The Only Living Boy in New York: A Sophisticated and Complex Film

Movie Review: The Only Living Boy in New York (2017)
Version: Amazon Prime

A fine cast, a sophisticated and complex plot, and a superb plot twist at the end make The Only Living Boy in New York a great evening view any time. Its artistic, indie-film feel added weight to its story-telling depth. It has elements of mystery, although it definitely isn't a mystery. It has elements of suspense, although it definitely isn't a suspense or thriller story. Instead, The Only Living Boy in New York fits somewhere in between in its own genre and is entertaining in its own right.

Thomas Webb (Callum Turner) is an unrequited author who can't find his bearings as a writer in New York City and instead makes a living tutoring Spanish students. His father Ethan (Pierce Brosnan) runs a publishing house and can't seem to run through enough road blocks to guide his son in the right direction, although there is a definite conflict of personality between them. In between is wife and mother Judith (Cynthia Nixon), who suffers from acute bipolar depression and can't be upset at the least interruption in life without going off the deep end. And then there is Ethan's colleague and side love interest Johanna (Kate Beckinsale), who is a rock of stability for Ethan and a focus of obsession for Thomas. In steps newcomer W.F. (Jeff Bridges), a prolific but unsteady author who adopts Thomas as a friend and life mentor and, frankly, observer. It seems no one in this story is who he or she seems as the story unfolds, and by the story's end I promise you all your assumptions will lie as shards of broken glass on the floor. But that's OK because the journey and picking up the pieces at the end will have been worth it.

I have found over the past decade that Pierce Brosnan's characters were over reaches -- not so in this film. He's well suited to portray Ethan Webb, conflicted father. Too, I've tired of Jeff Bridges' characters who are pretty much the same stereotypes of the western sheriff or down-and-out but wise western hand turned hero -- always the same guy, different outfit. Not so in this film. He's well suited to portray W.F. Gerald, author in search of the unique story and finding a surprise. Now, he's always playing the laid-back, drinking, stogie-smoking old guy you want to pull up a chair to share a beer with, and that's him here, too. But now he tosses the ten-gallon hat, western attire, and beard and even gets a hair cut. Actually, I enjoyed both actors' performances in The Only Living Boy in New York.

This film has the smart sophistication of a Woody Allen art film but without the comedic touches. It also has the suspense of a good spy film or thriller but without the flashy chase scenes and gadgets. It's a film for the mind and the soul. And for all that, it's a good film that teases the intellect. Our whole family enjoyed it. I think your family might enjoy it, too, as a breath of fresh cinematic air.

Hell or High Water: It Could Have Been a Great Film

Movie Review: Hell or High Water (2016)
Version: Library Borrow

I'm of two minds on the 2016 film Hell or High Water. First, this isn't just your usual Texas shoot-em-up bank robbery movie. Second, it seemed to be a passing of the baton from one Hollywood generation to the next. I'll explore both themes before rendering a verdict on whether I liked the movie.

Most bank robbery movies pit bad guys against good guys, the good guys winning, and the good guys are usually the cops and the banks they protect. In Hell or High Water, you have a hard time figuring out which are who. Well, clearly the banks are the bad guys, but in terms of the characters, there are no clear bad guys and there are no clear losers besides the banks. No one gets shot until near the end of the film, and even then it isn't done with malice until the very end. Even with characters depicted as good guys, there is no clarity. People who rob banks aren't usually shown as good guys, but as the story progresses you come to understand the robbers have noble reasons for doing it. And the Texas Ranger pursuing them - well, he's just a stereotyped Texas lawman out to get his man, which is sad because you really don't get to know the man outside of the stereotype.

The gist of the story is two brothers seeking revenge on a small banking group set to foreclose on their late mother's ranch after they set her up on two predatory loans. The brothers get back at the bank by robbing different locations, laundering the money through a casino, and then paying back the loans and setting up a trust in the name of the sons of one of the brothers, the trust handled by the bank to keep it in the bank's interest to protect the trust. A Texas Ranger and his partner take a keen interest in the case when federal law enforcement won't touch it and pursue the brothers with deep devotion. You feel for the brothers, who never really pocket any of the money for their own benefit.

So, as I say, other than the stereotyped Texas Rangers characters, this isn't your usual Texas shoot-em-up bank robbery movie. It's kind of fun seeing a predatory bank take the hit.

Playing the major characters are Chris Pine as Toby Howard and Ben Foster as his brother Tanner, along with Jeff Bridges as Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton. Chris Pine continues to show great range in the characters he plays, from Captain Kirk of the star ship Enterprise in Star Trek to this role as a down-but-not-out-by-any-means son of a mother-taken-advantage-of by a bank and father of a son to whom he wants to pass on some kind of legacy. He plays all characters deftly and with heart. At the other end of the range is Jeff Bridges, who to me always comes off as the same character, with the same drawl, the same look, the same woodenness. To see him in one role is to see him in any other. It seems to me he had more range in years past. Perhaps that's just what happens to actors as they age, although that's not the case with J.K. Simmons, who seems to just get better with each role.

Watching Pine and Bridges together in this film seemed like a passing of a baton from one generation to the next. It was almost painful to compare their performances - one original, vibrant, compelling, the other tired and spent.

And so I get to the crux of my verdict. This could have been a great film. It was up for four Oscar nominations, including Best Performance for an Actor in a Supporting Role (Jeff Bridges), but it won none. It had an excellent plot, going after predatory banks. The fact that it turned the bank robbery theme on its head was brilliant. The Howard brothers were eminently relatable and likable. There were enough action and plot twists and the grand vista of Western Texas to please anyone. But there was the impediment of that stereotyped Texas Ranger who stood up larger than life and shot it all to hell.

I won't say, don't see Hell or High Water. That's not the point. It's a good western. Just be prepared to be disappointed. Maybe I'll have just helped you figure out why you were disappointed after you've seen it. Maybe see it for Pine's and Foster's performances. They'll give you a good ride into the sunset.