Many recent Hollywood blockbusters have taken well-known fictional characters and depicted their earliest adventures in prequels or origin films. With THE BETTER ANGELS, it appears that the origin film trend has now encompassed historical figures because the film portrays the childhood of Abraham Lincoln. THE BETTER ANGELS is the debut film from writer/director A.J. Edwards, a collaborator of Terrence Malick who worked in various roles on The New World, The Tree of Life, and To the Wonder (Malick also serves as a producer of THE BETTER ANGELS).

Considering that Lincoln is generally regarded as the greatest U.S. President THE BETTER ANGELS isn’t the first film to depict the earlier years of Lincoln. John Ford directed Henry Ford in Young Mr. Lincoln in 1939, though films about Lincoln’s origins stretch back at least as far as the 1913 silent short From Rail Splitter to President. Thankfully, THE BETTER ANGELS doesn’t do anything as hokey as other origin films and portray sequences like young Lincoln putting on his first stovepipe hat. In fact, if you miss the opening narration you might not even realize that this film is about young Abe Lincoln at all and think it is about no particular boy growing up in the nineteenth century (and is perhaps why the title was changed from the metaphoric Green Blade Rising to THE BETTER ANGELS, a famous phrase from Lincoln’s first inaugural speech). There’s a certain beauty in that subtly, but it also robs the film of the historical impact it probably should have considering its subject.

THE BETTER ANGELS begins in 1817, shortly after young Abe Lincoln and his family moved to Indiana as recounted by his older cousin, Dennis (Cameron Mitchell Williams), who also serves as the film’s narrator. The film depicts several major events in young Abe’s life, including the loss of his mother (Diane Kruger), learning to accept his stepmother (Brit Marling), his first encounter with slavery, and the little formal education he had as child from a devoted teacher, Mr. Crawford (Wes Bentley). Most of all, THE BETTER ANGELS is about the relationship between young Abe and his father, Tom (Jason Clarke), a strong-willed man who somewhat disapproves his son’s preference of studying over working.

There is much to THE BETTER ANGELS which is serene and peaceful, and the influence of Malick is obvious, particularly with the film’s ethereal tone partially provided by the black and white cinematography. The absence of color from this film is a curious choice and I’m not sure it services the movie to be in black and white. There are many beautiful landscapes and excellent shots of nature that would’ve looked stunning in color instead of the crystal-clear digital-looking black and white. I’m curious why Edwards decided to film it in black and white because from a narrative standpoint it did not seem necessary.

Which leads to the most significant issue of THE BETTER ANGELS – the equally colorless narrative. Lincoln is a fascinating historical figure, and his early years should be particularly interesting material for a film. But similar to Malick’s own work, this film mostly depicts Lincoln’s childhood in an understated way outside of the few significant happenings, like the death of his mother. Because of that, it’s not a particularly engaging film. Even the most patient Malick fans might fight it difficult to stay invested in a film that is largely about boys farming and getting into trouble. It doesn’t help that the conflict between Abe and his father is equally understated, which makes the film’s central narrative difficult to grasp.

Patient history buffs will likely enjoy THE BETTER ANGELS because of its exploration of Lincoln’s early years, but most others might find the film too slow-moving for their taste.

Film Review Rating 3 out of 5 : See it … It’s Good

THE BETTER ANGELS opens in select theaters nationwide on Friday, November 7.

http://youtu.be/IS-5G5X9BFE

Read more

Towards the end of MANHATTAN ROMANCE, Danny (Tom O’Brien, who also wrote, directed, and produced this movie) is presenting a documentary he created about New York relationships at a film festival. When an audience member asks Danny why his film lacks a resolution, Danny gives a semi-annoyed response about how life doesn’t have clean resolutions so there is no reason why films should have them either. There’s nothing wrong with that sentiment – plenty of great movies end unresolved – but when an actor/writer/producer/director expresses that shortly before the credits in his own film, it sounds like a preemptive defense of his lack of confidence in the ending of his own movie.

MANHATTAN ROMANCE is about Danny, an everyman who works as a television commercial editor as he toils on his documentary about love. However, that is just background detail because Danny’s real conflicts are within his own love life. He’s sexually frustrated because Theresa, the new age hippie girl he’s sort of seeing (played by recent Ed Burns favorite Caitlin FitzGerald) shows little interest in having sex with him, and his down-to-earth, peppy best friend Carla (Katherine Waterston) – with whom he gets along so well you’d suspect they are dating – is a lesbian. Or at least she is now, because she used to date guys. Anyway, right now she is in a relationship with the cold and calculating political strategist Emmy (Gabby Hoffman). MANHATTAN ROMANCE follows Danny as he attempts to navigate the rough waters of his love life, or, in truth, his lack thereof.

Of course, Danny lives in a city inhabited by eight million people, but as far as Danny is concerned there are only two women worth dating in the entire city. Even when Danny attends his cousin’s wedding and his relatives express that there are many eligible single women there, Danny totally ignores the opportunity. While I certainly know how it is to be completely infatuated with one woman (or, like Danny, two women) at a time, the fact that Danny only considers two unattainable women as worthy of his time shows the limit of the narrative’s scope. Also, since Danny gets bent out of shape any time either of these women don’t act the way he wants them to act reveals that he in no way, shape, or form should be directing a documentary about love – which, to be honest, looks increasingly like an excuse just to invade the personal lives of these two women as the film goes on.

O’Brien is an auteur actor/writer/producer/director who made his feature writing/directing debut with 2012’s Fairhaven, which was featured at that year’s Tribeca Film Festival. He returned to Tribeca this year as an actor in the well-regarded Alex of Venice. I have no doubt that O’Brien envisions himself in the mold of Woody Allen – whom his character namechecks early in this film – but one thing that Allen’s films always have are engaging characters. The only character of emotional substance in MANHATTAN ROMANCE is Carla, and much of that is due to Waterston’s enthusiastic portrayal of the character. Theresa is little more than a caricature of an extreme new age girl (and FitzGerald could offer so much more than that), and Danny is essentially a lovelorn sap who is frustrated about the lack of control in his love life. In other words, you’ve seen these characters in plenty of other movies before.

Because of that, much of MANHATTAN ROMANCE is as generic as its title. It even features a few musical interludes of montage of shots of the cityscape like just about any other New York-set romantic comedy. If O’Brien wanted to achieve something unique with MANHATTAN ROMANCE, he didn’t get there. It marks the work of an auteur still learning his craft, and hopefully O’Brien’s next film will feature more characters in line with Waterston’s Carla instead of thin characters like Danny.

RATING 2 out of 5 : See it … At Your Own Risk

MANHATTAN ROMANCE will screen at the Big Apple Film Festival on Wednesday, November 5 at 8:30 PM and Sunday, November 9 at 8:00 PM.

Read more

The tagline for FUGLY! – co-written and starring John Leguizamo – declares it “An Anti-Romantic Comedy.” However, that’s like putting a sign on a duck that says “this is not a duck” and expecting people to think it’s another animal. FUGLY! might not be melodramatic, but it’s as much of a romantic comedy as Garden State, 500 Days of Summer, or any other movie involving a male protagonist pining over a girl whom he thinks is the cure-all to his imperfections despite she being imperfect herself.

Jesse Sanchez (John Leguizamo) grows up an ugly kid in 1970s Queens, New York and attains confidence by being funny. When he gets to college, he enrolls in the drama program and meets Lara (Radha Mitchell), and the two have a one-night stand that lands them in trouble with the police and Lara’s father. Though parted, Sanchez spends the next two decades trying to recreate the love he felt on that one perfect night. Even though Sanchez’s acting career takes off and he gains a degree of fame, a tumultuous marriage to an actress named Zowie (Rosie Perez), issues with his mother (Olga Merediz) and brother Ray (Yul Vazquez), and his own feelings of inadequacy plague him. Only the advice of his grandfather (a very funny Tomas Milian) and thoughts of Lara seem to get Sanchez to look on the bright side of his successful life.

Much of FUGLY! reflects Leguizamo’s own life and career, but not enough to call the film autobiographical or semi-autobiographical. Like Leguizamo, Sanchez is an actor who came to prominence playing stereotypical Latino roles (gangsters and drug dealers) and later achieved notoriety with his one-man shows (the poster for Sanchez’s show “Freak” is essentially the poster for Leguizamo’s 2002 one-man show Sexaholix done in a different style). What’s odd about FUGLY! is that Leguizamo’s characters acts like twenty or thirty-something YouTube blogger throughout the film… except both Leguizamo and the Sanchez character are actually fifty years old. While Leguizamo certainly doesn’t look fifty, it still is a bit awkward seeing him play a character that is so much younger maturity-wise. That’s not to say middle-aged people can’t be immature, but you don’t often see fifty year olds making video blogs about their love lives and threatening to commit suicide.

FUGLY! also features animation by Bill Plympton, which contributes to FUGLY! being too gimmicky for its own good. These animated bits – and other imagery that pops up like GIFs on an internet site – are more distracting than they are clever or enjoyable. Yes, Woody Allen worked in a short animated sequence into the paragon of romantic comedies, Annie Hall, but that doesn’t mean it works in this movie. I’m also of the mind that after thirty-seven years directors should stop trying to remake Annie Hall in their own images.

Leguizamo’s one-man shows are hilarious and full of truth in every way that FUGLY! isn’t. Despite being somewhat based on Leguizamo’s own life, FUGLY! was directed by Alfredo De Villa – whose best-known film, 2008’s Nothing Like the Holidays, starred Leguizamo – and was co-written by first-time screenwriter Kathy DeMarco. I don’t know what went wrong in the mix here, but I strongly recommend tracking down recordings of Leguizamo’s one-man shows and watching those instead of FUGLY! for a better taste of what Leguizamo can do with his own material.

RATING 2 out of 5 : See it … At Your Own Risk

FUGLY! opens Friday, November 7 in New York at AMC Empire 25, with additional cities to follow. It debuts on Movies on Demand and VOD Release on Tuesday, November 25.

http://youtu.be/6a0tRAasSsI

Read more