THE END OF THE TOUR: smartest road trip movie ever

Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel in THE END OF THE TOUR
Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel in THE END OF THE TOUR

[Note: I’m repeating this post because The End of the Tour, which opened two weeks ago is being released much more widely today, and will be much easier to find in theaters.  See also my The End of the Tour: the filmmakers speak.]

The brilliantly witty and insightful road trip movie The End of the Tour isn’t great because of what happens on the road – it’s great because we drill into two fascinating characters and see how their relationship evolves (or doesn’t evolve). Leads Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg are both Oscar-worthy, and The End of the Tour is on my Best Movies of 2015 – So Far.

In 1996, David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) is a novelist of modest success, having deeply embraced the New York City writer’s scene, and is supporting himself as a journalist for Rolling Stone Magazine. Suddenly- and out of nowhere – David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel) explodes on the scene with his masterpiece Infinite Jest and is immediately recognized as a literary genius. Lipsky is confounded by Wallace’s meteoric rise – and jealous and resentful, too.

Lipsky arranges to accompany Wallace on the last few stops of his book tour and record their conversations, so Lipsky can write a profile of Wallace for Rolling Stone. It’s clear that Lipsky plans to write a sensationalistic celebrity take down – and Wallace is so odd that there’s plenty of ammunition.

All of this REALLY HAPPENED. Years later, after Wallace’s death, Lipsky wrote a memoir of the encounters, on which the movie is based. Eisenberg and Segel got to listen to the tapes of the actual conversations between the two.

The End of the Tour is a battle of wits between two very smart but contrasting guys. Wallace is new to fame, very personally awkward, not at all confident and gloriously goofy; he seems to be an innocent, but he’s VERY smart and not entirely naive. Lipsky is all Chip On the Shoulder as he probes for Wallace’s weaknesses. As different as they are, the two are competitive and snap back and forth, verbally jousting for the entire trip. At one point, Lipsky accuses Wallace of pretending to be not as smart as he is as a “social strategy”.

As funny as is their repartee, it becomes clear that Wallace is inwardly troubled, and clinging to functionality by his fingernails. Wallace gets more confident and begins to trust Lipsky, but Lipsky is still predatory, glimpsing into Wallace’s medicine cabinet and chatting up an old flame of Wallace’s. Still, the intimacy of a road trip forces them to share experiences, which COULD become the basis for a bond.

They even share moments of friendship. But will they become friends? Is there real reciprocity between them?

Who has the power here? Wallace has the power of celebrity, and dominates Lipsky’s chosen vocation. Lipsky has the power to destroy and humiliate Wallace. Ultimately, as we see in the movie, the person who NEEDS the most will cede the power in the relationship.

Director James Ponsoldt has succeeded in making a brilliantly entertaining drama about two smart guys talking. There’s never a slow moment. We’re constantly wondering what is gonna happen. Ponsoldt has already made two movies that I love – Smashed and The Spectacular Now. No one else has made conversation so compelling since the My Dinner with Andre, and The End of the Tour is much more accessible and fun than that 80s art house hit.

Ponsoldt fills the movie with sublime moments. In one scene, we see the two watching a movie with two female companions. In the darkened theater, two characters are focused on the screen and two are gazing at others. It’s a shot of a couple of seconds, nothing happens, and there’s no dialogue – but the moment is almost a short story in and of itself.

For a true-life drama, The End of the Tour is very funny. The humor stems from situations (the two rhapsodize on Alanis Morisette, of all people), behavior (Wallace’s peculiarities and Lipsky’s limitless snoopiness) and the very witty dialogue. There’s a classic moment when Lipsky has Wallace talk on the phone to Lipsky’s wife (Anna Chlumsky) and is very uncomfortable with the results.

What is the funniest line in the movie? Who wins the battle of wits? And what’s their relationship at the end? Those questions propel the audience along the smartest road trip movie ever – The End of the Tour.

THE END OF THE TOUR: the filmmakers speak

Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel in THE END OF THE TOUR
Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel in THE END OF THE TOUR

[SPOILER ALERT: There spoilers in this post, but – as usual – NOT in my comments on the film.]

I saw The End of the Tour at the San Francisco International Film Festival.  Director James Ponsoldt, Producer David Kanter, editor Darrin Navarro, Producer James Dahl and actor Jason Segel all spoke after the screening.

Ponsoldt said that he generally doesn’t like biopics, and didn’t want to make a film that exists “from the neck up”.  He wanted to avoid a movie that was ” just two smart guys trying to top each other”.

Ponsoldt decribed The End of the Tour as an “unrequited platonic love story, from the perspective of Lipsky”  The moment at the end when Lipsky receives a package from Wallace tells it all.  Ponsoldt said that the Rolling Stone article was killed because it wasn’t juicy enough – and Lipsky felt relieved.

Ponsoldt got access to Lipsky’s tapes of the real conversations between the two, and Eisenberg and Segel got to listen to them.  Segel noted that “popular culture was the great equalizer”, the common denominator between the two.

And how do you make a compelling movie about two guys talking? Ponsoldt adopts Waldo Salt’s guidance about screenwriting: articulate the character’s greatest human need and recognize whose story it is it? Ask if it’s a struggle for power.  Focus on whose scene it is.

Navarro said the key is to allow the conversations to feel as real as possible, making it feel like you were in the room.  He lets the “inconsistencies and inaccuracies of speech” let you know about where the characters are going.

Jason Segel sees playing David Foster Wallace as about Wallace’s feeling of “not enough”.  Segel believes that Wallace’s Infinite Jest poses question “does anyone else feel this way?” and Segel says that sometimes he DOES feel that way.

Jason Segel said that the tapes constitute the “best conversation I’ve ever heard”.  The End of the Tour is the best movie about conversation that I’ve seen.

 

 

THE END OF THE TOUR: smartest road trip movie ever

Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel in THE END OF THE TOUR
Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel in THE END OF THE TOUR

The brilliantly witty and insightful road trip movie The End of the Tour isn’t great because of what happens on the road – it’s great because we drill into two fascinating characters and see how their relationship evolves (or doesn’t evolve).  Leads Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg are both Oscar-worthy, and The End of the Tour is on my Best Movies of 2015 – So Far.

In 1996, David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) is a novelist of modest success, having deeply embraced the New York City writer’s scene, and is supporting himself as a  journalist for Rolling Stone Magazine. Suddenly- and out of nowhere – David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel) explodes  on the scene with his masterpiece Infinite Jest and is immediately recognized as a literary genius.  Lipsky is confounded by Wallace’s meteoric rise – and jealous and resentful, too.

Lipsky arranges to accompany Wallace on the last few stops of his book tour and record their conversations, so Lipsky can write a profile of Wallace for Rolling Stone.  It’s clear that Lipsky plans to write a sensationalistic celebrity take down – and Wallace is so odd that there’s plenty of ammunition.

All of this REALLY HAPPENED.  Years later, after Wallace’s death, Lipsky wrote a memoir of the encounters, on which the movie is based.  Eisenberg and Segel got to listen to the tapes of the actual conversations between the two.

The End of the Tour is a battle of wits between two very smart but contrasting guys.    Wallace is new to fame, very personally awkward, not at all confident and gloriously goofy; he seems to be an innocent, but he’s VERY smart and not entirely naive.  Lipsky is all Chip On the Shoulder as he probes for Wallace’s weaknesses.  As different as they are, the two are competitive and snap back and forth, verbally jousting for the entire trip.  At one point, Lipsky accuses Wallace of pretending to be not as smart as he is as a “social strategy”.

As funny as is their repartee, it becomes clear that Wallace is inwardly troubled, and clinging to functionality by his fingernails.  Wallace gets more confident and begins to trust Lipsky, but Lipsky is still predatory, glimpsing into Wallace’s medicine cabinet and chatting up an old flame of Wallace’s.  Still, the intimacy of a road trip forces them to share experiences, which COULD become the basis for a bond.

They even share moments of friendship.  But will they become friends?  Is there real reciprocity between them?

Who has the power here? Wallace has the power of celebrity, and dominates Lipsky’s chosen vocation.  Lipsky has the power to destroy and humiliate Wallace.  Ultimately, as we see in the movie, the person who NEEDS the most will cede the power in the relationship.

Director James Ponsoldt has succeeded in making a brilliantly entertaining drama about two smart guys talking.  There’s never a slow moment.   We’re constantly wondering what is gonna happen.  Ponsoldt has already made two movies that I love – Smashed and The Spectacular Now. No one else has made conversation so compelling since the My Dinner with Andre, and The End of the Tour is much more accessible and fun than that 80s art house hit.

Ponsoldt fills the movie with sublime moments.  In one scene, we see the two watching a movie with two female companions.  In the darkened theater, two characters are focused on the screen and two are gazing at others.  It’s a shot of a couple of seconds, nothing happens, and there’s no dialogue – but the moment is almost a short story in and of itself.

For a true-life drama, The End of the Tour is very funny.  The humor stems from situations (the two rhapsodize on Alanis Morisette, of all people), behavior (Wallace’s peculiarities and Lipsky’s limitless snoopiness) and the very witty dialogue.  There’s a classic moment when Lipsky has Wallace talk on the phone to Lipsky’s wife (Anna Chlumsky) and is very uncomfortable with the results.

What is the funniest line in the movie?  Who wins the battle of wits?  And what’s their relationship at the end?  Those questions propel the audience along the smartest road trip movie ever – The End of the Tour.

THE LOOK OF SILENCE: chilling and powerful

THE LOOK OF SILENCE
THE LOOK OF SILENCE

In the powerful and chilling The Look of Silence, documentarian Joshua Oppenheimer explores the aftermath of genocide in a society that has never experienced a truth and reconciliation process. This is Oppenheimer’s second masterpiece on the Indonesian genocide of 1965-66 in which regime-sponsored death squads executed over one million suspected political opponents. Today, the victims’ families live among the murderers.

The Look of Silence centers on 44-year-old optometrist Adi, as he investigates the murder of Ramli, the older brother he never knew. Earlier, Oppenheimer had filmed Ramli’s killers as they describe and act out Ramli’s savage torture, mutilation and murder. They are unrepentant and even nostalgic about their crimes. Their matter-of-fact recollections are sickening. We see Adi watching this video, trying to contain his rage and disgust. Later, Adi – in the guise of fitting them for new glasses – is able to confront those responsible. He faces the actual machete-wielding killers, the leader of the village death squad, the higher-up who ordered the killings and even one of his own relatives.

What makes this bearable to watch (and even more affecting) is meeting Adi’s family: his earthy 80-something mother, his frail and batty 103-year-old father, his giggly 7-year old daughter and his 10-year-old son. There’s plenty of humor in this warm family. But in one scene, the son receives a ridiculously twisted propaganda version of the genocide in public school.

The “Silence” in The Look of Silence is reinforced by the spare soundtrack. We often hear only “crickets” (frogs, actually).

The Look of Silence is the companion to Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing, which made my list of Best Movies of 2013. In The Act of Killing, Oppenheimer got the unapologetic killers to re-enact their atrocities for the camera – even relishing their deeds. The Act of Killing contains some of the most bizarre moments in any documentary EVER, including a cross-dressing mass murderer and a staged Bollywood-like musical number of Born Free, complete with dancing-girls in front of a waterfall, in which the garotted dead reappear to thank the killers for sending them on to the afterlife. The Act of Killing is more of a jaw-dropper. The Look of Silence – because it is more personal, is more powerful.

The Look of Silence stands alone – you can fully appreciate it without having seen The Act of Killing. But what I wrote about The Act of Killing is true for both films: “hypnotically compelling – you can’t believe what’s on the screen, can’t believe that you’re still watching it and can’t stop watching”.

I saw The Look of Silence at the San Francisco International Film Festival before its limited theatrical release slated for July 17. It’s one of the best films of 2015.

MR. HOLMES: in old age, Sherlock reopens his final case

Ian McKellen as MR. HOLMES
Ian McKellen as MR. HOLMES

It’s 1947 and 93-year-old Sherlock Holmes has been self-exiled to the Dover coast in retirement for almost thirty years. He’s still keenly observant, but his memory is deteriorating with age, and he knows it. That’s a problem as he feels an urgent need to summon up the facts of his final case, left unresolved in 1919. In Mr. Holmes, Ian McKellen plays Sherlock in his 1947 frailty and desperation and in the flashbacks to 1919, when he’s at the top of his game.

As Mr. Holmes, opens, Sherlock has just returned home from a trip to Japan. So desperate to refresh his memory, he has sought a Japanese homeopathic cure (“prickly ash”), in the process meeting a Japanese family with an unsolved disappearance of their own. Back home, he lives with his housekeeper (Laura Linney) and her gifted son, Roger (Milo Parker). Holmes recognizes the boy’s exceptionalism and quasi-adopts as a grandchild. The boy has lost his father in World War II, and his relationship with the old man is another central thread in the movie.

Ian McKellen is delightful and endearing as the crusty Holmes. McKellen is an actor of enough stature to pull off this iconic role, and he is able both to project the Holmes genius and to deliver the humor in this very witty screenplay.

Holmes resents how his former roommate Dr. Watson has depicted him in fiction – and doesn’t like fiction at all (until the very last scene). At least, when they lived together, Watson avoided an onslaught of tourists by publishing the wrong address for their rooms (they actually lived across the street from 221B Baker Street). And Holmes goes to a theater to see a very bad 1940s Sherlock Holmes movie.

I saw Mr. Homes at the San Francisco Film Festival at a screening in which producer Anne Carey and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher spoke. When Carey read the source material – the novel “Slight Trick of the Mind” by Mitch Cullin – she recognized the appeal of the central role, the settings and the theme of “don’t wait too long for things important to your heart”. It took her eight years to get director Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters, Dreamgirls) on board, who brought in McKellen.

Hatcher was attracted by Holmes’ relationship to the boy Roger and by theme of how we rewrite our own stories. He pointed out that the 1919 story in Mr. Holmes has four versions: what really happened, how Watsone added a happy ending in his book, the Hollywood melodrama of the film-within-the-film and, finally, as Holmes himself connects it to the Japanese story thread at the end.

Carey and Hatcher revealed that Condon playfully referenced Hitchcock in Mr. Holmes: Ambrose Chapel from The Man Who Knew Too Much, carrying of tea a la Notorious and a “Vertigo” sequence under the arches.

It’s a good story with a superb performance by McKellen. Mr. Homes opens tomorrow.

ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL: a Must See, perched on the knife edge between comedy and tragedy

Ronald Cyler II and Thomas Mann in ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL
Ronald Cyler II and Thomas Mann in ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL

Here’s a MUST SEE – the unforgettable coming of age Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, a brilliant second feature from director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon.  The title suggests a weeper (and it is), but 90% of Me and Earl is flat-out hilarious.

Greg (Thomas Mann)  is a Pittsburgh teenager who has decided that the best strategy for navigating high school is to foster good relations with every school clique while belonging to none.   Embracing the adage “hot girls destroy your life”, he gives the opposite gender a very wide berth.  Outwardly genial, Greg is emphatically anti-social in practice, except for his best friend Earl (Ronald Cyler II).  But he even refuses to admit that Earl is his friend, describing him “as more of a co-worker”.

Greg’s parents disrupt Greg’s routine by forcing him to visit his classmate Rachel (Olivia Cooke), who has just been diagnosed with leukemia.  Rachel doesn’t want any pity, so this is awkward all around until Greg makes Rachel laugh, which draws him back again to visit -and again.  A friendship, based on their shared quirky senses of humor, blossoms, but – given her diagnosis – how far can it go?

Rachel is delighted to learn that Greg and Earl shoot their own movies – short knock-offs of iconic cinema classics.  She first laughs when she finds that he has remade Rashomon as MonoRash.  Their other titles include Death in Tennis, Brew Velvet and A Box of Lips Now.

Why is Me and Earl so successful?  Most importantly, it perches right on the knife-edge between tragedy and comedy, and does so more than any movie I can think of.  As funny as it is, we all know that there’s that leukemia thing just under the surface.  But, with its originality and resistance to sentimentality,  Me and Earl is the farthest thing from a disease-of-the-week movie.

Any movie lover will love all the movie references, as well as Greg and Earl’s many short films.   Gomez-Rejon shot these shorts with Super 8, Bolex, digital Bolex and iPhone.  Jesse Andrews adapted his own novel, and, as Gomez-Rejon expanded the number of “films within the film”, he called on Andrews to supply him with the new titles – and there are scores of them, right through the ending credits.

Finally, Me and Earl’s art direction is the most singular of any coming of age film.  In fact, all the art direction led to the movie’s very satisfying ending; Gomez-Rejon brought in those surprises on the wall at the end – it’s not in the novel.

But Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is at its heart a coming of age story.  Sure, the character of Greg is an original, but the life lessons that he must learn are universal.

Thomas Mann is hilarious as Greg; he could be a great comic talent in the making.  Cooke and newcomer Cyler are also excellent.  Nick Offerman and Connie Britton are perfect as Greg’s well-meaning parents, as is Molly Shannon as Rachel’s needy mom.  Jon Bernthal also rocks the role of Mr. McCarthy, another great character we haven’t seen before – a boisterously vital, but grounded history teacher; Mr. McCarthy lets Greg and Earl spend their lunch hours in his office watching Werner Herzog movies on YouTube.  (And Herzog himself reportedly loves the references.)

Alfonso Gomez-Rejon started as a personal assistant to Martin Scorsese and worked his way up to second unit director. With the startling originality of Me and Earl, he’s proved his chops as an auteur.

I saw Me and Earl and the Dying Girl in early May at the San Francisco International Film Festival at a screening with Gomez-Rejon.  It also just screened at San Jose’s Camera Cinema Club, another fine choice by Club Director Tim Sika,  President of the San Francisco Film Critics Circle.

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is a guaranteed crowd-pleaser and a Must See.  It’s one of my Best Movies of 2015 – So Far.

 

MR. HOLMES: in old age, Sherlock reopens his final case

Ian McKellen as MR. HOLMES
Ian McKellen as MR. HOLMES

It’s 1947 and 93-year-old Sherlock Holmes has been self-exiled to the Dover coast in retirement for almost thirty years.  He’s still keenly observant, but his memory is deteriorating with age, and he knows it.  That’s a problem as he feels an urgent need  to summon up the facts of his final case, left unresolved in 1919.  In Mr. Holmes, Ian McKellen plays Sherlock in his 1947 frailty and desperation and in the flashbacks to 1919, when he’s at the top of his game.

As Mr. Holmes, opens, Sherlock has just returned home from a trip to Japan.  So desperate to refresh his memory, he has sought a Japanese homeopathic cure (“prickly ash”), in the process meeting a Japanese family with an unsolved disappearance of their own.  Back home, he lives with his housekeeper (Laura Linney) and her gifted son, Roger (Milo Parker).  Holmes recognizes the boy’s exceptionalism and quasi-adopts as a grandchild.  The boy has lost his father in World War II, and his relationship with the old man is another central thread in the movie.

Ian McKellen is delightful and endearing as the crusty Holmes.  McKellen is an actor of enough stature to pull off this iconic role, and he is able both to project the Holmes genius and to deliver the humor in this very witty screenplay.

Holmes resents how his former roommate Dr. Watson has depicted him in fiction – and doesn’t like fiction at all (until the very last scene).   At least, when they lived together, Watson avoided an onslaught of tourists by publishing the wrong address for their rooms (they actually lived across the street from 221B Baker Street).  And Holmes goes to a theater to see a very bad 1940s Sherlock Holmes movie.

I saw Mr. Homes at the San Francisco Film Festival at a screening in which producer Anne Carey and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher spoke.  When Carey read the source material – the novel “Slight Trick of the Mind” by Mitch Cullin – she recognized the appeal of the central role, the settings and the theme of “don’t wait too long for things important to your heart”.  It took her eight years to get director Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters, Dreamgirls) on board, who brought in McKellen.

Hatcher was attracted by Holmes’ relationship to the boy Roger and by theme of how we rewrite our own stories.  He pointed out that the 1919 story in Mr. Holmes has four versions:  what really happened, how Watsone added a happy ending in his book, the  Hollywood melodrama of the film-within-the-film and, finally, as Holmes himself connects it to the Japanese story thread at the end.

Carey and Hatcher revealed that Condon playfully referenced Hitchcock  in Mr. Holmes: Ambrose Chapel from The Man Who Knew Too Much, carrying of tea a la Notorious and a “Vertigo” sequence  under the arches.

It’s a good story with a superb performance by McKellen.  Mr. Homes is scheduled for a theatrical release on July 17.

THE LOOK OF SILENCE: chilling and powerful

THE LOOK OF SILENCE
THE LOOK OF SILENCE

In the powerful and chilling The Look of Silence, documentarian Joshua Oppenheimer explores the aftermath of genocide in a society that has never experienced a truth and reconciliation process. This is Oppenheimer’s second masterpiece on the Indonesian genocide of 1965-66 in which regime-sponsored death squads executed over one million suspected political opponents.  Today, the victims’ families live among the murderers.

The Look of Silence centers on 44-year-old optometrist Adi as he investigates the murder of Ramli, the older brother he never knew.  Earlier, Oppenheimer had filmed Ramli’s killers as they describe and act out Ramli’s savage torture, mutilation and murder.   They are unrepentant and even nostalgic about their crimes.  Their matter-of-fact recollections are sickening.  We see Adi watching this video, trying to contain his rage and disgust.  Later, Adi – in the guise of fitting them for new glasses – is able to confront those responsible.   He faces the actual machete-wielding killers, the leader of the village death squad, the higher-up who ordered the killings and even one of his own relatives.

What makes this bearable to watch (and even more affecting) is meeting Adi’s family: his earthy 80-something mother, his frail and batty 103-year-old father, his giggly 7-year old daughter and his 10-year-old son.   There’s plenty of humor in this warm family.  But in one scene, the son receives a ridiculously twisted propaganda version of the genocide in public school.

The “Silence” in The Look of Silence is reinforced by the spare soundtrack.  We often hear only “crickets” (frogs, actually).

The Look of Silence is the companion to Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing, which made my list of Best Movies of 2013.  In The Act of Killing, Oppenheimer got the unapologetic killers to re-enact their atrocities for the camera – even relishing their deeds.  The Act of Killing contains some of the most bizarre moments in any documentary EVER, including a cross-dressing mass murderer and a staged Bollywood-like musical number of Born Free, complete with dancing-girls in front of a waterfall, in which the garotted dead reappear to thank the killers for sending them on to the afterlife. The Act of Killing is more of a jaw-dropper.  The Look of Silence – because it is more personal – is more powerful.

The Look of Silence stands alone – you can fully appreciate it without having seen The Act of Killing.  But what I wrote about The Act of Killing is true for both films:  “hypnotically compelling – you can’t believe what’s on the screen, can’t believe that you’re still watching it and can’t stop watching”.

I saw The Look of Silence at the San Francisco International Film Festival before its limited theatrical release slated for July 17.  It’s one of the best films of 2015.

DEAR WHITE PEOPLE: a brilliant comedy about identity

dear white people2
On its surface, the brilliant comedy Dear White People seems to be about racial identity, but – as  writer-director Justin Simien points out – it’s really about personal identity (of which race is an important part).  Set at a prestigious private college, Dear White People centers on a group of African-American students navigating the predominantly white college environment.

Each of the four primary characters has adopted a persona – choosing how they want others to view them.  Middle class Sam is a fierce Black separatist (despite her White Dad and her eyes for that really nice White boy classmate).  Coco, having made it to an elite college from the streets, is driven to succeed socially by ingratiating herself with the popular kids.   Kyle, the Dean’s son, is the college BMOC, a traditional paragon, but with passions elsewhere.   Lionel is floundering; despite being an African-American gay journalist,  he doesn’t fit in with the Black kids, the LGBT community or the journalism clique.  All four of their self-identities are challenged by campus events.

This very witty movie is flat-out hilarious.  The title comes from Sam’s campus radio show, which features advice like “Dear White People, stop dancing!” and Dear White People, don’t touch our hair; what are we – a petting zoo?”.   While the movie explores serious themes, it does so through raucous character-driven humor.  It’s a real treat.

It’s the first feature for writer-director Justin Simien and it’s a stellar debut.  Dear White People is on my list of Best Movies of 2014 – So Far.  I saw it at this year’s San Francisco International Film Festival and have been telling people about it for months.

DVD/Stream of the Week: Outrage Beyond

Takeshi Kitano dares a Yakuza to shoot him in OUTRAGE BEYOND

Takeshi Kitano returns to star in the Japanese gangster movie Outrage Beyond. It’s a sequel to writer-director Kitano’s 2011 Outrage, of which I wrote:

If you’re looking for a hardass gangster movie with deliciously bad people doing acts of extreme violence upon each other, Outrage is the film for you. But what makes Outrage stand out is the pace and stylishness of all the nastiness, as if Quentin Tarantino had made Goodfellas (only without all the extra dialogue about foot rubs and the Royale with cheese)…Kitano, much like Charles Bronson, has the worn and rough face of a man who has seen too much disappointment and brutality.

Outrage was more of a tragic noir, because you know that most of the characters probably won’t survive – and they know it, too. There is less foreboding in Outrage Beyond, which is just glorious exploitation – gangster mayhem splattering the streets. Because this is a Yakuza film, Kitano delivers the minimum one full body tattoo and one severed finger. But he also makes ingeniously lethal use of a pitching machine in a batting cage, and “Let’s play baseball” is the cruelest line in the film.

I saw Outrage Beyond at the San Francisco International Film Festival. It’s now available on DVD from Netflix and streaming from Amazon, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play and XBOX Video.