I am throwing the main concept in the title because I found Snowden a two hours and twenty minutes long waste of time, therefore I don't want you to waste your time as well. If you are willing to stay with me for a few more lines (or you've already seen it, liked it, and you want to see how wrong I am), here my motivations for such a harsh title (that, roll credits, is always a complicated deal).
Snowden is a dramatization of the events occurred between 2003 and 2014 to Edward Snowden, the former CIA and NSA employee, and now whistleblower currently living in Russia. He revealed to the press that the USA government was illegally surveilling the US citizens as well as every cellphone or computer in the world.
The movie is about him, since when he was unable to join the military forces, to the day he blew the whistle. I saw very polarized discussions over the internet about how good or bad he is. I am not here to discuss that. Just looking at the movie, one aspect strikes you in the worst possible way: we are not seeing the story of a human being.
If you produce something to tell a story that everyone in the room already knows (it happened 3 years ago), you need to characterize it with something. This is completely missing, we are seeing a series of events that lead to an already known epilogue, and the actors do not transmit any emotion. I'm not talking about their acting performances, that aspect was overall good. My problem is how the film is structured.
Oliver Stone tries to make us care about Snowden by introducing showing us the fact that he has a girlfriend. The obvious problems that can emerge in a relationship where one of the two has a top-secret clearance are explored in two brief, emotionless, scenes. The same treatment goes to the emergence of his paranoia, to his health issues due to his paranoia, and to the struggle of the journalist to whom he blew the whistle. Above all of that, we see a character showing nearly no struggle for 2 hours, that could have easily walked away at any given moment (at least in the movie he could), and makes the decision of spreading a pretty damaging news on his beloved country in literally 10 seconds. No transitions whatsoever, point A to D and a scene cut in between.
This movie lacks a human presence, becoming more similar to a documentary, except that it doesn't have the precision of a documentary. Therefore, in my opinion, it falls short in nearly every aspect that makes a movie a good one. The only thing that makes it interesting is the fact that it is polarizing the audience between those that consider him a traitor and those that consider him a hero. Something that could easily happen if you read about it or watch a documentary, with the downside that, being a movie, it doesn't have enough content to provide a satisfactory picture.
These are the aspects that made the long movie Snowden something excruciatingly long and a pointless cinematographical product.
Synopsis: Christian Wolff is an accountant, diagnosed with autism since he was a little kid. He conducts a mysterious solitary life, moving from continent to continent to uncook the books of big criminal organizations. When hired to find out who is stealing money from a big company, he finds himself involved in a dangerous situation.
I kept the synopsis clean and short, but the truth is that this movie revealed itself to be a fully entertaining, emotional product. It is centered around the figure of Christian (Ben Affleck) and its mental condition with a rather simple main plot. However, the narration brings the viewer on a journey through the past and the mind of the main character with the use of several subplots.
The presence of so many plots is usually dangerous for a 2 hours movie and, in all fairness, the movie can seem to be a confuse bunch of events until they are all wrapped up during the third act. For this reason, I believe the only reasonable main plot of the movie is not about the events on screen, but rather about the solitude and the struggle of the main character and how he affects the people around him. With this assumption, every single subplot is revealing a different aspect of the protagonist's life and eventually all of them matters in the big picture.
We are brought into his past with a series of flashbacks with the pretext of giving us some detail on how he got his abilities and generic background. However, the real message is to illustrate three different approaches (from the three different family members) to deal with a child affected by a mental condition.
We see how that child learned how to interact with the people around him at the best of his possibilities, from identifying the emotions of his interlocutor to the emotionless homicide. On this aspect, the movie oscillates from a dark tone to a comic one. I saw the movie twice and I got fascinated by the heterogeneous response by the audience at every scene. The emotional detachment of the protagonist hits the viewers with a two folded emotion, at times making you burst into a laugh, other times making you empathize with the solitude of the character. In other words, the movie keeps you on your toes, making you dig deep in your feelings about a mental condition that by definition makes any kind of interaction difficult.
The excellent action movie surrounding this aspect makes The Accountant a unique product. I should confess that I do not like Ben Affleck as an actor but this role is perfect for the emotionless pretty face he carries around. His job is nearly perfect and probably the most appropriate casting choice of the year. The supporting cast is very convincing, J.K. Simmons above everyone else, delivering a touching performance that reveals yet again how good he is in his job.
In an era of poor action movies, The Accountant is a bright spot, approaching the genre with an interesting angle.
Synopsys: Desmond Doss is a conscientious objector that decides to enlist in the army to fight the Second World War. For religious reasons he can't touch a gun, so you immediately imagine the problem. However, it is a free country and the army allows him to go to the Pacific theater without a single weapon protecting him. He then starts to serve as a medic on the battlefield, as he wanted in the first place. In a gruesome battle with the Japanese, he stays behind during the retreat to save as many lives as possible, becoming a hero and the first conscientious objector to be awarded the Medal of Honor.
2016 has been a year full of true stories and Hacksaw Ridge, directed by Mel Gibson, is entering pretty high on that list. It is a long movie that flows smoothly thanks to a solid structure: introduction of the character in his normal days, army training, battle with heroism acts.
The character of Desmond (Andrew Garfield) is well presented, both by a good screenplay and a good actor's performance. Therefore the goal is easily achieved: the viewer is naturally brought to care about him. Thus the intensity of the movie and the emotional impact come out enhanced, keeping you on the edge of your seat.
Mel Gibson plays with our emotions by showing us a battle sequence that I'm not worried to define at the level of Saving Private Ryan, with the addition of the modern graphical technology. In short, you perceive the hell of the war, you hear the bombs falling around you, you see the body parts, you feel the danger of an enemy able to appear from nowhere and not afraid to die.
The immersion in what private Doss has experienced that day when he stayed behind and saved over 75 soldiers on the battlefield is complete and therefore emotional. Such feature alone makes the movie worth seeing.
The downside of telling a story about a conscientious objection for a religious belief is that the rhetoric on religion is particularly heavy in the movie. The faith of the main character and the importance that the 10th commandments have for him is constantly reminded during the entire film. I said heavy because the religious aspect is irrelevant for the story. It characterizes Desmond and gives us his legitimate motivations. However, the constant reminder of this aspect stops to be functional to the story and becomes more like a fanatic propaganda of how good are the things written in the bible. I really don't care, but I do know that in the same book is also written (to remain in theme) [and Jesus said] "But those my enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me." (Luke, 19:27). So, it is not about the book, it is always about the readers and we can be lighter on the rhetoric.
Looking at the actor performances, it is difficult to not appreciate the job of Hugo Weaving, in the role of Desmond father. His representation of the horror of WW1, where he lost all his friends and part of his humanity, places him several steps above all the other actors. On the other side, the performance of Vince Vaughn, although convincing when he is speaking, looks quite off every time he as to move. In particular, you can tell he is not a soldier when he runs with a gun in his hands.
All that being said, I had a good time in the theater, the movie tells a fascinating story, it is visually very good, and these aspects help to overcome the heavy religious rhetoric. It is probably the best movie based on a true story of the year.
Synopsys: One day, out of the blue, 12 alien ships appear on our planet at random locations. The only action such aliens are taking is opening their ship, letting us in, and burp at us for an hour or so. The US army thinks that an expert linguist able to speak nearly every language can translate the burps for them just by listening to a tape. The US army is not particularly bright. The linguist is then allowed to go inside one of the ships where she starts working on their language.
Arrival is a Sci-Fi movie that very often will remind you of other Sci-Fi movies but somehow manage to maintain its own identity. The fans of the genre will enjoy both the references and the peculiarities of the film. Everyone else will enjoy a reasonably original product, given that you can't demand scientific accuracy from such a movie.
As usual, I will try to give you as many elements as possible to decide if the movie is worth seeing by remaining spoiler-free. Part of the discussion can't avoid spoilers and will be placed safely after the picture.
The dominant theme of the movie is the importance of communication and, more generally, of making the effort of understanding each other. The aliens make their appearance in a pacific fashion and immediately show that they want to talk. This defuses our aggressiveness and we start making the effort of understanding each other.
Nearly the entire movie is centered around the main character (Amy Adams), a linguist, and her attempts to understand their language in order to be able, one day, to ask them what is the purpose of your trip?
So, in short, it's a movie on how to become an intergalactic airport security guard.
The plot proceeds on this theme until, as we see in the trailer, things go sideways because we see them saying the word weapon and we just go bananas about it. In this intense part of the film, the other big theme takes over. It is true that, since the aliens appeared all over the planet, the various governments are cooperating. However, as one may expect, there is no full information disclosure and this lack of trust is leading to a global war.
More about these themes will be written in the spoiler section (after the picture)
Looking at the movie as a cinematographical product, it is globally well executed. The various arcs of tension are well displayed and it is not difficult to follow the plot. However, I should admit that going out of the theater I had the feeling that the movie was longer than 2 hours. It can thus look slightly slower than it should be mostly because, more sooner than later, the viewer figures out where it is going.
The actors' performances are convincing but I've perceived a couple of weaknesses. The first is the Academy Award winner Forest Whitaker, whose presence was pumped during the promotion of the film, because he has a very marginal role with, occasionally, very stupid lines. In other words, I was expecting more from him.
The second dark spot on the movie are the mentioned stupid lines. In a generally solid screenplay with peaks of deep dialogues, the tone is occasionally disrupted by very silly lines thrown from now and then. Someone in the theater will find them funny but it will be the same someone that laughs at the Nespresso's commercial.
In conclusion, it is a movie worth seeing with a good set of themes (some of them discussed above, others in the spoiler section) that may let you think about them for a bit when you leave the theater. I personally had the same feeling I had right after 1997 movie Contact, another product with some sloppy aspects that made it slow. To be more specific, I had the feeling that the book (because both movies are inspired by a book) would be a very nice read. With Contact I was right since it is not a masterpiece but rather a cornerstone of the genre. Maybe Stories of your Life, the book that inspired Arrival, will give a similar emotion.
I give you one more line to not accidental read what is next, from now onwards: Spoiler Alert.
The big theme that hits you once that you figure it out the main twist (and this happens fairly soon) is the value, even the existence, of free will. I actually enjoy this kind of pointless discussions, so here we go.
Essentially the aliens came to Earth to teach us their language because, as poorly explained in the movie, this knowledge will completely change our perception of time. In particular, we see how the main character is affected by that: she starts to remember the future. This not only destroys any concept of entropy that we currently have, but essentially reduce the future to a self-fulfilling prophecy. She saves the world by using a knowledge that she can acquire in a future where she saved the world in that specific way.
At the same time, she accepts her future, the birth of a child that will die too young, without making any effort to change it. Essentially, she is living her entire life, any single moment of it, at the same time. However, since she is not trying to change anything, she gives up any control on it, being a simple passenger of her own existence.
The movie addresses it as a gift (knowing there will be an end will make me appreciate every moment more), I just find such existence very sad and pointless for her. However, such knowledge apparently brought humankind to a fully cooperating, peaceful existence, suggesting that knowing how bad is going to end will stop us to screw it up. As if it ever worked before.
The main reason why I've enjoyed the film is that it made me think about this. On the other hand, in addressing its brightest spot, the movie falls short in motivating itself. This is the other reason why it reminded me of Contact. Also there we had aliens coming to us to give us their technology and also there the movie felt short in motivate such choice (the book did very well though). Since the question is essentially Why is this movie happening? I think that addressing it with the appropriate attention would have made it a very good product.
