"Wind River" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

“Wind River” is a 2017 mystery-thriller written and directed by Taylor Sheridan.   The film is set entirely on the Wind River Indian Reservation in remote Wyoming, and stars Jeremy Renner as Cory Lambert, a United States Fish and Wildlife Service agent whose primary job is hunting down harmful predators such as coyotes and mountain lions. On one of his tracking missions Lambert finds the dead body of a young Indian woman out on the frozen tundra, miles from any shelter and without shoes on.  Lambert immediately identifies signs of foul play, and also recognizes the girl as a resident of the reservation.  He also reports the discovery to Ben (Graham Greene) the wryly intuitive chief of tribal police.  To streamline the investigation, Ben contacts the FBI.

Subsequently, Agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) rolls into the reservation with little more than a windbreaker.  She chatters in the cold, explaining that she was the closest agent to Wind River having been stationed in Las Vegas.  After getting properly outfitted and scoping the evidence, Banner realizes she needs Lambert to help her solve the case, and she convinces him to help.  With Lambert onboard the rest of the film plays out clue-by-clue, which leads to surprisingly dark corners of the Wind River reservation and beyond.  The film is a directorial debut for Sheridan, but he has written the films “Sicario” and “Hell or High Water”.  Similar to those earlier films, “Wind River” has western roots and ultimately boils down to heroes, villains, and justice. However, as people who have seen his earlier written films will know, Sheridan’s neo-western style is anything but blatant when it comes to plot.  And with this outing he has swapped the more typical dusty landscapes of Texas and Mexico for the near-arctic conditions of central Wyoming. 

For a directorial debut, “Wind River” is impressive but not without a few glaring faults.  For example, more than a few scenes are dominated by a crippling need to display cowboy machismo.  As exemplified by his actions, Lambert is a grit-n-grind badass, yet many scenes have swaths of extra dialogue hammering that in.  Further on the point of dialogue, the film simply has too much.  Many scenes don’t need explanation yet the characters talk anyway. The visuals have the potency to drive the narrative, yet Sheridan insists on telling us everything anyway.  “Wind River” could learn a thing or two from the Coen Brothers’ masterpiece “No Country for Old Men”, which does an excellent job of showing rather than explaining. One of the first scenes in “No Country” sets up the premise by showing a hunter stumbling upon a suitcase full of drug money.  The sequence is near silent, save for the barren hum of the open plains.  “Wind River” also takes place out west, and Sheridan could easily replace redundant clue-discussion for the sound of icy Wyoming wind.  In the same fashion, “Wind River” has an overlong ending it mistakes for thoroughness.  After the thrilling climax of the film, there are multiple scenes wrapping up every loose end with even more talking. 

Save for the occasionally over-saturated scenes, “Wind River” is as exhilarating as its harsh backdrop.  The ample murder-mystery plotline is supplemented with a great performance by Renner, and an even more compelling one from Olsen.  Who knew?  Also, as far as pure thrill, “Wind River” pushes you to the edge of your seat more than a few times.  In one scene that jolts the senses, Banner is blasted with pepper spray before rushing into a junkie-infested trailer, near-blind. It reminded me a bit of the pulse-pounding culmination of “Silence of the Lambs” in which Agent Starling enters Buffalo Bill’s lair.

Taken as a whole, “Wind River” is a brisk addition to the late-summer movie round up.  The fact that it also bears an overarching message about living conditions on Indian reservations is a surprising, and research-worthy gesture.  As hard-hitting as the land it takes place on, “Wind River” is rock-solid viewing for folks who enjoy a thrilling murder-mystery with a subtle dash of Western attitude. 

"Detroit" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

“Detroit” is a period drama directed by Kathryn Bigelow about the 12th Street Riot that took place in the city of Detroit, Michigan in 1967.  While a slice of the movie is dedicated to showing what ignited the four-day riot, the main focus is on events that took place in the Algiers Motel on July 25th and 26th.  The background of what would become known as “The Algiers Motel Incident” was this: in the heat of the riot a group of white Detroit police officers breached the Algiers Motel on the suspicion that a sniper was inside.  Upon arriving, the officers gathered up the residents consisting of several young black men, along with two white women.  Ultimately, three of the black men were shot and killed in the hotel, while the survivors testified that they had been interrogated and tortured by the Detroit police officers.  While Bigelow acknowledges that much is unknown from what happened that night, she strings a tense narrative along certain facts, and statements made by those involved.

After a brief illustrated introduction explains the Great Migration and the growing civil unrest in Detroit, the opening live-action scenes of the film portray the event that sparked the riot.  A group of Detroit Police Officers storm a local speakeasy and proceed to force the partygoers outside into the street.  You can see the commanding officers get antsy as angry residents of the neighborhood crowd the area.  Soon after the police evacuate with their prisoners, the crowd breaks into a destructive riot. 

Once the chaos is spread city-wide, we are introduced to Philip Krauss (Will Poulter), a reckless and hateful police officer who guns down an unarmed looter in the street.  Krauss, along with some comparably evil cops soon descend on the Algiers Motel where they suspect sniper fire.  A good-hearted, but hesitant black security guard named Melvin Dismukes (John Boyega) goes along with them. Inside the Motel they find several young black men and two white women, all of whom we have been introduced to and know to be innocent.  However, Krauss and his men are determined to find a gun, and begin to harass their captives.  The story unfolds from there.

From start to finish, “Detroit” is very straightforward.  Poulter and Boyega are solid leads, and the tortured youth are strongly portrayed by Anthony Mackie, Algee Smith, Jacob Lattimore, Hannah Murray, Nathan Davis Jr., and Kaitlyn Dever.  After the incident, John Krasinski shows up as the slick lawyer to defend the cops in court.  Bigelow’s direction is consistent and assured, and in the scenes of rioting there is shocking and powerful imagery.  Yet, “Detroit” is not a pleasant viewing.  Many scenes make you churn inside with their brutality and intensity. 

However, the most powerful scene in “Detroit” does not take place inside the terror-ridden Algiers Motel, nor does it take place in the raging streets of Detroit.  Rather, it is staged in a quiet house where the father of a victim returns home early from work having received a call that his son may be dead.  The father, portrayed by Gbenga Akinnagbe, solemnly collects a stack of picture frames to bring to the morgue for body identification.  We know that his son is dead, and it seems that he does as well.  It is a moment in the film in which seconds feel like hours.  Such moments are rare in “Detroit”, which is dominated by nerve-rattling horror.  Someone leaving the theater mentioned that by the end of the ordeal at the Algiers, they felt numbed to all the violence.  Films should never have that effect if they desire to convey a message.

By the end of the film I think most people will feel some blend of frustrated, angry, and saddened. Some might just feel stunned.  But what comes after the film are grand questions.  From one viewpoint, “Detroit” visualizes how difficult it is to be good police.  The riot starts because of a harmless party, that was indeed serving alcohol without a liquor license.  That is illegal, and brings into question when and where cops draw the line.  Furthermore, the film made me question what it takes for an officer to perform his job in a racially charged atmosphere, whether that be Detroit in 1967 or Chicago in 2017.  As for the victims, it prompts the question, why did things like this happen? And why do they still happen today?  The answer is complex, steeped in history, and constantly in transformation.  I do not believe one film could ever adequately address the racial problems in America.  However, a filmmaker like Bigelow could at least try to, or perhaps address one single angle of such a looming issue.  “Detroit” does not do either, and this failure acts to wrap the film in a neat little time capsule. Granted, the product is disturbing and effective.  Nonetheless, “Detroit” does little more than deal a matter-of-fact kind of gut-punch that leaves you sore for explanation.

"The Big Sick" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

“The Big Sick” is a romantic-comedy set in Chicago about a stand-up comedian named Kumail (Kumail Nanjiani) who falls in love with an aspiring psychiatrist named Emily (Zoe Kazan).  Kumail comes from a  Pakastani Muslim family that fervently clings to certain traditions such as daily prayer and arranged marriage.  Emily is the daughter of an odd couple comprised of a coarse East Carolina woman named Beth (Holly Hunter) and a deadpan Brooklyn native named Terry (Ray Romano).  The movie starts off like any other rom-com with a zippy introduction that brings Kumail and Emily together as boyfriend and girlfriend.  However, the relationship is fractured when Emily discovers that Kumail cannot commit to her because of his family’s insistence that he marry a Pakastani woman.  They break up, and almost immediately afterwards Emily falls extremely ill and winds up at the hospital. 

For one reason or another, Kumail is the first person to arrive at the hospital where the doctors tell him that Emily needs to be put into a medically induced coma for the safety of her vital organs.  Soon after, Beth and Terry arrive at the hospital where they begrudgingly interact with Kumail.  Beth is especially caustic toward her daughter’s ex-boyfriend.  However, Kumail refuses to abandon the situation and spends the next several days visiting the hospital right alongside Beth and Terry.  “The Big Sick” focuses mainly on their developing relationship.

Purely as a rom-com, “The Big Sick” isn’t noteworthy.  First, the “romance” between Kumail and Emily barely gets going before they break up and she gets sick.  Although I won’t reveal what happens to Emily, the denouement is skimpy on grand gestures.  On the comedy side, there is an absence of laugh-out-loud moments in the film, which seems criminal regarding Kumail’s profession as a stand-up comedian.  Adding intrigue to “The Big Sick’s” lackluster performance as a rom-com is the fact that it was produced by Judd Apatow. Over his career Apatow has directed and/or produced titles such as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”, “Knocked Up”, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Trainwreck” just to name a few.  If anyone knows how to crank out a hilarious, yet subtly touching rom-com it would be Apatow.

It would seem that failing to impress its genre would doom “The Big Sick”.  Yet, it doesn’t. Where “The Big Sick” transcends its tepid rom-com roots is through a finely tuned cast and an authentic approach to age-old, universal conflicts.  While Kumail Nanjiani and Zoe Kazan are both charming in their respective roles, the real stars of the film are the parents.  Holly Hunter and Ray Romano bring a startling intensity to the movie from their very first scene.  As we discover later on, Beth and Terry have relationship struggles of their own, and looking back on the film you can detect that tension before we get to know them as characters.  Although slightly less utilized, Anupam Kher and Zenobia Shroff are equally as effective portraying Kumail’s parents.  There are a number of masterfully awkward, squirm-worthy scenes in which Mrs. Nanjiani invites eager young Pakistani women into family dinners to meet Kumail.  “Look who just decided dropped in,” she’ll say when escorting the beautiful young women to a seat next to the unenthusiastic Kumail at the dinner table.

With such focused performances, “The Big Sick” delivers a number poignant moments between characters that cut right to the heart of complex arguments.  For example, in one scene Kumail and his parents have a quarrel about his detestation of arranged marriage.  When Kumail takes his stand, his parents respond by making the point that they forfeited a comfortable life in Pakistan to move to the United States.  Furthermore, they allowed their son to pursue his dream as a stand-up comedian rather than pursuing a steadier career.  With so much sacrifice the least Kumail could do would be to marry a Pakistani girl, right?  In this scene you feel the weight behind each argument, and it pulls you apart.  This scene is just one of many that have a paralyzing effect the viewer because of their honesty and passion. 

Ultimately, I didn’t walk out of “The Big Sick” feeling uplifted or heart warmed.  Rather, I felt shaken by the authenticity of many individual scenes. Even though I have next to nothing in common with any of the characters, I resonated with their problems in pieces of my own life.  As is revealed in the credits, “The Big Sick” is based on Kumail Namjiani’s real-life story.  Perhaps such an impressive level of clarity on such intricate struggles requires fact-based inspiration.