(4.5 stars) Jeff Nichols has written and directed an impressive set of movies in his relatively few years as a filmmaker. Nichols' whole body of work is elevated by elements such as the inclusion of quintessential characters, attention to authentic atmosphere, simple narration paired with powerful performances, and the structure of fables. All of these elements and more are present in his newest movie, LOVING. The movie is inspired by the true story of Richard and Mildred Loving, who endured many persecutions at the hands of their lawmakers and their community for being married despite having different skin color. The Lovings' case eventually lead to a Supreme Court ruling which had significant, positive impacts for interracial couples in the United States (the specifics of which may be better explained in the movie or, better yet, in your own research and reading on the case). True to form, Nichols delightfully told the Lovings' story with respect - perhaps even timidness. A hesitant approach was no doubt warranted, considering that the Lovings seemed to be very private people (so much so that they did not attend the Supreme Court hearing of their case). Fortunately, Nichols is right at home directing extremely personal stories. For evidence, just look at his previous work. Particularly, in the case of LOVING, Nichols resisted the temptation to write a courtroom drama or to try and gratuitously dramatize the story through focus on brutality. Instead, Nichols - with his cast and crew - primarily tell the Lovings' story with quiet images of Richard and Mildred at home or at work. The tension in the movie runs thick without trying to capture a broad tonal "image" of how a community or nation was affected by the events in the narrative; rather, simply seeing how "mundane" acts of racism generated the very atmosphere and environment that the Lovings lived in was incredibly effective on its own. There are a lot of reasons I could give for you to watch this movie and I probably will not be able to exhaust all of them here. However, I would be remiss if I didn't try to name a few... Watch the movie because it is important. Anyone of any age can benefit by a reminder that great atrocities have been done in the past, which must not be repeated in the future. Anyone can also learn about the importance of consideration and sacrifice in the development of loving relationships. The overarching metaphor that Nichols uses in LOVING is that of Richard working on houses - literally and metaphorically building a home. ... Watch the movie because it features the best performances of the year so far. No, seriously. It does. Ruth Negga is especially worthy of awards consideration. Although Joel Edgerton's Richard gets a little more screen time, Negga's Mildred is easily the emotional center of the film. Mildred endures greater persecutions from legal authorities, shows the trust and courage to pursue a legal case against her oppressors, and bears the emotional burdens of literally everyone in her family. Negga's performance does not require flashy monologues - she uses facial expression and nonverbals to convey everything that the audience needs to feel with Mildred in both her fear and her strength. Meanwhile, Edgerton also delivers a fine performance as the quiet, but worry-laden Richard. Edgerton literally, physically sinks downward as the emotional weight of the movie increases. His interpretation of Richard is of a bent man who is bowed low as he looks for relief for his family. ... Also, and, finally, for this review, watch the movie because it is technically amazing. Every shot conveys atmosphere as well as delivers practical visual exposition. Many shots also contain great metaphoric value in the fuller context of the entire movie. Each cut done by the editor is made with precise consideration of the pacing of the dramatic beat it belongs to. Much more could be said. Although LOVING takes some patience at times and, perhaps, offers less philosophical consideration of its double-entendre title word as one might expect, the picture crackles with powerful performances and offers valuable lessons regarding the challenges of building a home. "Loving" doesn't solve all of the world's problems, but it might make our little piece of and place in this world worth fighting for.

SLOW AND STEADY WINS THE RACE WARS - My Review of LOVING (3 Stars) Writer/Director Jeff Nichols (MUD, TAKE SHELTER, MIDNIGHT SPECIAL) makes slow, methodical films at a time where most filmmakers opt for impatient, hyperkinetic, cut-to-the-endless-chase scenarios. It's definitely something to celebrate, as subtlety and simplicity risk boring audiences, and his films have by and large impressed me. With LOVING, it's the first time he's taken on a true story, and while he has purportedly stayed very true to the facts, spirit and characters, his doing so has made for a perfect, yet perfectly boring film. Now don't get me wrong, I love a film that takes its time and has a level of purity to it. I think of David Lynch's THE STRAIGHT STORY or Jim Jarmusch's STRANGER THAN PARADISE as examples where less was more. Nichols has great source material to play with as he tells the story of Richard and Mildred Loving (Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga), a mixed race couple living illegally married in 1950s Virginia. Since they can't marry in their home state, they drive to Washington D.C. for a quickie wedding and then return home to face arrest. Their years of struggling with racist police and time in courtrooms ultimately leads them to the 1967 landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia. Why this case isn't talked about in the same breath as Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges is astounding, and I'm extremely grateful that this film exists to shine a light on a case that resonates to this day. This story has been told before with the 2011 documentary THE LOVING STORY by Nancy Buirski, and by all accounts, Nichols and company have stayed true to his protagonists. Tone is everything here, and the Lovings were a couple of very few words. They eschewed the spotlight, allowing their palpable love for each other tell do the talking. Their story reminded me of SULLY, another tale of heroism in which the central figure opted for dignified stoicism. Both films seem to have a message for people today, a climate which encourages selfies, Tweets about today's lunch, and Facebook Live sessions about driving to Adele concerts. I applaud the attempts, yet in both cases, I didn't love, love, love the films. With SULLY, it felt that there just wasn't enough of a story to tell. LOVING doesn't have that problem with the many indignities the couple suffers. Furthermore, the performances are fantastic. Edgerton, yet another one of those Australian miracles who somehow nail rural Americanisms better than the natives. Same goes for Negga, who despite her Ethiopian descent, delivers a mesmerizing performance of a Southern woman whose inherent sweetness defines her character. So what's the problem? One could argue that this is a perfect movie, perfectly told, with a strong, relevant message. The Supreme Court arguments echo those for the gay marriage case, giving this story a sense of current relevance. Additionally, the racial tensions in the film have a direct correlation to recent police crimes and the tone of this Presidential election set by Donald Trump and his basket of deplorables. Yet, yet, yet, I feel Nichols got so caught up in the simplicity of it all that he forgot to bring energy and artistry to the table. HIs frequent collaborator, cinematographer Adam Stone shoots the film as if it were a Lifetime movie. I can't think of a single memorable shot in the whole movie. It's as plain and simple as our main characters. The story unfolds methodically with no intense modulation except for the scene in which they're initially arrested, but even that's fairly subdued. You want the couple to yell and scream, but it's just not in their nature to do so. The fact that Richard's a bricklayer provides the obvious metaphor of his brick-by-brick philosophy for living. If this had been made up, it would have seemed trite, but you can't argue with the truth. It happened as we see it. By staying so true to his subject, Nichols has made an extremely admirable yet perfectly boring film the paradoxically, everyone should see.