The New York Times

Time (2020): Devastating 60 Year Sentence, Decent 1.5 Hour Movie

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Time” is directed by Garrett Bradley, stars Sibil Fox Richardson alongside Robert G. Richardson, and follows a couple’s slice of life, most specifically from Sibil’s point of view. This documentary follows Sibil as she raises her kids and fights for her husband’s release from Louisiana State Penitentiary for armed bank robbery. Sibil did her time for three and a half years, but her husband, Robert, is forced to serve 60.

For all the historians who read this in the future, I saw this movie in 2020, the year where literally nothing happened. With that said, I witnessed this film through an early online screening provided by Amazon. By the way, thanks guys! Going into the documentary, I had no knowledge as to what it would be about. It could cover anything really. Maybe I read one or two snippets about the film before going in, but still. So for all I know, I could have known the story, but I will point out that I avoided all trailers. Safe to say, regardless of the subject matter, I was ready for the movie. It’s nice to go in as blind as possible.

For those of you who know about my thoughts on 1996’s “Mission: Impossible,” you may know I enjoyed the movie, but I had a greater appreciation for it once I saw some information on what went down behind the scenes. “Time” is sort of in the same boat. I genuinely enjoyed what I saw. But as I did this review, I brushed up on the film’s Wikipedia page, and I came across this.

“She (Garrett Bradley) originally set out to make a short documentary about Rich, but after shooting wrapped, Rich gave Bradley a bag of mini-DV tapes containing some 100 hours of home videos that she had recorded over the past 18 years. At that point, Bradley transitioned the short into a feature.” –Wikipedia

This movie became a feature by a miracle, and it shows. The runtime of the film clocks in at an hour and twenty-one minutes. That’s shorter than most theatrical features today. You can argue that this is barely a feature, but I’d say that the sudden transition made the movie feel like it is one of a kind. Part of me would have liked to see how the short turned out, and not because I think the short would have been better. In fact, I think if this were a short, it wouldn’t have as lasting of an impact. It quite frankly would have been informative, but after seeing the beginning footage presented in a full screen aspect ratio, I could not imagine this movie in any other way.

Regardless of what footage they used, this documentary does what many movies, including those specifically in the documentary genre should do. It encapsulates the meaning of life, and a specific moment in time that may be important to someone. I got the sense that everything that went down on screen was of supreme importance to Sibil. We got a sense of who she was, the people she knew, her personality, and it’s like the movie opened up its arms to allow her into our lives.

Garrett Bradley has done other work in the documentary genre, some of which includes shorts. I have no idea when I will watch any of her other content, even though 2020 has proven that we have plenty of time in this world. However, there are various aspects of “Time” in particular that really show how committed Bradley is to carrying out a singular vision. The movie is done in black and white, it is cleanly edited, the music matches all the edits as well. Honestly, in terms of the final edit, this is probably my favorite documentary of the year. I don’t think any of the documentaries I have seen this year are perfect, but in terms of how “Time” edits and lays out its story from beginning to end, it is easily the most satisfying to watch. It has a major reliance on showing, not telling, one of the most proper principles of visual arts, and it does such a thing very well.

Does this mean I will watch the movie a second time? Probably not. Although it is free with my Prime Video subscription so such thoughts could change. Compared to other movies that came out this year, “Time…” may not stand the test of time. Although I don’t regret seeing it at the same time, because it was an informative, compelling, and engaging story. I cannot believe I’m saying this in 2020, there are other movies that I’d rather watch before this one. I think when it comes to documentaries, it may deserve another shot, because that genre has not really provided anything perfect this year. No, I have not seen Netflix’s “The Social Experiment,” and I don’t plan on watching it.

If I had any real cons against this movie, I’d say that there are some times that maybe I was a little disengaged with specific content. For all I know, maybe it is because I was watching the movie at home on my laptop, where it is a little harder for me to pay attention to what’s going on with all sorts of distractions nearby. There are also a couple scenes that I think go on a little too long. There’s one snippet of archive footage, or b-roll, that could have ended and the impact would have either been slightly better or not made too much of a difference. I won’t go into it, because I went into this movie blind, and I am willing to bet that if I let you do the same, maybe you’ll have an enchanting experience. I don’t know, this is an experiment! I have a degree in Master Film Reviewing! I made that up, and I don’t care! I stand by it!

I will say though, going back to positives, one of my favorite parts about this movie is the way it ends. Not only is the subject matter of the end fulfilling, but it goes to show how well edited and put together this movie is. If the emotions of the ending could not be achieved through visuals, I will guarantee that the audio and music do such an excellent job that MAYBE, you don’t even need to rely on visuals to strike such feelings. Granted, this is a movie, and visuals are perhaps necessary at all times, but it goes to show how much can be achieved through audio. It’s perhaps the most satisfying part of the movie, and made the whole experience worth my time. That’s what every good ending is supposed to do. Well done!

In the end, “Time” is not maybe as timeless as I would expect, but it does not mean the movie blows. In fact, when it comes to documentaries, it is probably my favorite of the year. It encapsulates its story effectively, it pulls you in, and does not let you go. I admired Sibil, her journey, and everything she does throughout this film. She is without any doubt, the heart of the story, and I am glad that her story has been told. I am going to give “Time” a 7/10. Thanks for reading this review! This weekend is the release of “The War with Grandpa,” I might end up seeing that by Monday, and I’ll have my thoughts on that soon. I’m looking forward to it, the film looks like it has some laughs. I might go see another movie this weekend, I’m not sure what it will be, but it will likely be something. After all, Massachusetts is now allowing theaters to serve food again, so I’m pretty excited just to get popcorn. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Also, check out the official Scene Before Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Time?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite documentary of 2020 so far? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

The Mule (2018): Clint Eastwood’s Second Disappointment of 2018

Posted on by Jack Drees

MV5BMTc1OTc5NzA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTAzMzE2NjM@._V1_SY1000_CR006741000_AL_

“The Mule” is directed by Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Sully) and stars himself alongside Bradley Cooper (Guardians of the Galaxy, A Star Is Born), Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice), Michael Peña (American Hustle, Crash), Dianne Wiest (Life in Pieces, Law & Order), and Andy Garcia (Geostorm, Ocean’s Eleven). This movie is based on a true story and an article from The New York Time called “The Sinaloa Cartel’s 90-Year-Old Drug Mule.” It’s a about a guy by the name of Earl Stone, who is a war veteran, and he claims that he made the mistake of putting work before family. He missed a couple of important events, he cared for his plants more than his children, and he seems to be always doing something that will keep him from his family. Throughout the film, we see Stone trying to get cash for transporting loads on his truck under the responsibility of a Mexican drug cartel.

I haven’t seen much of Clint Eastwood’s work. As a film buff, or at least that’s what I like to call myself, part of me is slightly surprised that I have not looked into more of his stuff. I have seen “Sully,” “The 15:17 to Paris,” and “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Now that “The Mule” is in cinemas everywhere, it allows me to dive deeper into seeing how talented Clint Eastwood really is, not only as an actor, but as a director. What I’ve seen from him acting-wise is pretty serviceable, including what I’ve seen from him in this movie. However, thus far, I have seen him direct competently, but there are other directors I prefer compared to him. I much prefer the work of filmmakers like Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, Memento), Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel, Isle of Dogs), and Damien Chazelle (Whiplash, La La Land). While this is at times, a nice looking, and rather well done film from a technical and acting perspective, the fact is that I was honestly disappointed.

When I saw “The 15:17 To Paris” this year, I felt the same way as I do now. Clint Eastwood is a household name in Hollywood. But throughout a portion of the year, a part of me thought that was just Eastwood’s appetizer to get to the real film he wants to tackle in 2018. After all, the movie was released in February, which is one of the dumpster fire months for movies, so there’s a good chance that either the studio or Eastwood himself may have been dissatisfied over the outcome of what eventually became “The 15:17 To Paris.” The good news was that this was not the only film to be released in 2018 that is directed by Clint Eastwood. Maybe “The Mule” would be better than “The 15:17 To Paris.” Well, it was, but that’s not saying much because, again, I was disappointed.

Let’s talk about Clint Eastwood in this film, he does a good job performance-wise, but when it comes to his character, I have mixed thoughts about him. I can understand the way he felt at certain times. The way the character manages to develop is also charming. But there are certain qualities attached to him that are kind of off-putting. He would occasionally tell people they are stupid for using cell phones and the Internet, and there’s actually a scene that makes him come off as a less likable version of Hugh Hefner. I say that because Clint Eastwood is in his eighties, he’s playing a character around his age range. There’s a scene where we see him with some chicks in a bedroom, they’re all seducing him and removing his clothes, it’s not traditionally something that I would pay to see. Granted, “The Mule” is not a family movie, and I never asked for it to be. But I can’t recall the last time I said, I’m gonna go see Clint Eastwood f*ck someone twice as young as him. I also will say, age is just a number, and I’m not against someone dating a person much younger or older than them as long as it makes both partners of the relationship happy, but seeing an eighty-something year old Clint Eastwood engaging in sexual behavior with women that are much younger then him is not even close to my cup of tea. I don’t hate sex in movies, and this is based on a true story, so it could be worse, but it is cringeworthy as an idea.

I will say, despite my gripes with Eastwood’s character, I wouldn’t consider him the worst character in the movie, because a good portion of the film involves us as an audience getting a glance at the DEA investigators played by Bradley Cooper, Michael Peña, and Laurence Fishburne. I really didn’t care for any of these people. After all, the only time I legit gave a flying f*ck about them was towards the end of the movie. Oh yeah, I even completely forgot Laurence Fishburne’s character was even in the movie! Why are we here?!

This movie seems to pack in the moral that family is more important than work. It seems to suggest that being a part of a group of people you are attached to by relation is more important than being famous or busy. I will say, as a freshman in college, I did not choose to be busy for five days a week, other classmates who got to submit class choices before me did. But that’s not the point, my biggest wonder about the film is if Clint Eastwood has ever applied this moral that he seems to be hammering in towards his daily life. Granted, Eastwood did not write “The Mule” or the source material which it is based on, so therefore it cannot completely be his vision, but I wonder if someone as famous as Eastwood has been through his life making a similar mistake to this movie’s main character. Part of me wonders if Eastwood even relates to him. The regret of not seeing your family as much as one would desire can make for a compelling character, but the thing about Clint Eastwood is that he is such a famous actor and director. Not to mention he’s cheated many times. Granted, things are not as always as they seem, people change, and Eastwood is portraying a “character,” not himself. Nevertheless, despite a fine performance, part of me doesn’t completely buy Eastwood as his character.

I will say though, while I may be bashing this movie a little bit, one of the biggest positives I will point out is that there is one scene, I won’t specify, that has to do with death. It shows how people come together in a time of need, the fear of not knowing what’s going to happen when you’re going to die, not to mention the fear of dying itself. That is the best part of the movie and is probably the part I’ll admire the most as I reflect on “The Mule.”

In the end, “The Mule” is yet another dissatisfying attempt at a film from Clint Eastwood this year. I was talking with some family members as the year was coming to a close, and there are a few people I know who were anticipating and excited for “The Mule” to come out. I don’t know how many of them saw the movie by now, but in all seriousness, I don’t think got much good out of seeing “The Mule.” It’s not the worst movie of the year, not even close to be completely honest, but for a movie with Eastwood’s name on it, it seems that there could have been a lot more delivered to provide satisfaction than what was given to me as an audience member. I will say though, the acting is five times better than “The 15:17 To Paris” so that’s a plus! I’m gonna give “The 15:17 To Paris” a 6/10. Thanks for reading this review, pretty soon I’m gonna have my review up for “Instant Family,” a comedy starring Mark Wahlberg and from the same director who did “Daddy’s Home,” also starring Mark Wahlberg. Also, after I finish that review, be sure to stay tuned for my top 10 BEST movies of 2018 and my top 10 WORST movies of 2018! I will also say that the Golden Globes are on this Sunday, so if you want to see me talk about them, I might do a recap, but if I don’t, there’s a high chance I’ll be livetweeting throughout the show. To see my potential livetweets to the Golden Globes this Sunday, follow me on Twitter at @JackDrees, and feel free to hit the notification bell if you want Golden Globes tweets shoved right in your face. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “The Mule?” What did you think about it? Or, since Clint Eastwood has worked on both “The 15:17 To Paris” and “The Mule,” which of these two movies do you prefer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!