Wind River (2017, Taylor Sheridan)

Wind River is almost manipulative enough to be effective. If writer and director Sheridan just could’ve made it through his muted epilogue to the end credits instead of pointing out just where he was manipulative and how what a cheap job he did of it….

But he can’t. Not unless you count Graham Greene basically staying about Sheridan’s terrible dialogue—leads (quotation marks around the s) Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen cannot. Olsen’s bad but it’s just a flat performance in a cop movie. She’s the rookie FBI agent on her own on the Native reservation with no backup. She turns to local professional hunter Renner, who’s got a single expression, a decent ability to tear up, and a truly bad showcase performance. It ought to be Renner’s movie, what with his beyond tragic backstory and Sheridan filling out the runtime with long Renner solo sequences. Usually pointlessly for the narrative, but Sheridan ingloriously dumps Renner’s “subplots” with ex-wife Julia Jones and son Teo Briones.

Briones is particularly pointless. I mean, Jones is pointless, but Briones is get-in-the-way multiple times pointless. Some of Sheridan’s worst writing is the stuff he does with Briones and Renner, though the stuff with Renner and Olsen when they bond is pretty bad, though probably not as bad as the stuff with Renner and Jones.

A lot of Wind River is just Renner giving a bewildering performance. He’s supposed to be a Carhartt-wearing, soulful white cowboy who self-identifies as a member of the Native community because Jones is Native and they made babies. People call him on it throughout and the movie just blows it off. It’s a weird move and contributes to Wind River feeling like it’s missing at least ten minutes, but they’re probably really, really, really bad. Renner’s so bad I had to remind myself multiple times he’s been excellent in the past and should at least he able to handle this picture.

But not with Sheridan directing him. Sheridan directs Renner like he’s Paul Newman; Jeremy Renner is very much not Paul Newman.

Though maybe I’m giving Sheridan too much credit. Because Wind River’s got some terrible direction. Explain to Sheridan and cinematographer Ben Richardson why they might want a tripod terrible. The whole thing is an example of why shaky cam is a bad idea, but twenty years after people started figuring out how to make exceptions to that rule. Sheridan’s also got a bad editor—Gary Roach—making bad cuts. There’s even an old fashioned reverse horizontal jump cut during one of the stylish, Marlboro man but with soul montages.

There aren’t a lot of stylish montages throughout but it opens with a bunch of them. Wind River kind of misses them, because Sheridan treats Olsen like a special guest star, which makes the second act a slog. At least terrible macho but not bad macho montages would distract.

The ending is almost saved thanks to Gil Birmingham, who turns in a nuanced performance, against all odds. But then Sheridan screws it up.

Surprisingly middling score from Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, though it’s not like better music would’ve helped. Less obvious and traditional music would’ve helped. But Sheridan likes obvious, likes traditional.

It’d be really nice if he knew how to direct conversation scenes. Even ones with Renner.

Wind River’s got the occasional effective moment, but only because Sheridan’s manipulative and cheap.

I’m not sure I’m disappointed with the film, but I’m not thrilled I watched it; Birmingham or not.

Also didn’t need to hear Cave and Ellis hack it out for pool money.

Global Frequency (2005, Nelson McCormick)

Maybe “Global Frequency” would work if it weren't so obvious in its attempts to be endearing. John Rogers's script tries to establish character chemistry in the pilot without giving it a chance to actually grow on its own.

For example, good-looking alpha male lead Josh Hopkins teases good-looking demure scientist female lead Jenni Baird and she says she doesn't like it but you can tell she really does. Except Baird's terrible and she and Hopkins have no chemistry. Director McCormick actually has her whip off her glasses when she's perturbed. It's asinine.

Hopkins is actually good. He can get out the goofy dialogue and ground the show in reality.

Unable to ground the show are co-stars Aimee Garcia and Michelle Forbes. McCormick apes Matrix fight scenes for Forbes, who clearly isn't a martial artist and she's also real bored acting in the show. Garcia's endearingly annoying.

It's an inept execution.

1/3Not Recommended

CREDITS

Directed by Nelson McCormick; teleplay by John Rogers, based on the comic book by Warren Ellis; director of photography, Checco Varese; edited by Michael Schultz; production designers, Linda Del Rosario and Richard Paris; produced by Mark Burnett and Charlie Goldstein.

Starring Josh Hopkins (Sean Flynn), Jenni Baird (Dr. Katrina Finch), Aimee Garcia (Aleph), Brian Jensen (Richard Jenkins), Bill Dow (Oscar Cergeyev) and Michelle Forbes (Miranda Zero).


RELATED

Trees 3 (July 2014)

I have something called the “Oh, Hell, No” rule. When a writer uses those three words to show how much stronger his (or her) female character is compared to someone else or her situation… well, there’s a line is all. And Ellis steps over it with this issue of Trees. His super strong, gang leader’s girlfriend who’s really smart but also soulful is hideous and lazy.

She’s stalking an old professor–who loves books–because she needs mentor. In the post-apocalypse, books are very important. Trees is turning out to be nothing but Ellis regurgitating ideas he gets from elsewhere. Some of them seem familiar, like he’s regurgitating himself; it’s a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. With pretty art.

Except this issue, Howard’s art is lazy, lifeless and hurried. Without him, Trees loTrees #3ses its single saving grace; outside muted, hostile condescension, Ellis isn’t bringing anything to it.

C- 

CREDITS

Writer, Warren Ellis; artist, Jason Howard; letterer, Fonografiks; publisher, Image Comics.

Trees 2 (June 2014)

Trees #2Oh, good, even when Ellis is doing better, he still feels the need to write dialogue about good coffee. I guess he’s assuming his audience has no longer seen Pulp Fiction or “Twin Peaks” or lived through the nineties and the litany of good coffee references in popular media.

Needless to say, the biggest surprise in this issue of Trees is when Ellis is original. Oh, the remix of other stuff is moderately successful–I’m really hoping it all ends up being dead people living on Earth and living people in the trees, like a “Lost” thing–but it’s not original. And the stuff with the South American small-time gang is just terrible.

But the Somalian president being an economist trying to survive in a world with the natural resources getting messed up? That bit is cool.

The Jason Howard art continues to impress and the Ellis writing doesn’t offend too much.

B- 

CREDITS

Writer, Warren Ellis; artist, Jason Howard; letterer, Fonografiks; publisher, Image Comics.

Trees 1 (May 2014)

Trees #1The Jason Howard art on Trees is probably going to be the best thing about it. While Warren Ellis definitely has an interesting idea–giant space aliens who don’t notice the human population and are apparently just gigantic columns (the titular Trees)–he does a roving eye thing with a lot of characters. Presumably they’ll be the cast.

Except the ones in the pointless opening action scene. It gives Howard a chance to show off his range, like later when he’s got some Chinese village guy walking around some hippie walled off city. The comic’s set ten years after the invasion so it’s in the future and there’s some advanced robotics in the future.

Robot dogs are goofy. Also goofy is the New York cops viciously killing the citizenry. They’re both tired tropes, just like Ellis following a mayoral candidate.

But Howard brings a (much needed) distinct freshness to the comic.

B- 

CREDITS

Writer, Warren Ellis; artist, Jason Howard; letterer, Fonografiks; publisher, Image Comics.

Moon Knight 1 (May 2014)

297651 20140305124015 largeThe Declan Shalvey art is nice and Warren Ellis gets a kick out of some of the comic, but it’s still just another Moon Knight comic. I’m not sure if there’s anyway to make an exciting Moon Knight comic. It sure doesn’t seem like it.

Ellis has got Moon Knight in a white suit and mask, traveling New York in a driverless limo–so he’s also cool enough to get exclusive Google betas. Ellis doesn’t seem interested in those parts. He doesn’t do them well.

He writes the crime scene investigation stuff well, even if he’s just aping “Law and Order: Criminal Intent.” He’s not visibly interested in those scenes though.

But when he has Moon Knight facing off against Mean Machine’s unhealthy ancestor? Then Ellis is engaged. Shame he follows that part of the comic up with lame Moon Knight retcon (or revelations).

Shalvey alone can’t carry the comic.

C+ 

CREDITS

Slasher; writer, Warren Ellis; artist, Declan Shalvey; colorist, Jordie Bellaire; letterer, Chris Eliopoulos; editors, Ellie Pyle and Stephen Wacker; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Osborn (2011) #1

Osborn 1

The first thing I noticed about Osborn is the Emma Rios artwork. She reminds of Paul Pope in a lot of ways. She’s very good, able to mix the implied evil and then the lighter comic moments with the Daily Bugle cast.

The second thing I noticed was the implication Peter Parker was rushing off a reporter to engage in some sort of sexual congress, possibility receiving the very clearly implied fellatio from his female colleague. I’m not up on my Spider-Man, so I don’t know if he’s dating her but it doesn’t seem like it. Does Disney know about this series?

Kelly Sue DeConnick is a smart writer, mixing the sensationalism (Norman Osborn’s a celebrity in the Marvel Universe, after all) with the more mundane newspaper reporting and prison procedures.

The Warren Ellis backup is cute (the Jamie McKelvie art helps on that front) but sort of unnecessary.

Red (2003) #3

R3

Seriously, someone read Red and wanted to option it for a movie? I just finished reading it and I want to burn the memory from my mind. Ellis gives the comic some big Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ending like anyone cares. I’d forgotten how much I loathe this hipster comic books.

This issue has a lot more dialogue. It still generally takes place in about five minutes, but it’s a dialogue heavy five minutes. The protagonist gets to ramble on about real men and so on and so forth. The second issue reminded me a little of Rambo; this third one made me wish Ellis could write dialogue as well as a Rambo movie. He’s so self-indulgent and bad it boggles the mind.

It’s one of those comics one could easily laugh about but I cannot. I read the entire thing and so the joke is on me.

Red (2003) #2

R2

Did Ellis really spend an entire issue on quickly killing four assassins and a couple conversations? Now I remember why I avoid most of Ellis’s work–his pacing is absolutely atrocious.

He has an idea here with Red–what if the CIA reactivated their best assassin and he came after them. But Ellis doesn’t have any more story following that idea. The first issue had a vague Bush looks like a chimp joke, but nothing else as far as a point.

Hammer’s art is getting really boring. The idea of cartoonish spies being really violent–it’s like Queen and Country in color and not good. The lengthy talking heads scene is just painful.

I’m trying to think if there’s anything I liked about the issue–I didn’t even like the end because it’s got a stupid cliffhanger. Red might be the perfect example of why three issue limited series are a really bad idea.

Red (2003) #1

R1

I’m curious what Warren Ellis’s script for this issue looks like… it must be really short. Maybe he draws on the pages, thumbnails, sketches, something. Because he can’t be writing much on them. This issue has almost no dialogue after the first five or six pages.

So it’s all up to Cully Hammer and he does a decent job of it. He’s got to infuse the story with humor but also with horrific violence. He gets the humor part down, the horrific violence not so much. In fact, the action sequence closing the issue is a bit of a bore. The one or two panel emphases on protagonist killing someone–three in this issue’s present action–are supposed to mean something. There are similar flashback panels to show how the protagonist is devastated after being a CIA assassin. It doesn’t work.

But it’s nearly okay. Maybe if the exposition weren’t so forced.