanie Feldstein) intent on starting a sorority. Guided and spurred on by old Radner foe Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron), the girls establish their new home across the way from the Radner house, starting a war between the students and the family, who are joined by accomplices Jimmy (Ike Barinholtz) and Paula (Carla Gallo). Shenanigans involving airbags, pranks, pot, bikinis, sexual aids, and sanitary products ensue.

Much of that description sounds awfully familiar to the first “Neighbors,” especially the escalating prank war and the battle between the young and the (comparatively) old. And “Neighbors 2” does on occasion lift a few things from its predecessor, most notably the resurrection of the airbag jokes and a love for some really cheap special effects (theoretically making the action more comical, but not in practice). What sets it apart though is a major shift in tone from the frat bros in the first film to the sorority sisters in the making for this one, a layer of sweetness and gentleness the original mostly eschewed in favor of  bitterness and edge. The change isn't rooted on the shift in gender of the participants – the film goes out of its way to depict the women as far more cutthroat in their pranks than Efron's old crew – but from a change in sympathies for the combatants. There remains a level of understanding for why the Radners engage in a conflict with the women across the street; they're a normal enough (albeit not very bright) couple with one child to raise and a second on the way seeking to build their family.

Yet the multitude of filmmakers – director Nicolas Stoller and an armada of screenwriters including Rogen – reserve a lot of sympathy for the girls too. All they seek is a place to call their own away from the negative influences of the fraternity parties and the dangers that lurk within those houses. They see a system that keeps them down and strips them of their agency as women; wanting to maintain their safety and encourage camaraderie is a noble and worthwhile thing to do. “Neighbors 2” asks for, and earns, endearment for the neophyte sorority sisters, as well as for Efron's Teddy, whose purpose remains unfulfilled as his friends advance into adulthood. Mentoring the sorority offers some direction within an area he has some expertise with. Teddy is, at heart, a decent enough guy, as shown in an engagement scene between his best friend Pete (Dave Franco) and Pete's boyfriend. He's just a dude who could use a break and something to look forward to.

What happens to Teddy at the end is very sweet, as is the resolution for the Radner clan and for the sorority sisters. It’s a milder conclusion than the one offered in “Neighbors,” but it's really the most logical and fairest way for things to end for all parties involved. Everyone grows up a little bit, and the touch of adulthood tones down “Neighbors 2's” general vulgarity and lewdness. There's no bitter aftertaste with this film; it may just be one of the gentlest films to have a running subplot featuring a vibrator.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 92 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: People who enjoyed the first one along with fans of Seth Rogen, Zac Efron and Rose Byrne.

Take the whole family?: A whole lot of cursing and drug use in this make it a little inappropriate for kids.

Theater or Netflix?: Not a problem to see it in theaters, but not exactly vital either. Matinee it if need be.

Is Efron redeemable?: He can be a likable enough lead actor depending on whose working on the project with him. Play him off a slumming Robert De Niro and its a disaster, but give actors like Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne to do the heavy comedic lifting and his charm and handsomeness can shine through. He does exceptional work as Teddy, and hopefully that carries over in future projects.

Watch this as well?: The original “Neighbors” is entertaining and more often than not quite funny. The casting of Kiersey Clemons in this one though is enough to backdoor a recommendation for “Dope,” which is very messy but interesting and sometimes hilarious.

Heroes fight heroes in aptly titled 'Civil War'

Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. star in "Captain America: Civil War". Image courtesy Disney.

In most other years I’d be much more elated to see “Captain America: Civil War.” It’s mostly what I want from a superhero film, a smart film with well-done action sequences and one of the most fascinating villains the Marvel franchise has produced. Timing is part of the film’s issue, with the spate of comic book flicks wearing me out as a viewer, and the film does possess some of the issues afflicted “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and especially “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” That “Civil War” remains an entertaining, exciting flick despite those problems is a testament to the filmmakers’ talents and to the performances of Chris Evans as the eponymous hero and Daniel Brühl as the villain Zemo.

Offering too much of the plot in this case

At the heart of “Civil War” is the question of what the world should do with beings of enormous strength and talents who traipse around the world doing as they please. The solution in the film is to rein in the heroes with a third party, in this case the United Nations, providing oversight and control to these beings when they fight aliens, gods and insane robots. It’s a solution that splits the Avengers, with one camp led by a perpetually guilt-ridden Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) in favor of some control over them: he’s joined by War Machine (Don Cheadle), Vision (Paul Bettany), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland). Evans’ liberty loving Captain America opposes the concept and is wary of government agendas: he has Black Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) in agreement. Conflict between the camps arises after Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) is accused of bombing a United Nations meeting, pitting Captain America’s old friend against Iron Man’s crew and a vengeful Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman). Is everything as black and white as it seems though? And what, exactly, is Zemo up to on the periphery of the heroes’ internal struggle?

My main regret with the otherwise very good “Civil War” is the diminished presence of the eponymous hero. Evans has grown into the role beautifully since his first outing, establishing why he is the leader of a band of loners featuring a god, a rage-fueled beast, and a lovable alcoholic narcissist. Yet the almost two-and-a-half hour run time features almost as much Tony Stark – a character with three films to himself – as it does Steve Rogers, and there is much more to mine from the character. Perhaps rerouting Stark's visit to Queens to meet Spider-Man (a line or two of dialogue would have covered it) into Rogers' story would have helped. As it is, “Civil War” is a better “Avengers” film than a feature on Captain America, and I’d still like to see another entry devoted to Evans’ Steve Rogers.

It's a symptom of a larger problem with these superhero films, the need to incorporate as many characters as possible to build to the end game. A film purportedly about Captain America spends a sizable amount of time introducing characters like Spider-Man and Black Panther – both of whom have their own movies scheduled for release in 2017 and 2018, respectively – while balancing screen time for established characters like Black Widow (who still does not have her own film), Scarlet Witch, Ant-Man, Black Falcon, Bucky Barnes, Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp), Vision, Hawkeye, War Machine, Iron Man and Cap himself. The villain also must receive a modicum of attention to keep the plot moving, although not quite enough to make him as vital as he should be (Brühl can only do so much with so little time). “Civil War” is a hefty film, but it isn't long enough to offer adequate time for all these characters and the regular plot machinations without some trimming, leaving Brühl's Zemo and Hawkeye a little left out and cutting down the quality time spent with Cap and Black Widow – a the high point of “Winter Soldier.”

“Civil War” nearly pulls it all off though thanks to some terrific writing and the directing talents of Anthony and Joe Russo, who know how to stage a good, satisfying fight scene between super powered protagonists and keep the film going with ease. Even with so much time diverted to the plethora of characters the filmmakers always focus on telling a complete story with depth and nuance and one heck of a twist at the end. And Brühl's Zemo makes for a compelling, quiet villain who succeeds without the aid of super powers or impossible technology. He's cunning and ruthless and daring, yet oddly sympathetic because he fights such powerful figures without powers or even henchmen to throw at them. It’s a nice change of pace from the textbook big bads in the other Marvel properties.

“Civil War” is a victory for comic book fans and the millions of people who will flock to theaters this weekend to see it. The film is on the upper end of what the genre has to offer, offering a good balance of smarts and brawn while effectively setting up the massive two-parter three years down the line. It's still admittedly a slight step down from “Winter Soldier” – arguably the best of the recent Marvel films – but “Civil War” is still a damn good superhero movie.

Review: Four and a quarter out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 146 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Pretty much anyone willing to pay money to see Marvel superheroes fight.

Take the whole family?: There is a fair amount of violence in this, so perhaps keep kids younger than 10 at home.

Theater or Netflix?: Definitely good enough for a theater trip. It's also much more fun with an audience.

Why can't DC do films like this?: Some of it is on Marvel/Disney, who are smart enough to build up to its main selling point instead of tossing two vital characters fight on the first shot. “Civil War” is a logical progression of the relationship between Captain American and Iron Man, with a modicum of third-party puppetry thrown in; “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” features two idiots too dumb to talk to each other and avoid their battle royale.

Watch this as well?: The first two “Captain America” films are among the best to come out in Marvel's recent spate of releases, while the first “Avengers” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” are a lot of fun as well. Feel free to skip “Howard the Duck” though.