All is not well with ‘A Cure for Wellness’

BY ROGER THOMAS

     The title of the film, “A Cure for Wellness,” is very creative. It also succeeds in explaining some of the events of the film.  The story and screenplay were written by Justin Haythe and the film’s director Gore Verbinski. So they deserve the credit for a fine title.

     There are other attributes in this film that should be praised. The three leads offer fine performances. Dane DeHaan plays Lockhart, a young rising star in the corporate world. He is sent to find the CEO of the cooperation who is recuperating at a spa in Switzerland. Jason Isaacs plays Volmer, the director of the spa. Mia Goth plays a strange girl named Hannah who catches Lockhart’s attention once he arrives at the spa.

     Beyond the performances of the three main characters, there are other strengths. I feel like I write too often that a film looks good. These days, most of them do look extraordinary. “Cure of Wellness” is above most visually. The exterior of the spa, the various interior rooms, the trip to the spa, and others are perfectly set. The film deserves an “A” for “Set Decoration.”

     There are also some cinematography shots that are simply impressive. Surely some of these involve more than just camera work but also visual effects.  The two scenes that most comes to my mind is that shot of a deer struggling to cross a road and amazing shot of a train entering a tunnel. Those to shots linger with me as I think of the film as a whole.

     Then there is the climax. When finally all things become clear, the ending of the film almost redeems all that went before. If only the whole had been as surprising as those powerful few minutes, I would have totally embraced “The Cure.”

     However, all of the film is not equal. First, it runs far too long. At two hours and twenty-six minutes, one gets very tired of moments that seem to have already happened once, twice or three times. There should have been a editor somewhere saying, “This needs to be cut.”

     One perfect example of this is the scene when Lockhart and Hannah go down to the town below the mountain top spa where they reside. That whole scene does nothing to enhance the overall story and there is more discovery at the spa which is more interesting than a tavern where nothing significant happens.

     Then there is the problem of the treatments. There are a lot of varieties of these. There are also questions about whether the treatments are real or dreams of the patients. Almost none of these treatments are as interesting as the early scenes of the film or the climax. Basically, there is about seventy-five minutes that are redundant and disappointing.

     However, that is not the biggest problem of the film. The trailer for “The Cure for Wellness” is strange and creepy with hints of terror.  When something scares me in the theatre, and I am often scared, chill bumps run up my leg. I do not know if anyone else has this sensation, but I do. It never happened in this film. Judging from the trailer, I expected many chills. At nearly two and half hours, there should have been something that physically scared me at least once every fifteen minutes. That would mean nine or ten good scares. There were none. The subject matter had produced no frights for me or anyone else in the theatre as far as I could tell.

     My teenage son, who loves scary movies, almost went to “The Cure for Wellness” with me. When I came home the first question he asked, “Was it scary?” And I had to say, “No. You would have been disappointed. It was weird and bizarre but no real scares.”

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘A United Kingdom’ a wonderful beginning to new year of great original films

BY ROGER THOMAS

     One does not always know what to expect when the lights dim. Most have some idea of what they are going to see. They have seen a trailer or at least the poster. Or maybe a friend has recommended it. Then there are those who read reviews, and discover a possible gem that might have been missed. 

     Even though I write the previously mentioned reviews, I find myself often being pleasantly surprised. Last spring brought two films that quite simply wowed me: “Eye in the Sky” and “The Man Who Knew Infinity.” Both of these films came out a little later, but that both impressed me just as a recent new film has this year. The first movie to truly catch my attention in a very positive way is “A United Kingdom.”

     “United Kingdom” begins with a love story. A young African is studying in England and meets a British girl. The two enjoy their time whenever they can be together. After some time passes in their relationship, the man, Seretse, confides to his girlfriend Ruth, that he is in line to be the King of what would become the nation of Botswana. Seretse wants Ruth to be his wife and his nation’s queen. Of course, there are many persons in both Africa and England who do not want to see these two together.

     I had never heard this story. Therefore, throughout the film there were twists and turns that I could not have predicted. The film is a love story, a political story, a human story, all rolled into one. It would be hard for me to imagine the film knowing more than I did. The film might possibly play completely different for those who know the story. However, for me, the revelations that came one after another kept my attention throughout.

     Like “Loving” and “Hidden Figures” from this past year, “Kingdom” offers at true story filled with racism. There will never be enough films to stop all prejudice. But perhaps, good stories, told well, especially those that reflect the truths of hate, will plant seeds in future generations so that the problem will become smaller and smaller as hearts are opened. “United Kingdom” is about many things, but one of the most prominent themes is “matters of the heart.”

     David Oyelowo and Rosemund Pike play the two leads. One or both of them is in almost every scene and they offer some very powerful moments when they are together and when they are forced apart. The film would have been less without their shining performances.

     There are also some nice cinematography of Africa. I have never been to Botswana, but I have traveled to Kenya and some of the shots brought back memories for me.

     Ultimately though, this is not a film about scenery or even marital drama, though Seretse and Ruth face many challenges to their relationship. The story is ulitmately about facing challenges for the good of others. As always, I do not know how close to reality the film is. What I saw on screen, that story, is remarkable. 

     This would seem like a bold statement, but it is not. After all, we are only two months into the new year. Many things will change over the next ten months or so. However, I can state with no hestitation, “A United Kingdom” is the best film I have seen this year that is officially a film of 2017. I hope dearly that there are many more films that will at least equal if not surpass “Kingdom.” As for now, I will hold fast to that positive feeling I experienced as I watched and was moved by a truly special film, “A United Kingdom.”

Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

Predictions of the 2017 Oscars

TV Week slide scan / Oscar statue 2 — Library Tag 03242002 Arts & Entertainment — Library Tag 03062004 Living 07oscars

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I have said it before and I will say it again, predicting the Oscars is like throwing darts blindfolded. You might get lucky and hit the bullseye, but more likely, you will miss the entire target. I certainly did not predict “Spotlight” was going to win “Best Picture” last year; I went for “The Big Short.” If I had predicted “Spotlight” I would have assumed the it would win several other Oscars with it. “Spotlight” ended up with two wins: Screenplay and Best Picture.

     They year before, I was sure that the creative masterpiece “Boyhood” was going to be Best Picture. “Birdman” won. 

     We have to go back to 2014 ceremony for me to predict the big prize accurately.  “12 Years a Slave” won that year.  One would have to go all the way back to the ceremony of 2006 to find the next film I failed to predict for Hollywood’s Big Prize. That was “Crash,” It was the film I wanted to win but I did not think they had a chance.

     I write all this before I reveal my predictions to say simply this. I have seen most of the 62 films nominated for one or more Oscars.  Of those films I have seen 49 of them. Does that help me predicting? No, because who knows what the Academy is thinking. I think they like “La La Land” but do they love it enough. I think they can’t ignore Casey Affleck’s performance in “Manchester by the Sea” but the Academy may give Denzel Washington his third Oscar this weekend. You get my point. Predicting is a game; a game I like to play each year. So here we go…

Best Sound Mixing- “La La Land” 

Best Sound Editing- “La La Land”

Best Live Action Short- “Sing”

Best Animated Short- “Piper”

Best Production Design- “La La Land”

Best Original Score- “La La Land”

Best Original Song- “City of Stars” from “La La Land”

Best Makeup and Hairstyling- “Star Trek Beyond”

Best Original Screenplay- “Manchester by the Sea”

Best Adapted Screenplay- “Moonlight”

Best Visual Effects- “The Jungle Book”

Best Foreign Language Film- “The Salesman”

Best Editing- “La La Land”

Best Documentary Short- “Joe’s Violin”

Best Documentary Feature- “O. J.: Made in America”

Best Costume- “La La Land”

Best Cinematography- “La La Land”

Best Animated Feature Film- “Zootopia”

Best Supporting Actress- Viola Davis- “Fences”

Best Supporting Actor- Mahershala Ali- “Moonlight”

Best Actress- Emma Stone- “La La Land” 

Best Actor- Casey Affleck- “Manchester by the Sea”

Best Director- Damien Chazelle- “La La Land”

Best Picture- “La La Land” 

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘The Lego Batman Movie’ has moments but does it ever soar like the first Lego film?

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I am a fan of the original: “The Lego Movie.” How could I not be a fan? I grew up playing with Legos back when you just got a box of bricks and your imagination told you what they could become. I have also put together several of the modern sets that make something specific. My children gave me the “Cinema” set which was a challenge but also a great gift. It brought back many memories of my brother and I creating  things back in the sixties and seventies.

     Because of all that experience and fond memories, I found the original film, “The Lego Movie” to be very charming. I loved all the characters and I liked the “plot twist” which was extremely creative. I have not watched the first “Lego” film since I saw it in the theatre in 2014 but maybe I will revisit it to see if it still stands strong.

     The same group who did the “Lego Movie” had another production this past year, “Storks.” I do not believe I wrote a review of “Storks” but allow me to state here, I found it to be somewhat less than the first “Lego Movie.” I had hoped those “Storks” would have soared higher, but it just did not turn out that way. 

     Now we have a new film which happens to be a “Lego” sequel of sorts: “The Lego Batman Movie.”

     First, there is no denying that this film captures the color and energy of the first “Lego” film. What a spectrum of brilliant shades. I found myself gazing at the colors in the backgrounds rather than the characters in the foreground because the film artists have created a wonderful tapestry.

      I also enjoyed the characters. I cannot recall which characters are new in this film and how many were in the first film, but there are a lot of fun moments as characters such as Voldemort, King Kong, Sauron, and the typical villains of the Batman series: Joker, Riddler, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, and Scarecrow interact with the Caped Crusader.  Some of the other superstars from DC comics also appear: Superman, Flash, and Green Lantern. This film also offered an origin story for Robin, Batman’s ward and ultimately his partner in crime fighting.

     The one thing I liked most, probably slipped right past for a lot of the audience members because it was very quick and short. I appreciated the quick references to the Batmen who have gone before. Yes, this “animated block hero” is something unique, but so were all the ones from past generations. I still have very fond memories of watching Adam West’s version of the Caped Crusader. I especially enjoyed the cliffhangers and all the different ways Robin could us the word “Holy.” Thanks to filmmakers of “Lego Batman” for bringing back fond memories.

     In the end, I think “The Lego Batman Movie” is much stronger and more humorous than last year’s “Storks.” But it falls somewhere below the original “Lego Movie.” Perhaps my opinion is based on expectations. With the “Lego Movie” I expected less and got more. With “Storks” I really did not expect much and found my prediction was accurate. “Lego Batman” could have stumbled as “Storks” did or soared like the “Lego Movie.” In my mind, it did a little of both. “Batman” soared often and likewise stumbled as well. But that’s ok. 

     My guess is that the target audience for “Lego Batman” will find it great for some of the reasons I listed and several more.  

     As for me, if the filmmakers do a third “Lego” movie, I will more than likely be there to see it. After all, it could be as good as the first “Lego” film. However, if they do another “Stork” film, I will probably skip that one.

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘John Wick: Chapter Two’ – How many chapters are there going to be?

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I had to go back to my review of the original 2014 film, “John Wick”, so I could remind myself what I thought of the first violent chapter of a story about a man who is a  killing machine. My opening statement about the first film was this: “Like the character whose name appears in the title, John Wick, the film, is very good at what it does.” I meant that two and half years ago, but as I ponder the new film, I am much less satisfied. 

     I guess a little bit of John Wick goes a long way. Wick, played again by Keanu Reeves, is still very successful at killing others; I just did not find it as interesting as it was in the  preceding tale. 

     This second chapter picks up basically right were the first film ended. Wick goes to retrieve his car. In the process he starts a battle with another ruthless individual who destroys something that belongs to Wick. Thus starting a new feud.

     From that point the rest of the film is about revenge. Actually the entire film is about that subject.  

     The film is not completely flawed. There are many moments that are amusing. Likewise there are certain events or actions which caused others in the theatre to cheer enthusiastically. I never did, but I understand their enthusiasm. In fact one row behind me seemed to be filled with Wick’s fan club. They definitely liked the film more than me. 

     I also liked the dog very much, He is my favorite character. Another welcome character was played by Ian McShane; I have been a fan of his since HBO’s “Deadwood.”

      A lot of the settings, especially in Europe are beautiful. I liked John’s home too. There were bars and lobbies, subways and museums all of which hosted pivotal scenes. Overall, the production design is the best element in the entire film.  

     There are also a few creative ways to take a life; but most of the killings are bullets in the head. This becomes tiresome. I found myself thinking, “How many shots does one have to fire before someone connected to law enforcement comes to the scene of the violence?” In the world of John Wick, law enforcement is not coming and not getting involved. A friend of mine offered a reason for the lack of police involvement, but I did not embrace his reasoning.

     Another quote from my review of the first John Wick film states this fact, “Ultimately, John Wick, the character, does not exist in the real world.  In the film he has more in common with a superhero than an actual assassin in any reality.  There are too many fights, too many chances for him to have fallen, not to mention the bruises and wounds he entails.” I kept thinking that over and over again. There is a mention of a special defense for his body when he meets with his tailor, but that only raises the question, “Why does someone not just shoot him in the head?”

     Once again, I am not the target audience for this film. At my age I would rather see James Bond kill with less blood and a much smaller body count. In fact, during “John Wick: Chapter 2” I was thinking, “When is the next Bond film arriving in theaters?” When one is watching one film and thinking about another, that is not usually a positive sign. 

     In the closing paragraph of my review of the first “John Wick” film I wrote these words: “There is little depth to the story. No lines of dialogue that are quotable or inspired…  But while I watched the film, I am pretty sure I was smiling.”

     This time I hardly smiled at all.

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘The Space Between Us’- Going to Mars is great; coming to earth, not so much

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I went into “The Space Between Us” with high hopes. The trailer is certainly appealing. The scenes on Mars are reminiscent of “The Martian,” but there can be more than one good movie set on Mars. As a matter of fact, the early scenes on Mars are the best part of the film.

     In the film Gardner Elliot is the first human to ever be born on another planet. His mother dies during Gardner’s birth so he is raised by the astronauts who come and go at the space station on the Red Planet.

     The early scenes of the film establish that Gardner has many questions about planet earth. One of the female astronauts has become a surrogate parent. Gardner also has an internet relationship with a teenage girl back on earth. She does not know how great the distance is between them.

     As the trailer has already revealed, at some point, the first child to be born on Mars will want to see the world of his parents and possibly meet his father. So he comes to earth and the film becomes less than what it was.

     My issues with the scenes on earth are many. First, a teenage romance is fine, but did the couple have to be on the run. How many vehicles do these two adolescents steal before they reach their destination? I certainly hope that law enforcement would catch up with one earth girl and a martian boy more quickly than it happens in the film.

     I also think the film would have been more inspired if the love between the two teens had developed without all the action and explosions. I question how easily Gardner walked into the high school of his pen pal, but once they were together, the film could have gone in many ways. The chosen path did not work for me.

     There are a few elements I enjoyed. Gardner is played by Asa Butterfield who always does fine work. This is a better film than his last one, “Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children,”

but not as good as “Hugo,” “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” or “Ender’s Game.” Among those “Hugo” is the one to seek out. 

     Britt Robertson plays Gardner’s earth pen pal, Tulsa, and ultimately his girlfriend; she is well cast. I just wish that rather than her being a tough foster child she could have been someone who was a guide to the first resident of Mars who has come to earth. There are so many ways their time together could have been spent. My version of the film would probably bomb at the box office; but the version that exists is not soaring with abundant tickets sold.

     One other element, besides the two lead actors, is the mystery. I have to admit, I was surprised by one of the twists at the end while another was way too obvious. 

     Then comes the dramatic climax. I had many questions about that, but the answers would probably be too complex for my brain. I know nothing about space ships and shuttles and all those things. There were just so many other ways the film could have gone.

    In the end, there is glimmer of what the film could have been. I wish it had been that. But alas, as I often say, “We do not always get the movies we want, or the ones we imagine as we watch trailers of things to come.  As often as not, what seemed to hold great potential in a two and half minute glimpse ends up less than we hoped for.” 

     At least I can ponder the version of “The Space Between Us” that exists in my mind.

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

A brief look at two Best Foreign Film nominees

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I always try to see all the Oscar nominated films before the ceremony. Some years it is harder than others. The short subjects are often not shown even in the Charlotte area. The documentaries are hit and miss. Some play, others do not. Then there are the “Foreign Language” category. I cannot think of the single year that all five foreign nominees have played in Charlotte before the ceremony. It may have happened, but I do not remember it. 

     This year is not an exception. Of the five nominees, I have only seen two of the films: the Sweden entry “The Man Called Ove” and the entry from Iran “The Salesman.” I hope to see the other three, Germany’s “Toni Erdmann,” Australia’s “Tanna” and Denmark’s “Land of Mine” but I may end watching DVD’s because those latter three do not play close by.

     As for the two I have seen, both are exceptionable. I was completely surprised by “The Man Called Ove.” I know many people who have  read the book, but I have not. However I think it is an outstanding film and my choice to win the Oscar for Best Foreign film. 

     In the showing of “Ove” a fellow viewer was shocked because the film had subtitles. She got up and announced to the audience that she was going to try and get her money back but if she could not, she would return to the theatre. She returned and I almost asked her after the film ended, “Aren’t you glad you stayed?” She left too quickly for me to discover her answer.

     I guess everyone in the theatre for “The Salesman” already knew that the film had subtitles. At least no one tried to get their money back.

     “The Salesman” is quite a different film than “Ove.” I would compare “Salesman” to many of the works of the great director Alfred Hitchcock.  

     This is a tense story. A young woman is attacked while taking a shower. Her husband, a high school teacher, is driven to discover who harmed his wife. She wants to put the whole incident behind her. In the midst of all that is happening, both spouses are acting in a play, “Death of a Salesman.” The husband plays the role of Willy Loman. Hence the title and the story are focused on the husband. Shahab Hosseini plays the pivotal role of the distraught husband, Emad Etesami, who is seeking revenge. In the opening scenes the audience sees what a skilled teacher Emad is but after the event, his focus personally and professionally is greatly altered.

          There are many characters and twists in the story, but ultimately the focus keeps coming back to the assault. Clues are found. Questions are raised and like any good thriller twists often confuse or turn into nothing. 

     Ultimately, the  conclusion satifies. The filmmakers offer a story about obsession, revenge, regret, remorse, forgiveness and justice.  I am not sure if the same choices would be made by an American screenwriter or director, and that would be a shame because the climax of the film works extraordinarily well.

      One other strength of “The Salesman” is the glimpses one sees of Iranian life. Apartments, schools, streets, and other settings are all interesting. I hope Iranian filmmaking flourishes so there will be more films set there. Of course, I also hope that the films will all be as captivating as this one is. 

     Both “The Man Called Ove” and “The Salesman” moved me. Both the films are strong and deserve audiences. “Ove” is still my choice as the best, but if on Oscar night, the announcer calls out “The Salesman” I will not be surprised or disappointed. 

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘The Founder’ very informative and entertaining too

BY ROGER THOMAS

     I can remember when the first McDonald’s came to my hometown of Gaffney, South Carolina.  I am not sure my age, but I was already in school. I think the arrival of the “Golden Arches” was around 1970, the year I turned seven. Before that, the only chain restaurants that existed in our town were “Hardee’s” and “Kentucky Fried Chicken.”

     “The Founder” tells the story of a frustrated traveling salesman who seems to be very unsuccessful. The salesman is Ray Croc played exceptionally well by Michael Keaton. At the beginning of the film Croc is attempting to sell a device that stirs six milkshakes at a time. No restaurant wants this item because they do not serve that many milkshakes. Then one day Croc gets a call from California where two brothers are running a hamburger restaurant and they want to place an order for five machines so that they can make thirty shakes at a time. The brothers are the McDonalds. 

     I like history a lot, and especially recent history. I am sure the filmmakers took some liberties about certain things, but my guess is that the main points of the film are close to what happened. 

     The two McDonald brothers wanted a simple and successful life. They were not striving to be millionaires. Their goal was to offer a quality product and make enough money to support themselves and their employees.

      In the early scenes, Ray Croc just wants his waitress to get his order right and a few  customers to buy his milkshake maker. These three men end up desiring very different things out of life. The brothers had a simple definition of success. Croc literally wanted it all. There a many people in our world today who are simple honest individuals like the McDonald brothers. And there are a great many Crocs in the world; they just don’t all end up Billionaires. As I watched the film I wondered, what defines or determines which way one’s life will go. Could Croc have lived a simple life without the drive to dominate others? Could anything have changed so much that it altered the humility and kindness of the McDonalds. I wonder. 

        Last spring the buzz about “The Founder” was very high. I read that it could be an Oscar contender for “Best Picture.” That prediction obviously did come true. There  were many better films in  2016, but that does not weaken the strengths of “Founder.” The history is compelling. The descent of Ray Croc from a struggling honest man to a greedy swindler is a fascinating story. The plight of the real McDonald’s brothers is tragic. 

     The three leads, Michael Keaton as Ray Croc, Nick Offerman as Dick McDonald, and John Carroll Lynch as Mac McDonald give poignant performances. Overall, when the film ended,  I felt satisfied, and that’s more of a compliment than I could give most of the meals I have had in one of the franchises that Croc started.

     Through the years, I have found the food of McDonald’s less and less appealing. I used to love a “Quarter Pounder” but I have not had one for at least eight or ten years. I always liked the fries there, but I have not had them in a while either. In fact, the only food I like from McDonald’s, is their breakfast. I prefer a sausage biscuit and two hash-browns, but I want them for my evening meal, not early in the morning. The smartest thing McDonald’s has done in years is serve breakfast all day long.

     So, I do not care for their food, or the tactics of the man who stole the franchise, but the movie about that man is fascinating and often fun.

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘A Monster Calls’ … Should you answer?

BY ROGER THOMAS

     The title of this review poses a question. I was basically asking whether you prefer traditional films that tell traditional stories, or do you also enjoy a challenge? It is not a big challenge, but “A Monster Calls” is something unique. It is also very powerful, especially once you learn what the story is truly about. But I will reveal none of that here.

     This film is about a child named Conor. His life is changing and he needs help navigating through the new reality that exists even while he is still striving to understand why his life has to change. Conor is played be Lewis MacDougall who starred in the film “Pan” in 2015. In “Monster Calls” MacDougall carries the weight of the film and gives an authentic performance.

     Those closest to Conor are played by Felicity Jones as Conor’s Mum, Toby Kebbell as Dad and Sigourney Weaver as Grandma. The only other prominent player in this story is voiced by Liam Neeson; the character is called simply, The Monster.

     I should clarify however, though the film has “Monster” in the title, and there is a Monster in the film, it is not a horror movie. It is more of a fairytale with action and wisdom, plus some deep emotions as well. I would, however, offer to parents of younger children, there are some frightening sequences and some material that would be disturbing or confusing for children under seven. 

     With all that said, allow me to tell you what I liked about the film. First, the film looks exquisite. There are many shots that include special effects and sometimes animation and all of it is brilliant. I would like to see the film again just for the visuals. If you have caught a trailer on television or on the internet, do not dismiss the film, or wait for the video release. See it on the big screen, it deserves that venue. 

    Another strength of the film are the small stories that are told within the overarching story of Conor. The Monster shares those with Conor. Each story has a lesson for the young boy, and each has a clever twist.

     Then there is the grander story of the whole film. What is really going on in Conor’s life? Why is the monster offering him morality tales? Why does Conor do what he does and what is the Monster seeking to teach him ultimately?

     I admit that I was a skeptic. The first trailer did not win me over. After seeing the preview several times, I thought I knew everything that was there, and my curiosity was waning. And then I saw the film, and everything became different. I cannot imagine that there are many people who would not find a moment in this film that inspires memories. Not all the memories might be good, but bad or sad memories often teach and inspire us more than those that give us a smile. Besides, as I heard someone say years ago, “When we cry at the cinema, we are not crying for the actors on the screen, but rather we are moved because something in the film reminded us of our past, churned our emotions, or revealed to us a new truth.”

     The film, and the novel it is based on, is not necessarily a religious text as far as I know, but I see many applications of this film for conversations about faith. 

     Sometimes life is hard, and for many of us, we find comfort and strength knowing that there is a presence with us. Conor’s monster told fables; the presence in my life taught with parables and he continues to “call” all His children. 

     Earlier this year we had the giant in “The BFG.” Of the two, I would rather repeat my visit with a Monster.

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.

‘Fences’ an adapted play that mostly shines off the screen

BY ROGER THOMAS

     “Fences” began as a play by August Wilson. After the play became successful, Wilson adapted his play for the cinema. Two of the best actors working anywhere today signed on to star in the film, and one of the actors also took on the role of director. 

     Denzel Washington directs the film version of “Fences” and Viola Davis co-stars as his wife. Washington has six Oscar nominations and two Oscars, one for Best Actor for “Training Day” and another for supporting actor in “Glory.” Davis has not won her Oscar yet, but she has been nominated twice. Her first nomination was for Supporting Actress in “Doubt” and the second was for Best Actress for “The Help.” If she gets her third nomination for “Fences,” which is almost guaranteed, she will very likely win this time. 

     Two great performances but there are others as well. Jovan Adepo portrays the son of Troy and Rose Maxson, the roles of Washington and Davis, respectively. Adepo is working with two heavyweights, but I mention him because I believe he holds his own, especially in the scenes where his character, Cory, is challenging his father. There are many emotional moments in this film, but the exchanges between father and son are exceptional.

     Stephen Henderson plays Troy’s co-worker at the sanitation department, and his character Jim offers much of the humor in the film. If Henderson seems familiar that is not surprising; he has done a lot of work over more than thirty years. Another of his recent characters is a role in this past year’s  “Manchester by the Sea.”

     I have focused nearly half this review on the acting.There is a simple couple of reasons for focusing on the performances of the actors. The first reason is that across the board these are very satisfying portrayals by everyone on the screen.

     The second reason is less praising of the filmmakers. As stated above, “Fences” is based on a play. I have never seen the play, but I can imagine it on stage, because for me, the film feels like a play. Not all, but many of the scenes happen in one place, the backyard of the Maxson home. Both conversations and quarrels occur in that setting. Sometimes the audience enters the house. Occasionally, there are scenes that are set elsewhere, but for the most part, the action of the film is in that backyard that seems to need a fence. At least Troy thinks it does and he is determined to get his teenage son to help him build the often-mentioned fence. 

     During all the talking and arguing, mostly in the backyard, the audience gets to know the Maxson family. I found them to be engaging about two-thirds of the time. There are moments that seem repetitive and moments that could have lasted much longer. Overall, I am glad I saw it, and I will remember it for its strengths.

     Among the films of 2016, “Fences” does not have a place on my Top Ten List. It falls somewhere in the second tier of the fifteen runner-ups. So, it is in my “Top 25” out of the 158 films from 2016 that I have seen.  I commend Washington for his direction of the film and all the actors for their work. The screenplay is strong; the performances worthy of all the accolades. 

     However, for me, there are at least ten films from 2016 that have something special and unique that I just did not find while I was hanging out in the backyard of the Maxson family’s home. That does not make it bad film, just not one of the very best.

  Roger Thomas is a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association. He reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.